Page 47 - Comparing Media Systems THREE MODELS OF MEDIA AND POLITICS

P1: GCV/KAF/KAA P2: kaf
0521835356agg.xml Hallin 0 521 83535 6 January 20, 2004 15:9

Comparing Media Systems

of neutral information or entertainment, an orientation we would as-
sociate with a low level of political parallelism. These differences are
connected with differences in emphasis on commentary or analysis ver-
sus news gathering. It is hard to imagine their German, Italian, or French
contemporariesendorsingtheclaimofJosephandStuartAlsop(1958:5),
two of the most prominent American columnists of the 1950s (and thus
among the few journalists of their age granted the privilege of writing
commentary) that “His feet are a much more important part of a re-
porter’s body than his head.” To most continental European journalists
in this period analysis and commentary were absolutely central to the
function of the journalist. These kinds of differences in journalistic cul-
ture are associated with differences in writing style and other journalistic
practices, with colorful or erudite commentary favored in some systems
while a telegraphic informational style is favored in others; commentary
rigidly segregated from news in some countries, and mixed more freely
in others. These differences are also manifested in the organization of
journalistic labor, with journalists in some systems moving fairly freely
between the roles of reporter and commentator – if indeed the distinc-
tion has meaning to them at all – while in others those roles tend to
be segregated. We will argue that the strength of advocacy traditions in
journalism is connected with the history of institutional ties between the
media and the system of parties and organized social groups, and we
will treat these characteristics of journalistic culture also as indicators
of political parallelism. In systems where political parallelism is strong,
the culture and discursive style of journalism is closely related to that of
politics.
Closely related to the concept of political parallelism is the distinc-
tion between two manners in which media systems handle diversity of
political loyalties and orientations, which are referred to in the literature
as internal and external pluralism. External pluralism can be defined as
pluralism achieved at the level of the media system as a whole, through
the existence of a range of media outlets or organizations reflecting the
points of view of different groups or tendencies in society. Systems char-
acterized by external pluralism will obviously be considered to have a
high level of political parallelism. The contrary term, internal pluralism,
is defined as pluralism achieved within each individual media outlet
or organization. The term is actually used in two different ways in the
media studies literature. We will generally use it to refer to cases where
media organizations both avoid institutional ties to political groups and
attempt to maintain neutrality and “balance” in their content. A system

29