Page 48 - 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

Concepts and Models

characterized by internal pluralism in this sense will have a low level of
political parallelism. Internal pluralism is also sometimes used to refer to
mediaorganizations–usuallybroadcastingorganizations–thatformally
represent a variety of political forces within the structure and content of
a single organization (Hoffmann-Riem 1996). This could be understood
as an intermediate level of political parallelism, as it means that political
divisions are reflected in the structure of the organization, and often in
the content, in the sense that, for instance, one current-affairs program
may be run more by journalists from one political orientation, and one
by journalists from another orientation.

POLITICAL PARALLELISM IN BROADCAST GOVERNANCE
AND REGULATION
Because they are public bodies, public broadcasting systems and the reg-
ulatory agencies responsible for supervising commercial broadcasting
obviously have a significant relationship to the political system. These
relationships vary significantly in form, however, and could also be said
to reflect different degrees and forms of political parallelism. Four basic
models can be distinguished for the governance of public broadcasting
(c.f. Humphreys 1996: 155–8), and in most countries regulatory author-
ities tend to follow fairly similar patterns:
(1) The government model in which public broadcasting – which in this
case approaches state broadcasting – is controlled directly by the
government or by the political majority. The classic case of this form
is French broadcasting under DeGaulle, which fell under the control
of the Ministry of Information formally until 1964, and, in practice,
through government control of appointments to the board of the
formally independent Office de Radiodiffusion-T´ el´ evision Francaise
¸
(ORTF) from 1964 into the 1980s. Many European countries ap-
proached this model in an early phase of the history of broadcasting,
but most eventually developed alternative institutional forms that
would insulate public service broadcasting to a substantial degree
from control by the political majority. It does still exist in more or
less modified form, however, in the newest democracies of Western
Europe, Greece, Portugal, and Spain. In the latter case, directors of
public broadcasting are appointed by Parliament, not directly by the
government, but this in the end gives the majority party effective
control.

30