Page 70 - Comparing Media Systems THREE MODELS OF MEDIA AND POLITICS

P1: GLB/kaf/KAA P2: kaf
0521835356c03.xml Hallin 0 521 83535 6 January 20, 2004 15:21

Concepts and Models

power sharing in broadcast governance can be found in systems that
tend toward the consensus model, either in the form of the parliamen-
tary model (Italy, Belgium) or the civic/corporatist model (Netherlands,
Germany).
As for majoritarian systems, Humphreys (1996: 11) argues that there
“we might expect the publicly-owned media to be more vulnerable to
capture by the dominant political tendency.” And indeed, what we have
called the “government model” of broadcast regulation is typically to
be found in majoritarian systems: France before the 1980s and con-
temporary Spain, Portugal, and Greece. Often the same institutional
arrangements for broadcast governance produce different political re-
sults in consensus and in majoritarian systems: a governing board ap-
pointed by parliament according to proportional representation will
result in power sharing in a consensus system such as Italy, and in
effective government control in a majoritarian system such as Spain.
As Humphreys also notes, however, the quintessential majoritarian sys-
tem, the British Westminster system, is characterized not by capture of
public broadcasting by the majority but by separation of broadcasting
from political control, a deviation from the expected pattern that he at-
tributes to the relatively strong liberal tradition of limited government in
Britain.
In fact it seems likely that the professional model of broadcast govern-
ment is quite commonly associated with majoritarianism. In a pluralist
political system direct control of broadcasting by the political majority is
difficult to sustain. It almost always creates intense political conflict and
damages the credibility of the media system. Most European countries
started out, in the early days of broadcasting, with something resem-
bling the government model, but eventually had to devise alternatives.
Onealternativeispowersharing,butthisconflictswiththebasicpolitical
structureandcultureofmajoritariansystems;thelogicalsolutioninsuch
systems would seem to be the professional model. Canada and Ireland fit
this pattern. Sweden might also be cited as an example. Sweden is a mixed
case in terms of the consensus/majoritarian distinction. But it is char-
acterized by one-party governments through most of the late twentieth
century, and like Britain it is characterized by a high degree of separation
between broadcasting and politics. Our argument, then, is that where
majoritarian systems start out with the government model of broad-
cast governance and regulation, they are likely to move over time to the
professional model, as enough alternations of power take place that the
major parties accept their inevitability and are willing to give up hope of

52