Page 77 - 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

The Political Context of Media Systems

inconvenient regulations. This contributes to the phenomenon of
“savage deregulation” mentioned in Chapter 2, as regulatory authori-
ties are in many cases unsuccessful in enforcing broadcast regulation.
It also contributes to instrumentalization. The fact that laws are often
honored in the breach offers many opportunities and incentives for par-
ticularisticpressures.Politicianscanpressuremediaownersbyselectively
enforcing broadcasting, tax, and other laws. Media owners, and in some
cases perhaps prominent journalists as well, can exert pressures of their
own by threatening selectively to expose wrongdoing by public officials.
Clientelism is also associated with lower levels of professionalization
of journalism. Journalists tend to be integrated into clientelist networks,
andtheirtiestoparties,owners,orotherpatronsweakenprofessionalsol-
idarity. It is commonly noted in the literature on clientelism that it tends
tobreakdown“horizontal”formsofsocialorganization,andprofession-
alism is one such form. Because the political culture does not emphasize
the separation between the public good and particular interests, or the
following of abstract norms, the cultural basis for professionalization is
weaker. In this sense there is a connection between the fact that Italians
don’t wear seat belts, even though it is required by law, and the fact that
Italian journalists don’t follow journalistic codes of ethics, even though
their union did create one recently.
Clientelism, finally, is associated with private rather than public com-
munication patterns. The need of ordinary citizens for information
about public affairs is relatively small; as Piattoni (2001: 202) writes,
“Clientelism is ... simple: a vote for a benefit.” At the top, meanwhile,
the process of political communication tends to be closed: public hear-
ings and documents are less important to the political process, closed
negotiations among elites more so. Access of journalists to relevant po-
litical information is thus more dependent on their political ties, and it
is more likely that political communication will tend to serve the process
of negotiation among elites rather than providing information for the
mass public.

MODERATE VS. POLARIZED PLURALISM

Another basic distinction in the field of comparative politics is between
moderate and polarized pluralism. In polarized pluralism, according to
Sartori (1976: 135) “cleavages are likely to be very deep ... consensus
is surely low, and ... the legitimacy of the political system is widely
questioned. Briefly put, we have polarization when we have ideological

59