國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
10
information; and 5) there is a rule of law guaranteeing freedom (pp. 2-4). However, effective democracy, in addition to these institutional and systematic conditions, requires the empowerment of citizens and the degree to which officeholders and leaders actually respect civil and political rights of the people. Here, empowerment of the people refers to the transfer of power from the elites to the people, and as a result of being empowered, citizens’ willingness to participate in society and politics increases. The standard for effective democracy is very high, and it, along with democratic consolidation, has been argued to be the goal for new democracies such as Korea. For instance, Korean politics researcher Im (2004), in discussing the performance of the “three Kims era”. a period in which three politicians named Kim Dae-jung, Kim Young-sam and Kim Jong-pil showed significant influence in the Korean politics scene . Evaluates that democratic consolidation during this timeframe was on the verge of faltering; he even labels Korea as a “defective democracy.”
Assumptions of such conclusions seem to imply that democratic consolidation was Korea’s desired objective whose fulfillment had failed due to political incapability.
2.2.Media Systems: Models and Theories
In this thesis, focuses on how media roles may have changed in different stages of democratization and in democracy. In other words, this research aims at examining different press systems, meaning forms of mass media within political regimes. With regard to the status of a regime in political developments, Fred S. Siebert, Theodore Peterson, and Wilbur Schramm (1963) provide an overview of press systems that associate media and political types, systems that are important in understanding relationships between them. The four press systems, referred to as the “four theories
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
11
concept” are 1) authoritarian, where the organizational state supersedes the individual or any free will of one; 2) libertarian, in advocacy of free press; 3) communist, with media’s focus on perpetuation and expansion of the socialist system; and 4) social responsibility, which goes beyond the libertarian theory in that it places a great many moral and ethical restrictions on the press. This conceptualization of systems has been called the “four theories of the press” or the “normative theories of the press,” and has been one of the most influential academic approaches to discussing press freedom.
Different Media Models
Authoritarian model Libertarian model Communist model social responsibility model
Schramm (1963)
To this, Nerone et al. (1996) concede to the point that the four theories hold high curricular and intellectual virtues and have strengths in brevity and simplicity, but argue against it in that it may not be able to suffice in explaining press systems and roles in new settings outside of the United States or of a new time period. The authors, taking into account theory as something that “is able to explain a relationship between concepts,” claim that the four theories are not really four theories, but only offer one theory with four examples. According to the authors, the “theory” of the four theories as stated by Schramm and colleagues is that a society’s structure, policy and political orientation result in one of the four press systems. In other words, although the four theories would be adequate for stating that there is a relationship between social circumstances and press systems, the actual four theories or just models or examples of press system cases. May not be able to explain what could
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
12
happen in societies other than the United States or at a different time.
Similarly, Hallin and Mancini (2004) argue that a potential problem of the four theories of the press is that “The press always takes on the form and coloration of social and political structures within which it operate,” (Siebert, Peterson & Schramm, 1963, p.1) and that the authors claim to believe that an understanding of these aspects of society is basic to any systematic understanding of the press. Hallin and Mancini question this perspective of the four theories, which state that they can be applied to any and every type social regime. Arguing that it makes sense to lead a further discussion from the four theories, or normative theories, the authors engage in their own comparison of media systems.
Hallin and Mancini’s comparison is based on 1) the development of media markets; 2) political parallelism, or the degrees and nature of the links between media and political parties; 3) development of journalistic professionalism; and 4) the degree and nature of state intervention in the media system. The authors also argue that there are important connections between the patterns of development of media systems and key characteristics of the political system such as the role of the state, consensus character of a political system, pluralism, and corporatism. According to these factors, the authors created the three models theory consisting of the 1) polarized pluralist, 2) democratic corporatist, and 3) liberal models.
The polarized pluralist model is characterized by the state (or regime) and political parties intervening strongly in many areas of social life, and with much of the population holding adherence to a wide variety of political ideologies. This system is relatively absent of commonly agreed rules and norms. The news media in this system
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
13
are similarly characterized with a high degree of external pluralism, and the media seem to have posed more importance on commitment to ideologies than on common professional culture. Links between journalists and political actors are close, state intervention is active, and newspapers provide commentary directed at political activists. The democratic corporatist model puts a strong emphasis on the role of organized social groups in society, but at the same time holding a strong sense of commitment to the “common good.” The media culture here is characterized by being a vehicle for expression of social groups and diverse ideologies, but at the same time adhering to a high level of loyalty to common norms and procedures. State intervention in the media is extensive, but it places high values on media autonomy.
In the liberal model, representation is more individualistic. In this model, the role of organized social groups is emphasized less than in the other two system and is often looked down upon. “Special interests” are emphasized more than the “common good.” Role of the media here tends to be seen less in terms of representation of social groups and ideological diversity and more in terms of the press as a “watchdog” of government. A common professional culture is relatively strong. State intervention is low in this model.
The authors state that although the liberal model has dominated media studies and has served as the principal normative model, it is probably the polarized pluralist model that is most widely applicable to political systems around the world in terms of the relationship between media and politics. They mention that Asian states will also fit into this model due to the role of clientelism, or the dependency of society on superiors and subordinates, strong roles of the state, and the role of the media in political struggles.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
14
Unlike the authors of the four theories, Hallin and Mancini state that “substantial modifications” would need to be made to their models and that their theories of the three models would be used as inspiration for creating new models.
These press system theories are significant for this research because they can be applied to the case of Korea, which has transitioned from an authoritarian or polarized pluralist model to a more libertarian or liberal model. It is also interesting that, although further discussion will follow later, Korean press systems always adhered to some kind of a socially responsible model owing to its cultural values. Moreover, as Korea and Taiwan is relatively young in its history of democratic transition and consolidation, its press system seem to be a combination of all of the three different models introduced and discussed by Hallin and Mancini.
Then, it would be worthwhile to elaborate the discussion of press systems in terms of conceptions that would fit into the specific settings of Korea and Taiwan, graft them with a theory that would be able to explain why such press role conceptions occurred in the way they did.