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.
2.3. Role of the Media in Democratic Countries
Prior to advancing to an application of a theory or theories that provides explanation corresponding to the Korean and Taiwan’s case, an overview of roles concepts in pertinent literature seems necessary. These role conceptions, as per the discussions of Hallin and Mancini, are mainly rooted in a Western approach, which is why a comprehensive understanding and grafting of these concepts to a possible theoretical explanation of the Korean and Taiwan’s case must follow.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
15
Due to the freedom-oriented nature of democracy, roles of the press are diversified to a great extent in accordance to various media elements. Some of these elements as debated by John C. Merrill and Everette Dennis (1991) include media-government relationship, media and the public trust, people’s right to know and right of access to the media, etc.
James Curran (2005) also mentions that democracy requires of the media the following: 1) representation by enabling groups to be heard, 2) deliberation by providing a forum for discussion and presenting a wide range of voices, 3) conflict resolution by working to promote norms and procedures of democracy, 4) accountability by monitoring diverse sources of power, and 5) information dissemination, enabling citizens to enter into informed debate and decision-making.
Although these are concepts and functions of what ought to be done, they can be perceived as roles that media plays in a democracy, or put further, in a transition to democracy.
Valenzuela and McCombs’ (2008) theory is media as agenda setter, and he gives a description of agenda-setting and agenda attribute setting roles of the media, where media providers determine what should be considered as “news.” It is the role of the journalist to tell the audience not what to think, but what to think about. This is an important role of the media in a democracy in that issues within a democratic regime that may be overlooked are presented with emphasis, bringing together topics and ideas crucial to a democratic society. As audiences are directed to such issues, their support for and accessibility to democratic values are increased, enabling different phases of democratization or democratic consolidation.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
16
Weaver and Wilhoit’s (1986) definition of the interpretive role of the media can also be universally applied to various political situations, because through this role all that the media does is explicated complicated concepts to the audience. Some may argue that this role is a facilitative role, but this role can be played even in authoritarian regimes, because strictly the media does not have to care about social benefit in performing this role. Its main focus is to explain and make a concept better understood, regardless of the ideology behind those concepts.
Bennett and Serrin (2005) discuss a role of the press as watchdog. As an agenda setter, it is the role of the news media to bring forth issues specifically dealing with how government is performing. It could be understood that this role of the media is a specified kind of an agenda setter. The media is a vigilant watchdog that monitors actions of the government, timely pointing out problems that people should know about. This role is important within a democracy because foundation of such a regime lies under an assumption that the government is for and by the people. Any actions of the government that is non-democratic, or in other words authoritarian, will be discussed in the news media. With this role is another significant idea that the news media address accountability.
Weaver and Wilhoit (1986), in their discussion of roles, introduce the verification role of the press, which refers to its ability and willingness to verify alleged truths in society. This requires a high level of media autonomy, as what the media does here basically is to question it sources. Here, the media also has as its goal to pursue a definite good, which is truth. Those subject to verification can be anyone, but in most cases the target is the government and policies, which makes this role monitorial in many senses.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
17
Schmuhl and Picard (2005) address representation, deliberation, and conflict resolution functions of the media by examining the marketplace of ideas role. For this role, the media provides a forum for the discussion and resolution of ideas and interests in a society. By performing the media representation function, media plays a role to become the “voice of the people.” The traditional view of the media as a unitary institution representing an indivisible public is rejected, and its customary role becomes one to enable the principal organizations and groups in society to be heard.
In other words, the media acts as a vehicle for conveying opinions of different groups in society, large or small, so they can be given an opportunity to speak. Through an exchange and sharing of these voices, conflicts can be resolved in the forum, and in the marketplace of ideas, it is said that truth always prevails. However, the authors say that accelerating commercialization of the news may be hindering the performance of this role.
Patterson and Seib (2005) discuss the media role of providing information for the public, which is perhaps the most familiar role. On the basis of information provided by the media, citizens can productively participate in politics and policies. As a contemporary problem, the authors indicate how news coverage often fails to educate the public and lead them to more informed and discerning judgments. For this, the authors suggest that a clear understanding of just how informed a citizen must be is a required discussion for the media to adequately perform this role.
Thorson (2005) provides a definition of the media role as mobilizer, presenting it with an assessment of how well the press works to mobilize citizens in a democracy.
This is linked closely to the two abovementioned roles, as the news media as agenda
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
18
setter and watchdog finds and presents issues in a democracy, it eventually acts as a vehicle for enabling public actions. Again, democracy is regime that puts emphasis on the people above all. Thus, these three roles in a synthesized form act as the means for people. The people are able to obtain information regarding how their democracy is performing, and possibly on problematic issues of the government. It becomes journalism then, which enables the people to have their opinions heard through mobilization.
Merrill (2002) also writes on a concept called as the “people’s press.” According to Merrill, the people’s press is less dominated by “journalist-centered journalism and owner-controlled journalism” but focuses itself more on a “symbiosis between journalism and people.” (p. 27) This seems to be a complementary concept for the existential journalist in that although the existential journalist is a liberalist and an advocate of freedom and subjectivity, it is also bound with a responsibility to put a priority on people. In other words, the free journalist seeks autonomy and press freedom while also considering how the practice of journalism influences people.
Merrill, in one of his earlier works, introduces a term called the existential journalist. In contrast to the existing objective journalism, or the rationalist stance, the existentialist stance is built upon keywords such as intuitive, subjective, directive, persuasive, judgmental and liberal. In summary, his definition of an existential journalist is a free and authentic person and not a “cog in the impersonal wheel of journalism.” The existential journalists would also relieve the uniqueness of every journalist’s individual existence and personality and praise freedom and responsibility for decisions in such a time when journalists are disappearing into institutionalized corporate journalism (Merrill, 1979).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
19
In discussing media ethics and professionalism in post-colonial societies, Musa and Domatob discuss a concept called the development journalist. Development journalism is a notion of journalism where its act of reporting events of national and international importance should be constructive so that it contributes positively to the development of the country concerned. McQuail (2000) writes that development media theory emerged out of the idea that “societies undergoing transition from underdevelopment and colonialism to independence often lack the money, infrastructure, skills, and audiences to sustain and extensive free-market media system.” (p.155)
One important thing to consider of the role conceptions above is that although they seem to be associated with certain political systems or degrees of press freedom, they can be interlaced in different stages of political transition such as democratization.
For example, the media’s watch dog role, according to its intended concept, would occur only under circumstances where much press freedom is granted.
However, it could be possible that such a role of the media can be embossed in a society that is undergoing democratization, depending on the objectives of the journalist or organization. That is, the press may be able to play this role in an authoritarian regime (not much press freedom) as a way of communicating with the public so as to increase press freedom and stimulate the transition process by
“enlightening” the people. Another example could be the development journalism concept. This role conception in theory would apply only to third world countries that are on the verge of economic development. However, many traits of this role
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
20
conception could still be dominant in a society like Korea due to its background of rapid advancement. Korea and Taiwan was occupied by Japan until the end of WWII, and from then to 1980s it had undergone economic development and political transitions.
Although it was not at a post-colonial status in 1980, the concept of the development journalist may be able to explain certain roles or role philosophies Korea and Taiwan had at that time. Thus, maintaining such a perspective on role conceptions and taking into consideration that the discussion of role conceptions and press system theory above are of Western descent, it would be important to be able to incorporate them into a theory that would provide a more comprehensive explanation of social-circumstance-press system press role associations in a democratization such as that of Korea and Taiwan. Social Transitions and Key Roles in Journalism: A Theory Christians et al (2009), in a discussion of press systems and media roles, links different dimensions of how political transition affect press systems with the types of roles played by the media. In this theory, the two factors that determine how media roles change are media autonomy and transition of institutional power of the media within a democracy. The four key roles for journalism for each dimension of transitions are monitorial, facilitative, radical, and collaborative roles. The monitorial role refers to all aspects of the collection, processing, and dissemination of information of all kinds about current and recent events, plus warnings about future developments. The facilitative role helps to develop a shared moral framework for community and society, rather than just looking after individual rights and interests.
The radical role focuses on exposing abuses of power and aims to raise popular consciousness of wrongdoing, inequality, and the potential for change, typically in new nations with their intense pressure toward economic and social development. The
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
21
collaborative role specifies and values the task for media that arise in situations of unavoidable engagement with social events and processes.
As can be seen in the figure, what Christians et al. argue is that as dynamics of institutional power and media autonomy change due to political changes within and toward democracies, the roles tend to be played by journalism also changes.
For example, given that institutional power of the media grows (as in the case of Korea), mass media should shift from playing a radical role to a monitorial or collaborative role depending on how much autonomy it has. This theory will be incorporated into the process of analysis so that a transition in media roles could be linked to the status to which Korea and Taiwan belonged at different time periods.
This theory seems to be adequate enough to attempt an explanation, media of Korea and Taiwan roles in relation to its transition because the two axis accurately represents a plausible shift, or dynamics, of two significant elements of press system-press role relationships: media autonomy and the strength of media institutions. The axes can be extended in all four directions to illustrate press status and features at a certain stage in democratization. By integrating this theory with the discussion of media role concepts, it would be possible to see how these required functions of the media are conceptualized into actual roles. In order to examine roles with regard to the argument of Christians et al. on media role-political transition relationships, existing discussion of media roles in the literature can be categorized into their four key role classifications.
To elaborate on the theory’s effectiveness in explaining these relationships, the facilitative category of roles seem to have most to do with media ethics and what
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
22
members of the mass media see as their goals in society. In a democracy, the institutional powers of the media are strong and the news media is able to exercise fully its autonomy.
However, the media, as a constituent of society, seeks the common good, sacrificing its libertarian desires. As for radical roles, when media prioritizes their autonomy above norms and common good, it could very well assume such roles. Also, since role conceptions in literature mostly deal with the Western world of journalism and democracy, a question arises as to what roles are assumed by the media when the political system is a non-democracy, where media lacks autonomy while still having quite an influence on the public. This is where the collaborative sphere of this theory would enable classification and synthesis of roles to explain effects under such circumstances.
It is also true that some role conceptions discussed above do not really fit into the classifications of the theory of Christians et al. It could be that these roles are inherent in the intrinsic traits of journalism itself, and they may perhaps be in practice at least to a certain extent in all cases of political regime and transition.
Systematic classifications and role definitions alike, the focus is on how journalists have acted or ought to act in a democracy, with the exception of the development journalist. Although it seems that these concepts seem to describe at least certain aspects of roles played by the media while Korea and Taiwan was in a non-democratic or democratization period, a need to define how journalism is practiced with what values in these two countries.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
23