Media Systems in Comparative Perspective
CM1008
Book: Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics
Daniel C. Hallin & Paolo Mancini (2004)
This summary covers: chapter 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (only page 89-90 & 127-142), 6 (only page 143-145 &
183-197) and 7 (only page 198-199 & 237-248) from the 2004 edition + 1 (only page 1-7) and 13
(only page 278-304) from the 2012 book
+ articles Fletcher et. al, Yildrim et al., Sapiezynska, Nechushtai, Hallin & Manchini.
+ lecture notes
Esmée Lieuw On
,Chapter 1: Introduction
Siebert, Peterson and Schramm wrote in Four Theories of the Press (1956): “why is the press as
it is? Why does it apparently serve different purposes and appear in widely different forms in
different countries?”
à Hallin and Mancini will focus on Western Europe and North America (developed capitalist
democracies)
Why Comparative Analysis?
• The role of comparative analysis in social theory can be understood in terms of two basic
functions: role in concept formation and clarification & role in causal inference
• CA is valuable in social investigation because it (1) sensitizes us to variation and to
similarity à this can contribute to concept formation and refinement of our conceptual
apparatus
• Most literature is ethnocentric, refers only to the experience of a single country, yet
written as if it were universal.
o In developed countries this is true, but in less developed countries another
pattern emerges: borrowing literature (Anglo-American/French) and say that it
can be applied anywhere unproblematically.
o Consequence: media researchers have been unable to ask, “Why are the media as
they are?”
• Important aspects of media systems are assumed to be ‘natural’, or in some cases so
familiar that they are not perceived at all because it ‘denaturalizes’ a media system that is
so familiar to us, comparison forces us to conceptualize more clearly what aspects of that
system actually require explanation à CA has the capacity to render the invisible visible
(to draw attention to aspects of any media system that ‘may be taken for granted and
difficult to detect when the focus is only on one national case’)
• CA makes it possible to notice things we did not notice and therefore had not
conceptualized, and it also forces us to clarify the scope and applicability of the concepts
we do employ
• Comparative Studies (Bendix, 1963) provide an important check on the generalizations
implicit in our concepts and forces us to clarify the limits of their application
• CA can protect us from false generalizations, but can also encourage us to move from
overly particular explanations to more general ones where this is appropriate (Bendix)
• (2) Comparison is also important in social investigation because it allows us, in many
cases, to test hypotheses about the interrelationships among social phenomena
o Durkheim (1965): “We have only one means of demonstrating that one
phenomenon is the cause of another, it is to compare the cases where they are
simultaneously present or absent.”
Scope of the Study
• Lijphart (1971) stresses, one of the greatest problems in CA is the problem of many
variables, few cases
o One of the principal means to solve this problem is to focus on a set of relatively
comparable cases in which the number of relevant variable swill be reduced
Esmée Lieuw On
, • By limiting to North America and Western Europe, we are dealing with systems that
have relatively comparable levels of economic development and much common culture
and political history
• Comparability is not inherent in any given area, but it is more likely in an area than
randomly selected set of countries (Lijphart, 1971)
Media System Models
• Four Theories of Press has proven so influential over so many years is that there is a
great deal of appeal in the idea that the world’s media systems can be classified using a
small number of simple, discreet models
• Three media system models:
1. Liberal Model: characterized by relative dominance of market mechanisms and of
commercial media, prevails across Britain, Ireland and North America
2. Democratic Corporatist Model: characterized by a historical coexistence of
commercial media and media tied to organized social and political groups, and by
relatively active but legally limited role of the state, prevails across northern
continental Europe
3. Polarized Pluralist Model: characterized by integration of the media into party
politics, weaker historical development of commercial media and a strong role of the
state, prevails in Mediterranean countries of southern Europe
• These three models are ideal types, but only fit the media systems of individual countries
roughly à the primary purpose is not classification of individual systems, but the
identification of characteristic patterns of relationship between system characteristics
• Media systems are not homogeneous à often characterized by a complex coexistence of
media operating according to different principles
o McQuail (1994) said that in most countries, the media do not constitute any
single system with a single purpose or philosophy, but are composed of many
separate, overlapping often inconsistent elements with appropriate differences of
normative expectation and actual regulation
• Models should not be understood as describing static systems, they have been in a
process of continual change and are to identify some of the underlying systemic
relationships that help us to understand these changes
• Mass circulation newspapers almost always trace their origin back to this era à North
(1990) calls this path dependence where only the past has a powerful influence, but it
doesn’t mean that present or future institutions must essentially resemble those of the
past or that change is absent.
Do We Need Normative Theories of the Media?
• The field of communication, most particularly the study of journalism has been heavily
normative in character because of its rooting in professional education, where it was
more important to reflect on what journalism should be instead of what/why it is.
• The Liberal Model enshrined in normative theory à normative ideal of neutral
independent watchdog leads to blind spots in journalists’ understanding of what they do,
obscuring many functions
• CA can be extremely useful in addressing the kinds of normative questions that
legitimately concern communication scholars, by giving us a clearer sense of the range of
different kinds of institutional arrangements that have evolved to deal with the problems
Esmée Lieuw On
, of communication in a democratic society and by allowing us to assess the actual
consequences of these institutional structures for the values we consider important
• Any judgement calls about a media system has to be based on clear understanding of its
social context
Limitations of Data
• Limitations of comparative data impose severe restrictions on our ability to draw any
firm conclusions about the relations between media and social systems
• In some ways, comparative research in communication may be inherently harder than in
some fields
• Comparative research by no means requires quantitative data, though such data can be
useful à we need more qualitative case studies carried out with a theoretical focus that
gives them a broader significance for the comparative understanding of media systems
Esmée Lieuw On
