3.2 Political Culture

MASTERARBEIT Titel der Masterarbeit Media Systems of Japan and South Korea: A Comparative Approach verfasst von Stefan Firnhammer angestrebter akademischer Grad Master of Arts (MA) Wien, 2014 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt: A 066 864 Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Ostasiens Betreuer: Mag. Dr. Alfred Gerstl Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Research Question ....................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Outline ............................................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Limitations ....................................................................................................................................... 4 2 Literature Review ................................................................................................................ 6 2.1 Terms and Definitions: Communication, Mass Communication, Mass Media, and Media System .. 6 2.2 Three Major Theoretical Frameworks for the Comparison of Media Systems ................................. 11 3 Methodological Framework ................................................................................................ 19 3.1 Political System .............................................................................................................................. 19 3.2 Political Culture ............................................................................................................................. 25 3.3 Media Freedom and State Control over the Media ......................................................................... 27 3.4 Media Ownership .......................................................................................................................... 29 3.5 Media Financing ............................................................................................................................. 31 3.6 Political Parallelism and Media Culture ......................................................................................... 33 3.7 Media Orientation .......................................................................................................................... 36 3.8 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 38 4 Results and Discussion ....................................................................................................... 39 4.1 Political System .............................................................................................................................. 39 4.2 Political Culture ............................................................................................................................. 46 4.3 Media Freedom and State Control over the Media ......................................................................... 50 4.4 Media Ownership .......................................................................................................................... 61 4.5 Media Financing ............................................................................................................................ 85 4.6 Political Parallelism and Media Culture ...................................................................................... 104 4.7 Media Orientation ....................................................................................................................... 108 5 Conclusion and Outlook ..................................................................................................... 115 5.1 Further Research ........................................................................................................................... 116 6 List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ 118 Table of Contents 7 List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... 121 8 List of Figures .................................................................................................................. 124 9 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 125 10 Appendix I—Data ............................................................................................................. 149 11 Appendix II—Abstracts .................................................................................................... 153 11.1 Abstract (English) ........................................................................................................................ 153 11.2 Abstract (German) ....................................................................................................................... 154 12 Appendix III—Curriculum Vitæ ........................................................................................ 156 “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” —Voltaire (1694-1778) Introduction 1 Introduction Today, only 1 in 7 people in the world live in a country with a free press (Freedom House, 2014b, p.1). This paper will be dealing with the same old question many scholars in communication, or more specifically, political communication, have asked before. Why is the media as it is? (Siebert et al., 1956, p.1; Hallin & Mancini, 2004, p.2). Or in other words, why are some media more free than others? It has been commonly accepted that a free, diverse, and independent media, which promotes an informed and engaged citizenry, is critical to the political health of a nation. Most people’s knowledge and attitudes relating to politics and the government are not derived from their own personal experience, or through the experience of someone close to them, but are rather shaped and influenced by the media. Essentially, the media functions as the intermediary between the people and the government. It collects, analyzes, and interprets all different kinds of data, ranging from national issues, to international disputes, to stock prices, to local traffic, to weather forecasts, which it makes then publicly available to anyone. Hence, it is not at all that surprising that the media has such a strong influence on a society’s understanding and response to such events (Steinberg, 2006, pp.130-31). The availability, quality, and access to information is, therefore, absolutely necessary to ensure the citizens in any particular country make informed and responsible decisions, rather than merely acting on blind assumptions and misinformation, without knowing the full details and facts. Basically, it helps the people to make sense of the world around them. The French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville (2013) has called the press the “chiefest” democratic instrument, as it promotes and protects all the liberties any free society should be entitled to (The Commission on Freedom of the Press, 1947, p.6). Consequently, the most controlled and censored media in the world today can be found in countries with authoritarian or dictatorial governments (EIU, 2013, pp.3-8; Freedom House, 2014b, pp.20-22) (Freedom House, 2014b, pp.20-22). Thus, it has become incredibly important to understand why the media systems around the world are so different from each other. The Four Theories of the Press, or simply the Four Theories, proposed by Siebert et al. (1956) was the first attempt to provide a broad framework for comparing and classifying media systems in the world. Siebert et al. developed a typology, which separated the media systems based on two opposing political philosophies, namely, liberalism and authoritarianism. This approach was heavily influenced by the historical conflict of its time, of capitalism versus communism, between the two 1 Introduction superpowers that emerged at the end of the Second World War, the United States and the Soviet Union. As a result, their work was later heavily criticized, as no theoretical model should be solely based on philosophical or ideological perspectives. Additionally, its normative approach lacked any explanatory power, as it was merely based on how things should be, rather than how things are. But despite these, and other limitations, it is worth acknowledging that the Four Theories put forth a key argument that is the basis of the comparative analysis of media systems to this very day. Namely, Siebert et al (1956, pp.1-2) argued that the “[…] press always takes on the form and coloration of the social and political structures within which it operates” and that it will reflect the “[…] basic beliefs and assumptions which the society holds […].” An argument, which today, might seem quite obvious, as the media system is merely a piece of a far larger system, wherein each functional subsystem is influencing and being influenced by other subsystems (e.g. political system)—this will be discussed in greater detail later (see Media System). Almost half a century later, Hallin and Mancini (2004), the authors of a more recent model known as the Three Models of Media and Politics, or in short the Three Models, used the Four Theories of the Press as their analytical point of departure. However, in contrast

Load more