Little Debate
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
LITTLE DEBATE Ideological media pluralism and the transition from a pillarized to a commercialized newspaper landscape (Flanders, 1960-2014) DANIËLLE RAEIJMAEKERS LITTLE DEBATE Daniëlle Raeijmaekers Supervisor Prof. Dr. Pieter Maeseele Doctoral committee Prof. Dr. Steve Paulussen Prof. Dr. Stijn Joye Doctoral jury Prof. Dr. Daniël Biltereyst Prof. Dr. James Curran Prof. Dr. Hilde Van den Bulck This doctoral study has Been conducted within a four year BOF-GOA project (nr. 28311) at the University of Antwerp, with funding oBtained after a competitive, peer-reviewed process. Copyright © 2018 Daniëlle Raeijmaekers All rights reserved. No part of this puBlication may Be reproduced in any form or By any means, without written permission from the author. Cover design and lay-out: Daniëlle Raeijmaekers Printed by Universitas Digital Printing Antwerp Contact: [email protected] Faculty of Social Sciences Department of Communication Studies LITTLE DEBATE Ideological media pluralism and the transition from a pillarized to a commercialized newspaper landscape (Flanders, 1960-2014) Thesis suBmitted for the degree of Doctor in Social Sciences at the University of Antwerp to be defended by Daniëlle RAEIJMAEKERS Supervisor Prof. Dr. Pieter Maeseele Antwerpen, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... i GENERAL INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 PART I: FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 5 Chapter 1: Four theoretical approaches to media pluralism ............................. 7 Abstract ........................................................................................................ 7 Introduction .................................................................................................. 8 Democratic theory and media roles ........................................................... 10 Two fault lines: affirmative/critical & diversity/pluralism .......................... 15 Four approaches to media pluralism .......................................................... 21 Discussion ................................................................................................... 26 Chapter 2: Beyond the analytical concept of oBjectivity ................................. 29 Abstract ...................................................................................................... 29 Introduction ................................................................................................ 30 The ideological nature of oBjectivity .......................................................... 33 Toward an alternative analytical vocabulary .............................................. 42 Chapter 3: The framework of agonistic media pluralism ................................. 49 Abstract ...................................................................................................... 49 Introduction ................................................................................................ 50 From post-politics to agonistic pluralism ................................................... 52 A framework of agonistic media pluralism ................................................. 56 Discussion: research agenda ...................................................................... 68 Chapter 4: Methodology behind the framework ............................................. 71 Method ....................................................................................................... 72 Practical guide ............................................................................................ 77 PART II: ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 85 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 85 Flanders ...................................................................................................... 85 Choices ........................................................................................................ 88 Practicalities ................................................................................................ 90 Case 1: Pillarized newspapers and the Unitary Law (1960) .............................. 95 Context ....................................................................................................... 95 Analysis ..................................................................................................... 101 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 122 References ................................................................................................ 124 Case 2: Semi-pillarized newspapers and the Egmont Plan (1977) ................. 129 Context ..................................................................................................... 129 Analysis ..................................................................................................... 135 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 158 References ................................................................................................ 160 Case 3: De-pillarized newspapers and the Global Plan (1993) ....................... 167 Context ..................................................................................................... 167 Analysis ..................................................................................................... 175 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 202 References ................................................................................................ 204 Case 4: De-pillarized newspapers and the Generation Pact (2005) ............... 213 Context ..................................................................................................... 213 Analysis ..................................................................................................... 220 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 236 References ................................................................................................ 239 Case 5: De-pillarized newspapers and the government agreement of Michel I (2014) .......................................................................................................... 245 Context ..................................................................................................... 245 Analysis ..................................................................................................... 251 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 278 References ................................................................................................ 281 DISCUSSION ……… .................................................................................................... 289 Results ...................................................................................................... 290 Reflection .................................................................................................. 294 Research ................................................................................................... 299 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………………………………….303 SUMMARY…….. ........................................................................................................ 321 Abstract in English .......................................................................................... 321 Abstract in Dutch ............................................................................................ 323 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS About one thing there can Be no deBating: this doctoral project could not have Been achieved without the help of a large group of people, Both within the university and Beyond. First, there is Pieter Maeseele. I originally got to know him as “Professor Maeseele” throughout my Bachelor and, more closely, during my Master’s degree at the University of Antwerp. Critical questions were – and still are – his trademark. After I started my PhD under his supervision, I got to know him as “Pieter” and learned about his other trademarks: dedication, unconditional support, and an endless supply of jokes. Both as a professor and as a person, he proved himself invaluable to this doctoral project and to my development as a researcher. Second, when it comes to my academic growth and wellbeing, I have a great deal to owe to my colleagues for Being great soundBoards for shared frustrations and insecurities, But also for absurd ideas and mindless chit-chat. Especially our conversations at the landscape office and the lunch Breaks on the fourth floor provided a welcome Break to my daily research activities. In particular, I want to thank those colleagues who were there for me from the very start (AnneBeth and Miriam) all the way to the very end of my PhD (Marion, Marleen, Brahim, Raymond, Koen, Michiel, and Sam). A special thanks goes to Robin, Laurens, Yves, Karel, Jiyan,