Reflections on Public Discussion in the Mass Media VEIKKO PIETILÄ Normative reflections upon democracy and the me- Public Discussion as dia have emphasized again and again that, in order Face-to-Face Conversation to function properly, modern democracies require the media to provide “the means whereby the public One should note, however, that what was tradition- debate” underpinning these societies “can take ally meant by public debate was face-to-face discus- place” (Oreja et al. 1998: 9). Beetham and Boyle sion in public. For instance, Peters (1999: 21) has (1995: 13) think, for example, that the main task of stated that regardless of the emphasis Habermas the media, in addition to their ’watchdog’ role, is puts on the press in the 18th century’s public sphere their role as a forum for public debate whereby they he still “avoids the implication” that the press is also serve “the expression of public opinion to the “the stage of public conversation”. If the press “ena- government”. According to Nordenstreng (1997: bles a wide-scale conversation to take place” (Peters 18), in Scandinavian countries the “current ’func- 1995: 10), this is due above all to its working as “a tions’ of the media” have been condensed into in- catalyst of conversation” (Salmon & Glasser 1995: formation function, critique function and forum 447). This view of the media as “the principal function, the last one involving the media “to pro- source of conversation”, which takes place in fora vide the representatives of different views the op- safely outside of them, was formulated particularly portunity for publicity”. by Tarde ([1898] 1969: 299). Also Dewey (1927) But why does the putative forum function of the and Park (e.g. [1923] 1955 and [1940] 1955) ap- media get such an emphasis? The answer is quite proached the relationship between the media and simple: public discussion has been regarded as a public discussion from a similar perspective. cornerstone for a viable democracy. From “the an- Some scholars see that the press and the media in cient Greek thought onwards, the general concep- general have ceased to reflect and animate public tion of democracy” has been based on specific “as- conversation and argument. Carey (1987), for one, sumptions related to the communication sphere”, thinks that once upon a time there was in the USA a one of them being that all “decisions are submitted public who kept a viable public discussion going. to public discussions” (Splichal 1993: 5). Classi- This public “was activated into a social relation by cally this principle was formulated by the 18th centu- the news, and, in turn, the primary subject of the ry’s progressive bourgeoisie in the demand that pub- news was the public, the opinions being expressed lic opinion, being shaped in and through “the criti- in public by merchants, traders, citizens, and politi- cal public debate among private people”, ought to cal activists of the time” (p. 10). However, with the be “the only legitimate source” of decisions and leg- turning of journalism into a reporting of what is islation in general (Habermas [1962] 1989: 53, 54). happening in the remote world of high political de- cision making, citizens, “denied a public arena, be- came either consumers of politics or escapists from Department of Journalism & Mass Communica- it” (Carey 1995: 391). This dissolved the public tion, University of Tampere, FIN-33014 Tampere, with the consequence that public discussion and de- [email protected] bate went into eclipse. 3 For Schudson (1997: 305), views like those of Some scholars see that the forum function of the Carey stem from an assumption that “face-to-face media has been undermined through recent develop- conversation is a superior form of human interaction ments in the media system. With the growing com- for which mass communication is a forever flawed mercialization of the media, “the citizen is appealed substitute”. Behind this acid remark lurks a doubt to as a private individual rather than as a member of that in a modern democracy, whose scope oversteps the public, within a privatized domestic sphere multiply the “small scale social order in which as- rather than within that of public life” (Garnham sembly directly governs policy” (Peters 1995: 27), 1986: 48). It is difficult to speak of a “rational pub- public discussion is difficult to conduct in a face-to- lic discourse” as the media supply becomes “more face form. In brief, such a form of “public discourse and more subordinate to audience-attracting and - seems impossible for the modern ’public’” (p. 16). maintaining commercial logic” (Dahlgren 1991: This claim is clearly an overstatement, but, on the 11). It is argued that a forum for a truly democratic other hand, it is obvious that the media are needed public debate, which includes “as many of the exist- in modern conditions not only as catalysts of con- ing views in a society on the relevant issues as pos- versation but also as arenas on which a more exten- sible”, cannot be guaranteed without reconstituting sive public discussion can be carried out. This the public service media as the core sector of the brings us back to the question of the forum function media world (Garnham 1986: 52; see also Curran of the media. 1991). These critical remarks are certainly to the point Public Discussion in the Media: in the sense that the way the media today attend to the forum function leaves much to be desired. On Some Assessments the other hand, frequently journalists or some out- It is interesting – and symptomatic of his bias to oral side parties raise to the media arena social issues, discussion – that Carey does not assess the perform- which give rise to diverse reactions and call forth ance of the media as arenas for public discussion. editorials, letters to the editor, interview statements But perhaps there is not much to be assessed. At and other expressions of opinion from inside and least such a state of affairs is indicated by demands outside of the media – that is, call into life some- that, for example, the newspaper should be “a com- thing like a public discussion or debate. It is quite mon carrier for civic discourse, a medium for con- surprising that those criticizing normatively the me- versation among citizens rather than a conduit for dia performance as a carrier of public discussion professionally packaged information” (Pauly 1994: pay hardly any attention to this kind of phenomena. viii) or that journalism should offer a site “for read- Perhaps such ’exchanges of opinion’ do not fulfill ers to become more of a public – that is, for citizens the critics’ criteria for discussion. In my view, how- to converse, discuss, argue, and engage each other ever, such processes and the research they have in- in a dialogue of comparisons and futures” spired merit a closer inspection in terms of public (Anderson et al. 1994: xxi). Such demands imply discussion. that currently the media fulfill their forum function badly. “Moderation Rules OK” – A Case of Anderson et al. (1996: 163) do not deny the ex- istence of public discussions in the media but regard Generating Public Discussion them as “severely truncated”. This is due to the pre- I shall begin with an example which, despite its cir- vailing journalistic practice which tends to focus on cumscribed nature, serves to shed preliminary light “celebrity representatives” with as “extreme points on the subject. The use of alcohol and the policies of view” as possible on the issues under debate (p. of its regulation have composed quite a permanent 163). Such a journalism is “more likely to polarize theme in the Finnish public discussion. In bygone and entrench opinion rather than encourage discus- years, the Finnish State Alcohol Monopoly (Alko) sion” (Anderson et al. 1994: 55). For journalism to used to take part in the discussion by organizing al- be more conversational, it is suggested, among other cohol education campaigns attempting, through a things, that journalists should “rejoin civil society” strategic use of messages, to guide people’s drink- and start talking to their recipients “as one citizen to ing habits in a healthier direction. Traditionally, another rather than as experts claiming to be above such campaigns were focused on the individual politics” (Hallin 1992: 20; cf. also Aufderheide level, and their effectivity was evaluated on the ba- 1991). sis of their capacity to change individuals’ behav- 4 iour or, at least, attitudes in the desired direction. Defining Social Problems – the Often the campaigns proved quite ineffective in this Constructionist Perspective respect. In 1979 Alko launched an education campaign This way of studying the possible effects of educa- with the catchphrase “Moderation Rules OK”. The tion campaigns has been called the ’generativity of campaign was organized so that it enabled the study education’ approach (Hemánus et al. 1987). As of its effects on the social climate of opinion Piispa (1997: 241-260) has remarked, the idea of (Virtanen 1981a; Piispa 1982). That is, besides try- ’generativity’ comes close to the constructionist ing to impact people’s attitudes or behaviour di- perspective on social problems according to which rectly, the campaign attacked them also indirectly by the problems do not result from objective social attempting to foster public discussion in the mass conditions but are constructed through collective media about the campaign themes. Regarding this definition. As Blumer (1971: 301) says, “the proc- aspect, the task of the research was to explore to ess of collective definition determines the career and what extent the campaign succeeded in arousing fate of social problems, from the initial point of public discussion and how the debate actually pro- their appearance to whatever may be the terminal ceeded.