Political parallelism is a feature of media systems. In comparative media system research, it "refers to the character of links between political actors and the media and more generally the extent to which media reflects political divisions."[1] Daniel C. Hallin and Paoli Mancini used the term to analyse links between media organizations and political tendencies; appropriating an older concept by Colin Seymour-Ure who had originally applied it in a narrower way to the links between the press and political parties.[2]
There are five factors indicating a media system’s degree of political parallelism:[3]
Factor
Example
1
The extent to which media reflects distinct political orientations and allegiances, and the orientation and professional practice of journalists.
Chris Smith is a journalist and works for the newspaper The Timeline. In his spare time, he visits meetings of the National Workers’ Party. He likes their stance, so he writes favourable articles on their election manifesto.
2
Organizational links between media and political parties or organizations.
Tanya Smith is a local politician. As a second job, she writes articles for a local newspaper.
3
The involvement of media personnel as former political actors.
After his retirement as town major, Elias Smith decides to write articles for the local newspaper, explaining current political developments from his point of view.
4
Whether the career advancement of media personnel is dependent on political affiliations.
Jennifer Smith is a young journalist. She knows that it will be difficult for her to further her career without meeting "the right people", so she joins the government’s party.
Andrew Smith is a grocer. He buys the Daily Newspaper every day, because he almost always agrees with how they interpret current events.
The History of Political Parallelism in Western Media Systems
In 2004, when Daniel C. Hallin and Paolo Mancini introduced the concept of political parallelism, they applied it to Western consolidated capitalist democracies. It refers to media content and the extent to which different media reflect distinct political orientations in their output.[4]
Historically, political advocacy was seen as an important function of the print media emerging in the late 18th to early 19th century. Political parties or other political actors established newspapers and supported them. The role of the journalist was to influence the public towards his or her political faction or cause, something which changed only in the 19th century when journalism norms moved towards the ideal of neutrality in reporting.[5]
Then, commercialization became an important force in the newspaper business. Papers no longer depended on patronage of political parties or actors, but adopted a more "balanced" line. According to Jonathan Hardy newspapers could, by de-aligning themselves from politics and moving towards "objectivity", "reach an aggregated consumer audience that was not fractured along political lines. [...] Overall, the economic rationale was that, with less bias, more readers would be attracted to a paper."[6]
After the First World War, this changed again, when political conflict was reflected in the news and "strong political polarization enhanced demand for overtly political papers."[7] However, the extent of this development differed in strength in different media systems. In "Democratic Corporatist" media systems strong ties between the media and political institutions continued until the 1970s.[8] In Polarized Pluralist systems, political parallelism in the press played a key role in the national development, for example in Spain and Italy.[8] Even today, as Angelika W. Wyka argues about Italy and Greece, "although the existing ethical codes are greatly thought to be a reflection of objective and impartial reporting, journalists [...] tend to be somewhat, if not extremely, partisan."[9] In Central Eastern Europe, "highly opinionated and politically-driven journalism also prevails."[10]
As mentioned before, political parallelism is expressed in the partisanship of media audiences, too, when supporters of different parties buy different newspapers catering for their opinions and political preferences. In Germany, for instance, the daily newspaper Die Welt is seen as more conservative than the liberal Süddeutsche Zeitung, with die tageszeitung further to the left. In Spain, the newspaper El País had most readers among the voters of the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE), ABC is read widely among people voting for the People's Party (PP), and El Mundo predominantly by non-voters.[11]
Related concepts
Closely related to the concept of political parallelism is the distinction between internal and external pluralism. These two concepts refer to the media’s way of handling diversity in political loyalties and orientations. Externalpluralism is achieved at the level of the media system as a whole, when media outlets’ and organisations’ content reflect different points of views within society. Internalpluralism is achieved within one medium, when it attempts to report neutrally and balanced, and avoids affiliations with political groups. Media systems with a high degree of external pluralism will also have a high degree of political parallelism, whereas media systems with a high degree of internal pluralism will have a low level of political parallelism.
A high degree of political parallelism does not necessarily point to a compromised democracy. Polarized Pluralist media systems, for instance, are characterized by a lively public sphere, high voter turnout, strong citizen-party attachment and political participation.[13]
Criticism
As a seminal study on the topic of media system comparison, Hallin and Mancini’s 2004 book has been discussed so extensively that in 2012, they published a new book presenting a collection of criticism. Comparing Media Systems Beyond the Western World addresses the main issues and concerns that authors have expressed between 2004 and 2012, with special regards to the framework's extension to non-Western systems. Criticism on the concept of political parallelism in particular relates to the fact that the scope of Hallin and Mancini’s concept is only applicable to countries with different political parties or groups.
In her 2012 paper How Far Can Media Systems Travel? Applying Hallin and Mancini’s Comparative Framework outside the Western World, Katrin Voltmer discussed and criticised Hallin and Mancini’s work with special regards to methodology and its inapplicability to non-Western countries. She also addresses the issue of political parallelism. In non-Western media systems, politics are not shaped by ideological distinctions between left and right. Political conflict is created by antagonising religious, ethnical, or regional identities.[14]Polarization between these factors in the political systems of non-Western states, according to Voltmer, leads to conflicts whose structures are different from the right-left distinction of European history.
To adapt the concept of political parallelism to non-Western states, she suggests splitting it into three more narrow categories matching three different political situations:[15]
"Polarized pluralism" denotes antagonism between two opposing camps or political, ethnic, regional or religious identities (for example the conflict between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland).
"Fragmented Pluralism" denotes that political contest is fragmented into many smaller groups of similar dominance (as was the case, for example, in Yugoslav federalism).
"Hegemonic Pluralism" denotes that one camp or party continuously dominates the conflict (for example, the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa).
These three categories do have differing dynamics for the political process, and thus, the media system.
Yuezhi Zhao, another contributor to Comparing Media Systems Beyond the Western World, proposed a different measure to adapt political parallelism to non-Western media systems, in this case to China. In her article Understanding China’s Media System in a World Historical Context, she states that the concept is difficult to apply because of China’s one-party-predominance, which differentiates it from multi-party democracies with political pluralism. In China’s case, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) does own shares of the news media, and most of the press is affiliated with the party structurally, so that China’s media system can be described as a "media as mouthpiece" system with party-press parallelism.[16]
Afonso de Albuquerque proposes to assess political parallelism in media systems very differently. Applying Hallin and Mancini’s framework to the media system in Brazil, which did not undergo commercialization processes in the 19th and 20th century, but only relatively late, he proposes a new role for the media in his article On Models and Margins – Comparative Media Models Viewed from a Brazilian Perspective. As a political agent, he argues, there are four types of media-politics relationships:[17]
"Polarized Pluralist", in which party lines are clear, and the media politically active (comparable to Hallin and Mancini’s Polarized Pluralist media system)
"Media as Political Agent", with a moderating role, in which party lines are relatively unclear, but the media politically active (as is the case in Brazil)
"Public Service Media", where party lines are clear but the media relatively passive in political reporting (comparable to Hallin& Mancini’s Democratic Corporatist media system)
"Objective Media", which is politically passive and transports unclear party lines.
In Brazil, argues de Albuquerque, the media acts as apolitical agent partaking in the political debate, but not as an advocate of political parties.[17]
Adaptions
In the concluding chapter of Comparing Media Systems Beyond the Western World, Hallin and Mancini summarise the discussions around various aspects of the media system theory they proposed in 2004, adapting their framework to apply to media systems beyond the Western world. With regards to political parallelism, Hallin and Mancini propose to split the concept into two, following Afonso de Albuquerque’s suggestion. They propose the terms "external pluralism", to refer to the tendency of different media outlets to express different partisan tendencies, and "political activity", the media’s tendency to intervene in political debate and influence events at all.[18]
Pluralism as a political philosophy is the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a political body, which is seen to permit the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions, and lifestyles. While not all political pluralists advocate for a pluralist democracy, this is most common as democracy is often viewed as the most fair and effective way to moderate between the discrete values. As put by arch-pluralist Isaiah Berlin, "let us have the courage of our admitted ignorance, of our doubts and uncertainties. At least we can try to discover what others ... require, by ... making it possible for ourselves to know men as they truly are, by listening to them carefully and sympathetically, and understanding them and their lives and their needs... ." Pluralism thus tries to encourage members of society to accommodate their differences by avoiding extremism and engaging in good faith dialogue. Pluralists also seek the construction or reform of social institutions in order to reflect and balance competing principles.
Pluralism is a term used in philosophy, meaning "doctrine of multiplicity," often used in opposition to monism and dualism. The term has different meanings in metaphysics, ontology, epistemology and logic.
Giovanni Sartori was an Italian political scientist who specialized in the study of democracy, political parties and comparative politics.
In ethics, value pluralism is the idea that there are several values which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other. In addition, value-pluralism postulates that in many cases, such incompatible values may be incommensurable, in the sense that there is no objective ordering of them in terms of importance. Value pluralism is opposed to value monism.
Agonism is a political and social theory that emphasizes the potentially positive aspects of certain forms of conflict. It accepts a permanent place for such conflict in the political sphere, but seeks to show how individuals might accept and channel this conflict positively. Agonists are especially concerned with debates about democracy, and the role that conflict plays in different conceptions of it. The agonistic tradition to democracy is often referred to as agonistic pluralism. Beyond the realm of the political, agonistic frameworks have similarly been utilized in broader cultural critiques of hegemony and domination, as well as in literary and science fiction.
Pluralism denotes a diversity of views or stands rather than a single approach or method.
Scientific pluralism is a position within the philosophy of science that rejects various proposed unities of scientific method and subject matter. Scientific pluralists hold that science is not unified in one or more of the following ways: the metaphysics of its subject matter, the epistemology of scientific knowledge, or the research methods and models that should be used. Some pluralists believe that pluralism is necessary due to the nature of science. Others say that since scientific disciplines already vary in practice, there is no reason to believe this variation is wrong until a specific unification is empirically proven. Finally, some hold that pluralism should be allowed for normative reasons, even if unity were possible in theory.
Classical pluralism is the view that politics and decision-making are located mostly in the framework of government, but that many non-governmental groups use their resources to exert influence. The central question for classical pluralism is how power and influence are distributed in a political process. Groups of individuals try to maximize their interests. Lines of conflict are multiple and shifting as power is a continuous bargaining process between competing groups. There may be inequalities but they tend to be distributed and evened out by the various forms and distributions of resources throughout a population. Any change under this view will be slow and incremental, as groups have different interests and may act as "veto groups" to destroy legislation. The existence of diverse and competing interests is the basis for a democratic equilibrium, and is crucial for the obtaining of goals by individuals. A polyarchy—a situation of open competition for electoral support within a significant part of the adult population—ensures competition of group interests and relative equality. Pluralists stress civil rights, such as freedom of expression and organization, and an electoral system with at least two parties. On the other hand, since the participants in this process constitute only a tiny fraction of the populace, the public acts mainly as bystanders. This is not necessarily undesirable for two reasons: (1) it may be representative of a population content with the political happenings, or (2) political issues require continuous and expert attention, which the average citizen may not have.
Corporatism is a collectivist political ideology which advocates the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, business, scientific, or guild associations, on the basis of their common interests. The term is derived from the Latin corpus, or "body".
Beyond the First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech and Pluralism is a book about freedom of speech and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, written by author Samuel Peter Nelson. It was published by Johns Hopkins University Press in 2005. In it, Nelson discusses how the more general notion of free speech differs from that specifically applied to the First Amendment in American law.
Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics (2004), by Daniel C. Hallin and Paolo Mancini, is a seminal study in the field of international comparative media system research. The study compares media systems of 18 Western democracies including nine Northern European countries, five Southern European countries and four Atlantic countries.
The term transformation in the field of mediated cross-border communication refers to a media system's change from for instance authoritarian or communist structures to a new media system with different structures and control mechanisms.
Mediated cross-border communication is a scholarly field in communication studies and refers to any mediated form of communication in the course of which nation state or cultural borders are crossed or even get transgressed and undermined.
Journalistic interventionism "reflects the extent to which journalists pursue a particular mission and promote certain values". Journalists with a high interventionist attitude do not report neutrally and objectively but are engaged in the subjects they are reporting about. An interventionist reporting style aims at influencing public opinion. Moreover, "journalism cultures that follow an interventionist approach may act on behalf of the socially disadvantaged or as mouthpiece of a political party and other groups whose interest are at stake".
Journalism culture is described as a "shared occupational ideology among newsworkers". The term journalism culture spans the cultural diversity of journalistic values, practices and media products or similar media artifacts. Research into the concept of journalism culture sometimes suggests an all-encompassing consensus among journalists "toward a common understanding and cultural identity of journalism."
Americanization in election campaign communication is the adaptation of particular, successful election campaign elements and strategies, first developed in the United States, in other countries. Two main characteristics of Americanization are the instrumental relationship between politics and media and the professionalization of election campaigns. The campaign techniques can be applied or adapted to different extents.
Research strategies in the field of election campaign communication research are the decisions made concerning the objective, the scope, the sampling and the methodology used within a study of election campaign communication.
Comparative election campaign communication research examines how and with what effect election campaigns are conducted in a temporal or spatial comparative approach. Therefore, it focuses on three interrelated dimensions: politics, media and electorate. Spatial comparative election communication research investigates campaign practices, its media responses and its effects on the electorate in different countries.
Hybridization comprises the fusion of country- and culture-specific election campaigning methods with contemporary styles and techniques. Originally deriving from biology, where the term hybridizations denotes the process of combining different varieties of organism to create a hybrid, the term is transferred to the field of political communication when a hybrid election campaign arises. One main aspect of this concept is the emphasis on an international comparative perspective. In Globalization theory the term hybridization means the ongoing blending of cultures, which denotes in political campaign communication also the blending of political cultures.
The North Atlantic or liberal model of media and politics, as defined in Daniel C. Hallin and Paolo Mancini's Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics, is characterized by an early development of commercial press, information-oriented journalism, strong professionalization, and a market dominated media system.
References
de Albuquerque, A. (2012), "On Models and Margins – Comparative Media Models Viewed From a Brazilian Perspective", in D. C. Hallin& P. Mancini (ed.), Comparing Media Systems Beyond the Western World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.72–95
Hallin, D. C.; Mancini, P (2004), Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Hallin, D. C.; Mancini, P (2012a), "Introduction", in D. C. Hallin& P. Mancini (ed.), Comparing Media Systems Beyond the Western World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1–7
Hallin, D. C.; Mancini, P (2012b), "Conclusion", in D. C. Hallin& P. Mancini (ed.), Comparing Media Systems Beyond the Western World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.278–304
Hardy, J. (2008), Western Media Systems, New York: Routledge
Zhao, Y. (2012), "Understanding China's Media System in a World Historical Context", in D. C. Hallin & P. Mancini (ed.), Comparing Media Systems Beyond the Western World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.143–173
Voltmer, K. (2012), "How far can media systems travel? Applying Hallin and Mancini's Comparative Framework outside the Western World", in D. C. Hallin & P. Mancini (ed.), Comparing Media Systems Beyond the Western World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.224–245
Wyka, Angelika W. (2008), "In Search of the East Central European Media Model – The Italinization Mode? A Comparative Perspective on the East Central European and South European Media System.", in B. Dobek-Ostrowska & M. Glowacki (ed.), Comparing Media Systems in Central Europe – Between Commercialization and Politicization, Wroclaw: UniwersytetuWroclawskiego, pp.55–69
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
