Strömbäck (2005) - in Search of A Standard... (331-345)
Strömbäck (2005) - in Search of A Standard... (331-345)
Strömbäck (2005) - in Search of A Standard... (331-345)
331 345
ABSTRACT The literature discussing the impact of media and journalism upon democracy, typically criticizes both
media and journalism for their content and their negative effects on some aspects of democracy. In turn, this raises
the question of identifying news standards by which the quality of news journalism might be evaluated. But neither
the proposed news standards nor the criticism levelled against them specify with sufficient clarity the model of
democracy to be used as a normative departure. This article argues that the question of proper news standards
cannot be addressed in isolation from the question of different normative models of democracy. In order to
discover news standards by which the quality of news journalism can or should be evaluated, it analyzes four
normative models of democracy and their demands upon citizens: procedural democracy, competetive
democracy, participatory democracy and deliberative democracy. Building upon that analysis, the article asks:
What normative implications for media and news journalism follow from the distinctive perspectives of procedural,
competitive, participatory and deliberative democracy?
KEY WORDS: Journalism, Democracy, Normative Models, News Standards
Introduction
Over 40 years ago, Schattschneider critized
political science for its inability to formulate a
good definition of democracy and, as a consequence, its inability to come to terms with the
fact that democratic theory and American democratic practice more often than not seemed to
be quite different things. In The Semisovereign
People , he wrote We need to re-examine the
schism between theory and practice because it is
at least as likely that the ideal is wrong as it is
that the reality is bad (Schattschneider, 1975
[1960], p. 128).
A similar argument can be made in reference
to the literature about media, journalism and
democracy. On the one hand, media and journalism are often critized for their content and
their negative effects on some aspects of democracy. On the other hand, in general, critics are
not clear about which democratic standard they
are applying when criticizing the media. It is
one thing to argue that the media contributes to
ISSN 1461-670X print/ISSN 1469-9699 online # 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/14616700500131950
332
MBACK
JESPER STRO
IN SEARCH OF A STANDARD
To some extent, this view is rather uncontroversial. The rationale underlying every discussion about whether news journalism gives
citizens the information they need, or acts to
fulfill its function as a watchdog, is that media
and journalism are under some form of */at
least moral */obligation to democracy. However, the discussion quickly becomes controversial as soon as a definition of this obligation is
attempted. Even though it is perhaps not controversial that the purpose of journalism is to
provide people with the information they need
to be free and self-governing (Kovach and
Rosenstiel, 2001, p. 12), the consensus fades
as soon as an attempt is made to define
what kind of information that is (cf. Delli
Carpini and Keeter, 1996; Lupia and McCubbins, 1998; Page, 1996; Petersson et al., 1998;
Popkin, 1994).
Underlying the question about what obligations media and journalism have toward democracy, however, is an even more fundamental
question: what is meant by the concept of
democracy? Consequently, in order to clarify
our expectations of media and journalism, as
well as the discussion about proper standards
by which to evaluate news journalism, it is
necessary to specify unequivocally the model
of democracy involved when using the word
democracy.
Choosing Models of Democracy to Analyze
During the last 15 years there has been an
increased interest in different models of democracy. While this development is welcome, the
result has been a sometimes confusing plethora
of models of democracy in such discussions (cf.
Elster, 1998a; Gilljam and Hermansson, 2003;
Hadenius, 2001; Held, 1987; Lewin, 1998; Lijphart, 1977; Manin, 2002; Oscarsson, 2003;
Stromback, 2004). At the same time, there is a
growing consensus that the question whether a
country should be viewed as democratic or not
can be judged by studying if: (1) the political
decision-makers are elected by the people in
free, fair and frequent elections, (2) there is
freedom of expression, of the press and of
information, (3) citizenship is inclusive, (4)
everyone has the right to form and join organi-
333
MBACK
JESPER STRO
334
Procedural Democracy
Procedural democracy proceeds from the minumum requirements a country has to fulfill in
order to be democratic. According to this model,
the invention and establishment of democracy is
still a novelty, and an enormous success in itself.
Today, people in established democracies tend
to view the minimum requirements for a democracy as merely descriptive, whereas they
should, in fact, be seen as highly normative.
Looked upon from a global perspective this is
obvious, since approximately 40 percent of the
global population still do not have the right to
vote in free, fair and frequent elections (Freedom House, 1999).
Thus, procedural democracy is not just a
value-free description, it is also a normative
ideal. To deny that is to forget all those people
living in undemocratic countries, as well as
what history has taught us: Democracy can
never be taken for granted. It must always be
defended, and the best way to do that is not to
forget its history, its basic values, and that the
minimum requirements of democracy are both
descriptive and normative.
The basic claim procedural democracy exacts
upon citizens and politicians is that they respect
the rules and procedures of democracy. The
right to vote, the freedom of expression and of
the press, and the other basic requirements,
must always be protected and respected. As
long as this is the case, it is of less importance
whether people, for example, use their right to
vote or not. Insofar as the basic democratic
freedoms and rights are respected, when and if
people are dissatisfied enough, they have the
opportunity to act. This is what counts.
Therefore, procedural democracy does not
put any normative demands on citizens that
they should vote, should consume news journalism, should participate in public life, or should
be well-informed. How people choose to spend
their time and their mental energy is up to
themselves, as long as they do not violate the
basic democratic freedoms and rights. To demand that people in general spend their life
keeping up with the news, getting informed,
and participating in public life, is to demand too
much (cf. Graber, 1988, 2003; Lupia and McCubbins, 1998; Popkin, 1994; Zaller, 2003).
Competitive Democracy
In accordance with procedural democracy, competitive democracy can be regarded as a realistic model of democracy, and both draw
heavily on the thinking of Schumpeter. In 1942,
he offered the following definition of democracy: the democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political
decisions in which individuals acquire the
power to decide by means of a competetive
struggle for the peoples vote (Schumpeter,
1975 [1942], p. 269). This is what Sartori (1987)
labels electoral democracy, which points to
the fact that in this model of democracy, elections are normatively essential. It is during
elections that the political candidates or parties
compete for the support (votes) of the electorate.
The implication of this is that, in the competetive model of democracy, it is the political
elites that act , whereas the citizens react . As in
the marketplace for goods, political alternatives
offer their services and products (platforms,
candidates, images) to voters who are then
supposed to act as customers and through their
votes buy the product that pleases them most.
Without clear political alternatives, this process
would be undermined.
According to the competetive model of democracy, elections serve several functions (cf.
Esaiasson and Hakansson, 2002; Holmberg,
1999; Manin, 2002; Oscarsson, 2003; Sartori,
1987; Schumpeter, 1975 [1942]). First, they produce governments. Second, they are the mechanism through which the will of the people
can and should be heard. Third, they make it
possible for people to throw the rascals out,
that is, claim responsibility from the incumbents
for their record in office. Fourth, they make it
possible for people to give mandate to the
political alternative they prefer. And fifth, the
competetive nature of elections makes it likely
that the final winners will be more qualified
than they would be in absence of elections.
Although the competetive model of democracy is characterized by its emphasis on competitive elections, sometimes the most important
335
IN SEARCH OF A STANDARD
MBACK
JESPER STRO
336
activities, and when they develop democratically sound attitudes. Therefore, democracy can
never be built or sustained from the top of
society, it has to be built and sustained by the
actions of a large number of people (Amna,
2003; Jarl, 2003; Pateman, 1970). Democracy
needs a large reservoir of social capital among
people in general, that is, norms of reciprocity,
civic engagement and trust (cf. Putnam, 1993,
2000, 2002; Rothstein, 2003). The stronger civil
society is, and the more social capital a society
has, the more democracy thrives.
In the the participatory model of democracy,
people are therefore expected to be engaged in
civic and public life. They should participate in
different kinds of community activities, and
learn how to cooperate in order to achieve
collective goals. The more people are politically
interested, the more they engage in associations
and civic organizations, the more they vote, the
more they develop attitudes and norms of
generalized reciprocity, the better (cf. Putnam,
2000).
Democracy becomes what all citizens make of
it. Democracy is the result of the attitudes and
the actions in ordinary life among ordinary
people. It is not only a system for political
decision making, it is also a spirit (Amna,
2003). In the words of Putnam (2000, p. 341):
Citizenship is not a spectator sport.
To fulfill the role ascribed to them in the
participatory model of democracy, people need
the kind of knowledge and information that
facilitates collective action, participation and
engagement. This means that they need knowledge about how to participate in and how to
influence political decision making and how to
find like-minded people. They also need knowledge about what problems the country is facing,
the opinions and electoral platforms of the
political alternatives in an election, and about
their own views. They should not distrust their
fellow citizens or politicians, if not obviously
warranted, but feel bonded to civic associations
and political parties. Whereas identification
with political parties might be considered irrational from the perspective of the competetive
model of democracy, it is rational from the
perspective of the participatory model of democracy. If people engage in associations and
337
IN SEARCH OF A STANDARD
a comparison
a comparison
Procedural
democracy
Competetive
democracy
Central
mechanism for
securing the
primacy of the
common good
Free and
fair
elections
Distinguishing
and core
normative
expectations of
citizens
Respect
democratic
procedures
Participatory democracy
Deliberative democracy
Competetive
elections
Citizen
participation in
public life, both
outside and within
political parties
Deliberative
discussions among all
sections of the public
and their
representatives
Clear opinions
of societal
problems;
knowledge of
who has had
power;
knowledge
about the record
of the office
holders;
knowlege about
party platforms
and promises
Politically
interested;
engaged in
associations and in
public life;
knowledge about
how to influence
public life;
knowledge about
relevant factual
conditions; clear
opinions of
societal problems;
trustful,
cooperative
Politically interested;
participate in
discussions; trustful,
cooperative, listening;
knowledge about
relevant factual
conditions and moral
values; readiness to
change opinions; strive
for consensus;
committed to the values
of impartiality and
rationality; make
sociotropic evaluations
338
MBACK
JESPER STRO
339
IN SEARCH OF A STANDARD
340
MBACK
JESPER STRO
341
IN SEARCH OF A STANDARD
a second
As noted earlier, none of the models of democracy being discussed here are as unambigious as
they might seem. This includes the implications
they have for media and journalism. Nevertheless, the discussion has highlighted both
similarities and essential differences in the
normative implications of each of the models
for media and journalism.
As for the similarities, all models demand of
the media that they respect the democratic
procedures and */except for the procedural
model of democracy */that the media provide
a forum for political discussions and factually
correct and comprehensive news journalism. As
for the normative demands upon news journalism , with the exception of the procedural model
of democracy, all stress the importance of
factually correct information and of news
journalism providing some basic information
about how society and the political processes
work.
As for the essential differences, Table 2 highlights the core and distinguishing normative
demands upon news journalism of each of the
models.
This analysis shows that what might be
considered good journalism from the perspective of one model of democracy is likely to be
judged differently from an alternative perspective: it might even be considered harmful. Let
Distinguishing
and core
normative
demands upon
news
journalism
Procedural
democracy
Competetive
democracy
Respect the
democratic
procedures; act as a
watchdog
or as a
Burglar
Alarm
exposing
wrong-doings
Act as a watchdog
or a Burglar
Alarm;
focus on the
record of officeholders and the
platforms of the
political
candidates and
parties; focus on
the political actors
a comparison
Participatory democracy
Deliberative democracy
MBACK
JESPER STRO
342
343
IN SEARCH OF A STANDARD
References
Altheide, David L. and Snow, Robert P. (1991) Media Worlds in the Postjournalism Era , New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Amna, Erik (2003) Deltagardemokratin */onskvard, nodvandig */men mojlig?, in: Mikael Gilljam and Jorgen Hermansson
(Eds), Demokratins mekanismer, Malmo: Liber.
Back, Hanna (2003) Vad kravs for en fungerande valdemokrati?, in: Mikael Gilljam and Jorgen Hermansson (Eds), Demokratins
mekanismer, Malmo: Liber.
Bennett, Lance W. (2003) The Burglar Alarm That Just Keeps Ringing: a response to Zaller, Political Communication 20(2), pp.
131 9.
Black, Jay (Ed.) (1997) Mixed News. The public/civic/communitarian journalism debate , Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cappella, Joseph N. and Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (1997) Spiral of Cynicism. The press and the public good , New York: Oxford
University Press.
Carey, James W. (1999) In Defense of Public Journalism, in: Theodore L. Glasser (Ed.), The Idea of Public Journalism , New York:
Guilford Press.
Dahl, Robert A. (1998) On Democracy, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dahl, Robert A. (1999) Demokratin och dess antagonister, Stockholm: Ordfront.
Dalton, Russel J. (2002) Citizen Politics. Public opinion and political parties in advanced industrial democracies , New York: Chatham
House.
Delli, Carpini, Michael, X. and Keeter, Scott (1996) What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters , New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Dworkin, Ronald (1996) Freedoms Law. The moral reading of the American Constitution , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Eksterowicz, Anthony J. and Roberts, Robert N. (Eds) (2000) Public Journalism and Political Knowledge , Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Elster, Jon (Ed.) (1998a) Deliberative Democracy, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Elster, Jon (1998b) Introduction, in: Jon Elster (Ed.), Deliberative Democracy, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Esaiasson, Peter and Hakansson, Nicklas (2002) Besked ikvall! Valprogrammen i svensk radio och TV, Stockholm: Stiftelsen
Etermedierna i Sverige.
Fallows, James (1996) Breaking the News. How the media undermine American democracy, New York: Pantheon Books.
Fishkin, James S. and Laslett, Peter (Eds) (2003a) Debating Deliberative Democracy, Oxford: Blackwell.
Fishkin, James S. and Laslett, Peter (2003b) Introduction, in: James S. Fishkin and Peter Laslett (Eds), Debating Deliberative
Democracy, Oxford: Blackwell.
Franklin, Bob (1997) Newszak & News Media , London: Arnold.
Freedom House (1999) Democracys Century. A survey of global political change in the 20th century, www.freedomhouse.org/reports/
century.html, accessed 27 December 2004.
Gilljam, Mikael and Hermansson, Jorgen (Eds) (2003) Demokratins mekanismer, Malmo: Liber.
Glasser, Theodore L. (Ed.) (1999) The Idea of Public Journalism , New York: Guilford Press.
Graber, Doris A. (1988) Processing the News. How people tame the information tide , 2nd edn, Lanham, MD: University Press of
America.
344
MBACK
JESPER STRO
Graber, Doris A. (2003) The Rocky Road to New Paradigms: modernizing news and citizenship standards, Political
Communication 20(2), pp. 145 9.
Gutmann, Amy and Thompson, Dennis (1996) Democracy and Disagreement. Why moral conflict cannot be avoided in politics, and what
should be done about it , Harvard, MA: Belknap.
Habermas, Jurgen (1995) Diskurs, ratt och demokrati , Goteborg: Daidalos.
Hadenius, Axel (2001) Demokrati. En jamforande analys , Malmo: Liber.
Hart, Roderick P. (1999) Seducing America. How television charms the modern voter, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Held, David (1987) Demokratimodeller. Fran klassisk demokrati till demokratisk autonomi , Goteborg: Daidalos.
Holmberg, Soren (1999) Representativ demokrati , SOU 1999:64, Stockholm: Fritzes.
Holmberg, Soren (2000) Valja parti , Stockholm: Norstedts Juridik.
Iyengar, Shanto (1991) Is Anyone Responsible? How television frames political issues , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Iyengar, Shanto and Kinder, Donald R. (1987) News That Matters. Television and American opinion , Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall and Waldman, Paul (2003) The Press Effect. Politicians, journalists, and the stories that shape the political world ,
New York: Oxford University Press.
Jarl, Maria (2003) Deltagardemokraterna och den representativa demokratin, in: Mikael Gilljam and Jorgen Hermansson (Eds),
Demokratins mekanismer, Malmo: Liber.
Kalb, Marvin (2001) One Scandalous Story. Clinton, Lewinsky, & 13 days that tarnished American journalism , New York: Free Press.
Karvonen, Lauri (2003) Statsskick. Att bygga demokrati , Stockholm: SNS Forlag.
Kieran, Matthew (2000) The Regulatory and Ethical Framework for Investigative Journalism, in: Hugo de Burgh (Ed.),
Investigative Journalism. Context and practice , London: Routledge.
Kovach, Bill and Rosenstiel, Tom (1999) Warp Speed. America in the age of mixed media , New York: Century Foundation Press.
Kovach, Bill and Rosenstiel, Tom (2001) The Elements of Journalism. What newspeople should know and the public should expect , New
York: Crown Publishers.
Kumlin, Staffan (2003) Finns det nagon ansvarig?, in: Mikael Gilljam and Jorgen Hermansson (Eds), Demokratins mekanismer,
Malmo: Liber.
Lewin, Leif (1998) Braka inte! Om var tids demokratisyn , Stockholm: SNS Forlag.
Lijphart, Arend (1977) Democracy in Plural Societies. A comparative exploration , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Locke, John (1988) Two Treaties of Government , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lupia, Arthur and McCubbins, Mathew D. (1998) The Democratic Dilemma. Can citizens learn what they need to know? , New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Manin, Bernard (2002) Den representative demokratins principer, Stockholm: SNS Forlag.
Manning, Paul (2001) News and News Sources. A critical introduction , London: Sage Publications.
McCombs, Maxwell, Shaw, Donald L. and Weaver, David (Eds) (1997) Communication and Democracy. Exploring the intellectual
frontiers in agenda-setting theory, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McQuail, Denis (1992) Media Performance. Mass communication and the public interest , London: Sage Publications.
McQuail, Denis (1994) Mass Communication Theory. An introduction , London: Sage Publications.
Merritt, David (1998) Public Journalism and Public Life. Why telling the news is not enough , Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Meyer, Thomas (2002) Media Democracy. How the media colonize politics , Cambridge: Polity Press.
Naurin, Elin (2003) Mandatmodellen */om loften och forhoppningar bland partier och valjare, in: Mikael Gilljam and Jorgen
Hermansson (Eds), Demokratins mekanismer, Malmo: Liber.
Nord, Lars W. and Stromback, Jesper (2003) Making Sense of Different Types of Crises: a study of the Swedish media coverage of
the terror attacks against the United States and the U.S. attacks in Afghanistan, The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics
8(4), pp. 54 76.
Norris, Pippa (2000) The Virtuous Circle */political communication in postindustrial societies , New York: Cambridge University Press.
Norris, Pippa, Kern, Montague and Just, Marion (Eds) (2003) Framing Terrorism. The news media, the government, and the public , New
York: Routledge.
Oscarsson, Henrik (2003) Demokratitrender, in: Henrik Oscarsson (Ed.), Demokratitrender, Goteborg: SOM-institutet.
Page, Benjamin I. (1996) Who Deliberates? Mass media in modern democracy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pateman, Carole (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Patterson, Thomas E. (1993) Out of Order, New York: Vintage Books.
Patterson, Thomas E. (2003) The Search for a Standard: markets and media, Political Communication 20(2), pp. 139 45.
Petersson, Olof, Hermansson, Jorgen, Micheletti, Michele, Teorell, Jan and Westholm, Anders (1998) Demokrati och medborgarskap ,
Stockholm: SNS Forlag.
Petersson, Olof, Holmberg, Soren, Lewin, Leif and Narud, Hanne Marthe (2002) Demokrati utan ansvar, Stockholm: SNS Forlag.
Popkin, Samuel L. (1994) The Reasoning Voter. Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns , 2nd edn, Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Protess, David L. and McCombs, Maxwell (Eds) (1991) Agenda Setting. Readings on media, public opinion, and policymaking , Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Putnam, Robert D. (1993) Making Democracy Work. Civic traditions in modern Italy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Putnam, Robert D. (2000) Bowling Alone. The collapse and revival of American community, New York: Simon & Schuster.
Putnam, Robert D. (Ed.) (2002) Democracies in Flux. The evolution of social capital in contemporary society, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Reese, Stephen D., Gandy, Oscar H., Jr and Grant, August E. (Eds) (2001) Framing Public Life. Perspectives on media and our
understanding of the social world . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
IN SEARCH OF A STANDARD
345
Rosen, Jay (1999) What Are Journalists for? , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Rosen, Jay (2000) The Essence of Public Journalism. Thoughts of an intruder, in: Jesper Stromback (Ed.), Public Journalism pa
svenska , Sundsvall: Demokratiinstitutet.
Rothstein, Bo (2003) Sociala fallor och tillitens problem , Stockholm: SNS Forlag.
Sabato, Larry J. (1991) Feeding Frenzy. How attack journalism has transformed American politics , New York: Free Press.
Sabato, Larry J., Stencel, Mark and Lichter, S. Robert (2000) Peepshow. Media and politics in an age of scandal , Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield.
Sahlstrand, Anders (2000) De synliga. Nyhetskallor i svensk storstadsmorgonpress , Stockholm: JMK/Stockholms Universitet.
Sartori, Giovanni (1987) The Theory of Democracy Revisited. Part One: the contemporary debate , Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Schattschneider, Elmer Eric (1975 [1960]) The Semisovereign People. A realistss view of democracy in America , New York: Wadsworth.
Scheufele, Dietram (1999) Framing as a Theory of Media Effects, Journal of Communication 49(1), pp. 103 22.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1975 [1942]) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, New York: HarperPerennial.
Severin, Werner J. and Tankard, James W., Jr (1997) Communication Theories. Origins, methods, and uses in the mass media , 4th edn,
New York: Longman.
Stromback, Jesper (2004) Den medialiserade demokratin. Om journalistikens ideal, verklighet och makt , Stockholm: SNS Forlag.
Zaller, John (2003) A New Standard of News Quality: burglar alarms for the monitorial citizen, Political Communication
20(2), pp. 109 31.