Book
Review: Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics
By Daniel Hallin and Paolo Mancini
By Daniel Hallin and Paolo Mancini
This book seeks to
examine 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. Across the way the book draws various parallels to how some regions
have distinctive aspects of their culture, media and politics which establish a
pattern by which they are characterized. The book is successful in creating
some distinct models to charactertesize three areas of Western democracy but
falls short ultimately in terms of the modern framework of the relationship
between media and politics. If this piece were written today it is my view that
an entire chapter would perhaps need to be added regarding the dimension of new
media such as those from social websites on the internet and their impact of
various media outlets allocation of political news
Hallin and
Mancini’s conceptual framework consists of the four dimensions: structure of media markets, political parallelism, professionalization of journalism,
and the role of the state with
regards to media systems; and of the five dimensions the role of the state, type of democracy (consensus vs.
majoritarian), type of pluralism
(individual vs. organized), degree of
rational-legal authority, and degree
of pluralism (moderate vs. polarized) with reference to the political
contexts of media systems. According to specific constellations of the
variables within these dimensions, Hallin and Mancini conceptualized the three
models of media and politics. This to me even further breaks down the analysis
that Hallin and Mancini were attempting to engage in. What these dimensions in
terms of media market structure and political context due however is allow us
to make perhaps slight differentiations between countries that are included in
the same regional districts. Surely the relationship between the media and
politics in the United States and Great Britain cannot be simply defined by a
sort of macro level analysis. However even though they are included in the same
model we are able to successfully acknowledge some unique traits in each
nation. Thus it is here where I believe the authors examination of political
contexts in media show signs of truly unique identities amongst various
nations. Questions like how does an two party system affect the role of media,
the type of voting system and the potential number of relevant political
parties are included in establishing an sort of mini framework for an
particular nation’s role between the media, politics and government.
These are all
incredibly important facets of my study and show this examination of politics
and media by Hallin and Mancini should be included in the discussion. Ultimately
for the purpose of my own thesis it cannot serve as a source to support the
prevalence of new media in regards to political polarization due to the absence
of its discussion in the book. This book undoubtedly could not have foreseen how
incredibly prevalent the influence of new media through the internet would
become in regards to the overall political discourse. The simple fact is that at
the time this book was published many new media arenas such as Facebook or
Twitter were only becoming new to the international scene or in Twitter’s case
not even in existence. Prior social media ventures such as MySpace were also
still working out the “kinks” of how social media could impact the news media
landscape and thus at the time perhaps did not seem relevant to include in
their study. Further advanced study may prove that functions of new media have
distinctly influenced all the dimensions the authors mention in terms of polarization,
professionalism and structure.
Well these are all incredibly important
ideas to acknowledge in our globalized society I do believe it falls short of
discussing perhaps the most important arena in which political discourse occurs
today, this area of course being that of social media. Now this may not be the
fault of the authors due to the fact that at the time of the books publishing
(2004) it is most likely new media did not influence the public discourse in a
similar fashion to today’s political climate. Thus I would definitely refer
someone to a more current writing of the relationship between media and
politics if their goal in mind is to discuss how avenues such as social media
are impacting the practice of politics. But in the case of how traditional
print and broadcast political outlets play a role I believe this book is well
worth a read.
An interesting review, mainly for how it makes one think about how much the media environment has changed in a relatively short time. As you point out, much new media only barely existed at the time of the book's writing. That being said though, I'm not sure why you can't still utilize some of the theoretical frameworks that the book offers. For example, it would seem that even though there are many different forms of media, the political structures are still, more or less, the same as they have been. Likewise, although new media may have reshaped the structure of media markets, there is still a media market to be analyzed, and even if it is structured somewhat differently, it would still interact with the political system in some way.
ReplyDeleteI think the book could still be useful if only to draw some comparisons between old and new media. With media changing as much as it has, going from standard print to social media and up-to-the-second information it is important to see how media has changed but also how it has effected politics overall. I truly believe that whether or not the changing landscape of media is positive or negative remains to be seen especially in terms of politics and how it is reported. I do the think that the thourough analysis of the most popular media platforms of the past will be very useful to your paper.
ReplyDelete