Instead of focusing on trees without seeing forests or vice versa, my study attempts to place both trees and forests on the map of investigation. Differing from previous efforts, either normative or empirical, my modeling efforts are more oriented towards normative-empirical, meaning my focus lies in describing, explaining and predicting normative-empirical differences in different countries instead of merely either normative or empirical differences.
To locate press differences is just one of the steps taken in current study. The most important step is to identify what factors and how they have shaped those differences. Under scrutiny are the social, economic, political and cultural environments that have worked together to shape the way the press is expected to operate and the actual operations. Investigations of various environments are expected to bring about how factors are prioritized as shapers. And different priorities of shaping factors constitute the center stage for comparative examinations. Crucial to modeling efforts, however, is to identify a central patten in describing, explaining and predicting press normative-empirical differences.
The core guiding principles backing this study can be summarized in three key words: (1) symbiotic, (2) pluralistic and (3) co-existent.
Symbiotic
All the elements within any press system are symbiotic. The public, the press and the government are among the key components of any press system. And they rely on each other for different purposes. The governments relies on the public to maintain its authority and power via the press. The public votes decide who are in power in the case of a democratic society. And even in a non-democratic society, the government has to win the hearts and minds of its people via the press in order to maintain its rule. The government also replies on the press to disseminate its information and policies. The press replies on both the government for information and the public for consumption, without the information from the government or the consumption from the public, the press can hardly survive in any society. The role of the public in this triangular relationship is becoming increasingly vital to the survival of any press in any country in the modern days, especially in the age of the Internet.
Pluralistic
Gone with the days when we used to have only one type of press orientation or operation in a society. Very few countries still stick to only one type of press orientation or operation. Most countries have more than one type of press system with different press principles and practices in place. It has become extremely hard to use only one press system to describe, explain and predict press differences in any country. The libertarian press is no longer the sole privilege of the United States, for instance, as where you will find a few other different press orientations and operations, such as public journalism, citizen journalism, development journalism, social responsibility as the guiding principle in practicing any type of journalism. The same situation exists in many other countries.
Co-Existent
Emerging now is the trend towards having different press orientations and operations in the same country in co-existence. They tend to supplement rather than replace each other. What cannot be achieved by development journalism can be made possible by investigative journalism. What seems to be weak in citizen journalism tend to be made stronger by mainstream journalism. The press consists of mainstream, non-mainstream and alternative news media. They are co-existent in a symbiotic and pluralistic press environment.
Prioritization Matters
Press differences can be brought about by different functions and interactions of the power, the press and the public. They can also be shaped by the following nine factors in different combinations and hierarchies: “(a) historical legacies, (b) national conditions, (c) political systems, (d) social structure, (e) cultural values, (f) stages of national development, (g) national priorities, (h) external/Western influences, and (i) leadership style/personalities” (Xu, 2005, pp. 129-130). Furthermore, press differences may also be shaped by the following ten factors: (a) press laws, (b) press ethics, (c) national religious beliefs, (d) national ideologies, (e) national philosophies, (f) national priorities, (g) time, (h) space, (i) event, and (j) issue. In different combinations and with different prioritizations, these factors may play different roles in shaping press differences.
In a homogeneous society, there tends to be fewer conflicts or tensions between the power, the press and the public. It will be the opposite in a heterogeneous society due to different languages, cultural values, religious beliefs and practices, and political orientations. Different social fabrics constitute one of the fundamental factors that can influence how the power, the press and the public function and interact in journalism. Singapore and Japan are two typical examples in this regard. Japan is homogeneous racially, linguistically and culturally. It enjoys the highest daily newspaper circulation in the world. “As profitable companies with mass readerships, the papers see no need to rock the boat” (Yin & Payne, 2004, p.351). Singapore, on the other hand, is heterogeneous racially, linguistically, and culturally. With English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil as four official languages among a mixed population consisting of Chinese, Malay, Indians, Euroasians and others, the press in Singapore has to be more cautious in covering news regarding different ethnic groups. Any careless or inappropriate reporting involving different ethnic groups will cause racial conflicts. A classic example is the tragedy of Meria Hertogh riots, a case used by Singapore government as vital lesson learnt in the importance of racial and religious understanding and harmony. It is cited as a case for placing certain degree of government control on the press (see Wikipedia. n.d.).
In terms of political systems and situations, they can be peaceful or volatile due to different political systems and beliefs, political movements and political power struggles. They can play an important part in shaping what the press should be and do and what the press actually is and does in society. The impact of politics on the press and the public can be felt in every country. For instance, in China, the political reform has brought dramatic changes to the press and how the power relates to the press and the public. The press is being more and more commercialized in terms of the press operation, no longer solely subsidized by the government. The press has to find its ways to generate more advertising revenues to survive in the market. With decreasing political control from the central government and increasing financial independence, the press is moving towards more public-oriented operation.
National and economic conditions can play a crucial role in press orientations and operations. They are the ultimate determinant of the size, scope, speed and quality of the press. Without healthy economic conditions, the press can hardly survive in the market.
Historical legacies, on the other hand, can be present at the macro level and the micro level. At the macro level, legacies can influence the overall direction of the press development and shape the way the press operates at the micro level.
With globalization come new or alien ideas of running the press, which may inject new ways of doing things in the press, facilitating the press development. And it can also lead to disastrous consequences if the press blindly borrows or follows alien ideas or models. Besides new ideas, foreign media outlets can also start to launch their local operations and it works the same with local press to expand their overseas operations.
As every country has its own press laws and ethics, they are also powerful determents of how the press, the power and the public are interrelated and interacted to each other. Therefore, it is indispensable to look into the press laws and ethics in different countries to locate differences at the normative level regarding what the power, the public and the press are expected to interact with each other.
Although no direct influence can be detected, national philosophies can be reflected in journalistic value orientation and prioritization. How do Chinese philosophies, Japanese philosophies and Indian philosophies influence the interactions between the power, the press and the public? And do Western philosophies have any impact on journalism in Asia? These have not been adequately addressed.
Every country has its national characteristics or identities that have distinguished themselves from others. And the influences of cultural values on the power, the press and the public as well as their interactions can also play a part in shaping press operation and performance.
Although differing in different countries to differing degrees, leadership style in a country can be a factor that may have some impact on the triangular relationship of the power, the press and the public.
National ideologies can have strong influence over the press and its relationship with the power and the public in much of Asia. In China, they have four fundamental principals to be abided by the press and the public. They are (a) the principle of upholding the socialist path, (b) the principle of upholding the people’s democratic dictatorship, (c) the principle of upholding the leadership of the Communist Party of China, and (d) the principle of upholding Marxist-Leninist-Mao Zedong thought. Singapore has its national ideologies incorporated in its core values for every citizen to guide them. They are (a) nation before community and society above self, (b) family as the basic unit of society, (c) community support and respect for the individual, (d) consensus, not conflict, and (e) racial and religious harmony”. In Malaysia, they have Rukunegara (national principles) including (a) believe in god, (b) loyalty to king and country, (c) upholding the constitution, (d) rule of law, and (e) good behavior and morality. Indonesia has its five natonal principles called Pancasila: (a) belief in the one and only God, (b) just and civilized humanity, (c) the unity of Indonesia, (d) democracy led by wise guidance through consultation/representation, and (e) social justice for the whole Indonesian people. All these national ideologies may influence the relationship and interaction among the power, the press and the public.
As no countries are on the same footing in terms of development, some are advanced and developed while others are less so. In light of political, cultural, economic and social conditions, every country has its own priorities. Such prioritization constitutes another major factor in explaining why the press operates differently in different countries.
As two of the most important “constitutive formations” that “determine human life” (Williams, 1985, p. 305, cited in Shah, 1996, p. 146), time and space “circumscribe the placement and distribution of people and resources; the geographic mobility of people and resources over time; and the relationship between people and resources” (Shah, 1996, pp 146). And “the history of conceptions of time and space and the ideological uses to which those conceptions are put” constitutes “the history of social change” (Harvey, 1989, cited in Shah, 1996, p. 147). Therefore, to understand how the power, the press and the public function and interact, we should “grasp the complex nettle of the transformation of spatial and temporal conceptions and practices” (Harvey, 1989, p. 218, cited in Shah, 1996, p. 147).
Different time conceptions, e.g. in time of peace, terror, crisis, or war, different historical periods, influence the way the power, the press and the public function and interact. In time of terror, press freedom becomes secondary to national security when the Bush administration launched a variety of new attacks on the press following the unauthorized disclosure of classified information (Kirtley, 2006). In time of crisis, as Ma (2005) observed, “non-state-controlled media thrive, while state-controlled media are usually rewarded for creating an illusion of normalcy” (p. 241). In China, for instance, the press is “instructed to downplay the magnitude of any crisis, in order to maintain political, social, and economic stability (Ma, 2005, p. 242). In covering Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in China in 2003, the press was firmly controlled by the Chinese party-government and the political pressure clearly influenced news content (Zhang & Fleming, 2005).
Similarly, different spatial conceptions, e.g. “center, margin, periphery, location, dislocation, displacement, de-centering, re-centering, borders, in-between” (Shome, 2003, p. 39), can also influence how the press operates and how the other two parties are related to the press. The interaction between the power, the press and the public in the political center, say, in the capital of a big country like China and India, can be very different from the one in a place far away from the political center. The press tends to be freer in the margin than the press in the center in China.
Issues and events can also influence how the power, the press and the public are interrelated. Events and issues revolving around 9/11, terrorism and anti-terrorism, SARS, regional sensitivities, sensitive events or issues like human rights, racial harmony, territory disputes, religious matters, cultural sensitivities, etc. determine how politicians, journalists and the public function and interact.
All the above-identified factors can play a part in shaping the way the press is expected to be and do as well as the way the press actually is and does in all societies. But it is the different prioritization of all the shaping factors that have brought about differences that exist in both the normative press and the empirical press. It is prioritization that matters.
Background: Why Modeling Press Differences?
Approaches: Mapping, Measuring and Modeling
