Comparing Media Systems

Published in 2004, Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics is probably the most significant and ambitious theoretical analysis of the relationship between media systems and democracy since the Four Theories of the Press by Siebert, Peterson, and Schramm (1956). Based on a survey of media institutions, particularly the press, in 18 West European and North American democracies, the book [Page 124]offers an updated set of models for analyzing and comparing media systems.

Building on their own long-time cooperation and on work by other scholars (particularly Jay Blumler and Michael Gurevitch), authors Daniel C. Hallin, a University of California, San Diego, professor, and Paolo Mancini, an Italian scholar, base their typology on four dimensions by which to carry out comparisons: (1) economic—that is, the development of media markets, particularly low or high levels of a mass circulation press; (2) the degree to which each media system mirrors the main political divisions in the country, which the authors call political parallelism; (3) the level of journalistic professionalization; and (4) the degree of state involvement in the media system.

Historic patterns of difference and similarity among the countries under study have led Hallin and Mancini to arrive at three basic models they call (1) the Mediterranean or polarized pluralist model (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and, to a lesser degree, France), which, with a high level of political parallelism and high government intervention, is characterized by low professionalization and low levels of media development; (2) the North/Central European or Democratic corporatist model (the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, and Austria which is high on all four dimensions; and (3) the North Atlantic or liberal model (Britain, Ireland, the United States, and Canada), which, with low political parallelism and state intervention, is high in levels of professionalism and media development.

The authors show connections between media systems and political systems of the analyzed countries, arguing there is no “mechanistic, one-to-one correspondence.” Political system variables influence media systems, interacting with other kinds of factors, such as economic and technological, but the opposite influence can also be detected. At the same time, the political variables discussed reflect patterns of political culture influencing journalists' thinking about their role in society and their professional values. Hallin and Mancini summarize their research by saying these connections “do not arise from one-way causal relationships” and the process described “is really one of co-evolution of media and political institutions within particular historical contexts.”

In comparison with the Four Theories of the Press, Hallin and Mancini's book clearly moves beyond, if not outside, the cold war context but at the same time leaves former communist countries out altogether, which admittedly diminishes the number of variables under study and facilitates the analysis.

Although the book is theoretically impressive in scope, the authors admit the media systems of individual countries fit the ideal types they propose “only roughly” and “many media systems must be understood as mixed cases.” Reflecting its quality and impact, Hallin and Mancini's work is one of the most highly acclaimed political communication publication in recent years, and as such, it has received awards from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government Center for Press, Politics, and Public Policy, the National Communication Association, and the International Communication Association (Outstanding Book of the Year award for 2005).

...