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.
Dimensions: media systems Structure of media markets The structure of media markets is concerned with the development of a
mass press. The authors highlight several variables which can be used to describe the characteristics of
press systems: •
newspaper circulation rates • newspaper-readership relationship (elite- vs. mass-orientation) • gender differences in newspaper reach • relative importance of
newspapers and
television as sources of
news • ratio of local, regional, and national newspapers • degree of a clear separation between
sensationalist mass press and
quality press • regional or linguistic segmentation of media markets • influence of bordering countries on the national media system
Political parallelism Political parallelism refers to the “fact that media in some countries have distinct political orientations, while media in other countries do not.” The authors established 5 factors or indicators to assess the extent of
political parallelism: • the extent of political orientation within media content • organizational connections between the media and political organizations • the tendency of media personnel to take part in political life •
partisanship of media audiences •
journalists’ role orientation and practices (e.g. journalists as advocates vs. neutral arbiters, opinion-oriented vs. information-oriented reporting style, separating vs. blending commentary and information) • internal pluralism (i.e. covering different opinions and perspectives within one medium) or external pluralism (i.e. covering different opinions and perspectives within one media branch (e.g. the
press system)) • the regulation of
public service broadcasting (e.g. controlled by the government, insulated from direct political control, proportional representation of political parties or socially relevant groups)
Professionalization of journalism The
professionalization refers to the continuum of independent to instrumentalized journalism: • degree of
autonomy • development of distinct professional norms and rules (e.g. practical routines or ethical principles) • public service orientation of the journalists (i.e. orientation towards an ethic of public service rather than towards interests of individual persons)
Role of the state This dimension stresses the power the political system has in shaping the structure and functioning of a media system. “But there are considerable differences in the extent of state
intervention as well as in the forms it takes.” Hallin and Mancini use the following variables to cover this fourth dimension: •
censorship or other types of political pressure • endowment of the media with economic
subsidies • ownership of media- or telecommunication-organizations • provision of regulations for the media (
laws,
licensing, etc.) • the state as an information source and “primary definer” of news Ultimately, the interrelations of these four dimensions are complex. They have to be assessed empirically for every new case under study. Consequently, they may “influence one another in important ways, but also vary independently.”
Dimensions: political context In a next step, Hallin and Mancini identified five core dimensions to assess the political contexts of media systems. They took relevant concepts from the literatures on
comparative politics and
political sociology to gain a better understanding of the political influences on the development of media systems. The resulting dimensions are presented as
dichotomies, but they are just poles on a continuum. The first dimension is the
role of the state. It is conceptualized by the distinction between
liberal democracies and
welfare state democracies. The main difference between these two categories is the
interventional activity of the state (e.g.
funding vs.
free market). This difference takes shape in the relative importance of
private business or
social institutions within the
political system in question. A further important dichotomic dimension is labeled
consensus vs. majoritarian democracy.
Majoritarian democratic systems contain two dominating
parties and, due to the
plurality voting system, the winning party actually concentrates the political power so that there is a clear distinction between the
government and the
opposition. Furthermore, the
Cabinet predominantly influences political decision processes. By contrast, the
consensus politics model encompasses a
multi-party system which is based on the power sharing principle according to the proportional representation so that
compromise and
cooperation between the opposing forces are central. Additionally, there is a separation of power between
legislative and
executive. The third dimension is the distinction between
individual and organized pluralism resp.
liberalism and
corporatism. Individual pluralism is defined as the organization of the political representation “in terms of the relation between governing institutions and individual citizens, along with a multiplicity of competing ‘special interests’”. On the other hand, the focus on organized social groups is more important within organized pluralism systems. Thus, corporatism includes the “formal integration of social groups into the political process”. Hallin and Mancini identify the distinction between
rational-legal authority and clientelism as another crucial dimension. Following
Max Weber, Hallin and Mancini use the term
rational-legal authority in its meaning as a form of governance whose main influence is maintained through formal and universalistic rules of procedure, i.e. an independent and autonomous administrative apparatus not affected by political and economic interests or
lobbyism. This apparatus is the main institution of an efficient rational-legal system. In contrast, the orientation on common interests is much weaker within
clientelism systems because individual interests and private relationships are the main forces maintaining the social organization. Consequently, “access to social resources is controlled by patrons and delivered to clients in exchange for deference and various forms of support”. The final dimension is conceptualized by the distinction between
moderate and polarized pluralism. Low consensus, challenged
legitimacy of the
political organizations or
system, and deep cleavages within the political landscape are the main characteristics of polarized pluralism. An important indicator is the existence of anti-system parties and factions. Compared to this, moderate pluralism is mainly characterized by stronger tendencies toward the center, lower ideological differences between the
political parties, greater acceptance of the
political system, and better chances to gain
consensus during political controversies.
The three models of media and politics By using the aforementioned dimensions, Hallin and Mancini deduced and conceptualized three
ideal models of media-politics relations (‘ideal’ according to
Max Weber). Hallin and Mancini could identify specific patterns by geographical regions which were crucial for labeling the individual models:
The Three Models: Media System Characteristics The Three Models: Political System Characteristics Restrictions Hallin and Mancini point to restrictions of their three models which have to be considered in order not to overvalue the
validity and significance of them. First of all, they focus on
nation states and this
level of analysis allows a specific perspective on media-politics relations but misses other phenomena of importance (e.g. transnational developments of media markets in Europe). Another concern is that the cases summarized within the single models vary enormously (especially within the Liberal model). Consequently, the models show a wide range of cases which might blur their distinction. Furthermore, the media systems within the analyzed countries might not be
homogeneous (e.g. the structural differences between the print system and the broadcasting system in Germany). Because of the differences within the countries and the interferences between them, it is difficult to treat the 18 countries analyzed, as single cases because they depend on each other and influence each other. A final point is the dynamic of media systems because they cannot be assumed as static entities. Hence, media systems will always progress and there will always be changes resulting from those developing processes, so that reconsidering the characteristics of the mentioned models becomes necessary over time. Consequently, Hallin and Mancini point out in subsequent discussions that their models are not intended to be universal typologies which can be applied to other cases mechanically. Instead, they suggest rather focusing on the dimensions and their applicability and adaption to analyze other media systems adequately – e.g. regarding
Eastern European media systems, they propose to attach more weight to the
role of the state and especially to the role of
civil society to understand these systems appropriately.
The convergence-thesis At the end of their book, Hallin and Mancini discuss the convergence- or homogenization-thesis. The basis for their argument is their observation of several
transformation processes that take place especially in Europe. The most important processes are the
European integration, politically as well as with regards to the media (e.g.
European media laws), the decline of traditional political mass
parties, the American influence on the
professionalization of
journalism, and finally the
commercialization of the media markets in Europe. These are the main reasons why Hallin and Mancini conclude, that the European countries might be pushed toward the
Liberal model. They even go one step further and hypothesize that the core forces of that homogenization- or convergence-process might be valid for other parts of the world. However, they point out that there might be limitations to this process as well because the elements of the process are anchored in the structural differences between the
political systems around the world. == Recent developments ==