Media System, Public Knowledge and Democracy:A Comparative Study

An article by James Curran, Shanto Iyengar, Anker Brink Lund and Inka Salovaara-Moring

Presented by Tsering TashiDepartment of Political Science

outline:Introduction

Research designResearch findings

ConclusionDiscussion

Brief summaryThis article analyses the implication of transformation of media system in the world on the public knowledge and democracy by comparing four countries with different models of media system. The empirical research result shows that public service television devotes more attention to public affairs and international news; thus it fosters greater knowledge in these areas than market driven media system. Public service television also gives greater importance to news that stimulates higher level of news consumption and minimizes the within knowledge gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged groups. However this article concludes that the wider social process take precedence over organization of the media in determining people’s knowledge on public life. Research question Does the variation in media systems affects the quality of citizenship and what are the consequences of the movement towards market-based media from conventional Public service model for individual citizens in democracies? Countries included in the analysis1.United States (market model)2.United Kingdom (dual model)3.Denmark& Finland (Public service model) HypothesisMarket oriented media system, by delivering more soft than hard news, impedes the exercise of informed citizenship or limits citizens’ knowledge of public affairs.

Research designCombination of quantitative content analysis of broadcast, print sources with survey measuring public awareness of various issues in the news.

1.TELEVESION:· Two principal television channels in each country.· Each news source was monitored for four non-sequential weeks in Feb-April 2007.· Analyzed main evening news program 2.NEWSPAPER:National newspapers and regional newspaper samplesScrutiny was limited to the main news section.

Survey design· Online survey administered after the period of media monitoring to a sample of 1000· Questionnaire consists of 28 multiple-choice questions.· 14 questions tapping awareness of international events both hard and soft common to

all countries with equal number of relatively easy and difficult question.· Sample matching methodology was used to minimize the digital sampling bias that

features dual samples: 1. Strictly probabilistic and based on an offline population. 2. Non-probabilistic and based on a large panel of online respondents.

Differences in media content

Differences in Public knowledge

Hard news1. Americans are uninformed about international public affairs.(exception: Iraqi PM) and scored less in domestic-related hard news. Scandinavians emerged as the best informed whether it is in the areas of international or domestic hard news.

Soft newsAmericans are least informed in international soft news as compared to its counterpart with other three European countries. One area where Americans are well informed is in the domestic soft news however American respondent’s average score was no different as compared to other countries.

Media visibility and public knowledge

There is clear statistic relationship between extended press visibility (6 months) and public knowledge. (US, UK&Denmark).Visibility in the short term (one month) was strong predictor of knowledge Denmark.Thus, what the media reports or not report has an effect on citizen’s knowledge. The lack of attention given to international news on American TV and lack of knowledge of international public affairs in America is no coincidence.

Within-nation knowledge gap

Disadvantage group in the US performs poorly in the knowledge test. But there was no difference between disadvantaged and privileged group in terms of their knowledge in other three European countries.

1. Education: Americans with limited education score much lower in relation to hard news than those with higher education.(difference 40%), Britain(14%), Finland(13%) and Denmark(0%).

2. Income: Only 29% of low-income group in US could give correct answer to hard news questions compared to 61% but the comparable difference is less in other countries.

3. Ethnicity: significant hard news knowledge gap between the ethnic majority and minority.

4. Gender: 24 % more correct answer to hard news questions were given by men in US, 16%difference in the UK, 12% in Finland and gender gap was reversed in Denmark.

Media system and social inclusion

· National TV in European countries is more successful in reaching disadvantaged groups partly as a consequence of it public service tradition. Commercial media prioritizes high spending audience in order to maximize advertising revenue.

· The central goal of commercial media is make money while that of public service is to serve society to inform the public which influences when news programs are transmitted.

· US TV networks transmit their main news programs in the early and late evening but in contrast, the Scandinavian countries transmit the main news during prime time.· Finland, Denmark and Britain have been successful in getting disadvantaged groups to join in the national ritual of watching the evening news as a consequence of their social inclusion and information commitment.· Higher proportion of low income and less educated group watch TV news on regular basis than in the US.

· The single time slot of American TV news provide less opportunities to those inattentive citizens to reach out the news reports.

Hierarchy of influence

· The cross-national differences in terms of media system and how and when news is reported have significant effect on the level of public knowledge, but less important than deep-seated social factors.

· Gender and education are strong predictors of knowledge, more so than media exposure. The strongest predictor of knowledge is people’s interest in politics.

Conclusion

· Media organization, as a determinant of knowledge about public life, is less important than the widespread cultural process in a society that stimulate interest in public life but this does not mean that media system is not important.

· Public service model gives greater attention to public affair and international news that foster greater knowledge than the market model.

· It makes TV news more accessible and foster higher level of news consumption.

· It minimizes the knowledge gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged that contribute to an egalitarian pattern of citizenship.

· The movement toward the entertainment centered American model seems to foster an impoverished public life.

· The impact of media system on public knowledge varies across nations because of preexisting civic education and acquisition of cultural norm.

· Nonetheless, media provision of public information does matter and deregulation of the broadcast media is likely lead to shrinking the civic knowledge.

Discussion1. How does sample matching methodology minimize the sampling bias?

2. How relevant is the comparison of US (big in size and heterogeneous )and scandinavian(small& homogeneous) countries in this research?

3. What is the relationship between citizen’s interest in public life and media system? are they independent from each other? can media renew people’s interest in public life?

4. What effect can market oriented media with decision making power in the hand of private have on the quality of future democracy?