Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics (2004), by Daniel C. Hallin and Paolo Mancini, is a seminal study in the field of international comparative media system research. The study compares media systems of 18 Western democracies including nine Northern European countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland), five Southern European countries (France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain) and four Atlantic countries (Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, and the United States).
The conceptual framework developed in this study turned out to be an important contributionQuotes for illustration:
„[T]his work, which is being acknowledged as a central text in an emerging subfield.” (Jones, 2008, p. 128)
“Comparing Media Systems is, indeed, a path-breaking volume that will serve as a model for today’s comparative communication analyses.” (Graber, 2006, p. 935)
“What is not open to speculation is the significance of this work. Hallin and Mancini’s pio-neering effort will define comparative media research for years to come.” (Patterson, 2007, p. 331)
“A major recent contribution to the comparative research tradition “ (Hardy, 2008, p. 17) to the field of the comparative media systems research because it provides a systematic and applicable approach to analyze differences and similarities of the relationships between media and politics.
Since the publication of Hallin and Mancini's book in 2004, there has been a vivid academic discussion (see ), particularly with regards to the adequacy of their suggested framework for understanding variations between different systems around the world, located within different cultural, social, and/or political contexts. As a consequence, a flourishing progression within the field of comparative media system research can be stated.
Contextualization
Comparative media system research The field of comparative media system research has a long tradition reaching back to the study Four Theories of the Press by Siebert, Peterson and Schramm from 1956. This book was the origin of the academic debate on comparing and classifying media systems,cf. Hardy (2008), p. 11. whereas it was normatively biasedcf. Hardy (2008), p. xv. and strongly influenced by the ideologies of the Cold War era.Siebert and his colleagues developed a normative classification of four ideal media systems: the libertarian, the social responsible, the Soviet Communist, and the authoritarian model. Consequently, the author’s typology referred to the then ideological segmentation of the world: a liberal democratic free world in the “West” (labeled the First World), a soviet-communist sphere (labeled the Second World), and authoritarian states (labeled the Third World) (cf. Hardy, 2008, p. 11). Though this approach has often been criticizedcf. Patterson (2007), p. 329. (e.g. because of its ethnocentricity, inconsistent structure, questionable typologies, or its scant empirical basis of the analysiscf. Hardy (2008), p. 12-13.), it was a starting point for following normative media theoriescf. Jackubowicz (2010), p. 2.As Hardy (2008) and Jakubowicz (2010) point out, there were additional and modifying developments of the original typologies (e.g. by Denis McQuail (1987), Raymond Williams (1968), or Robert G. Picard (1985)) and alternative schemas as well, which moved further away from the original typologies (e.g. J. Herbert Altschull (1984)). and the development of the field.
Comparative media system research has been subject to several changes since its establishment.cf. Jakubowicz (2010), p. 1. The number of categories to describe media systems grew and approaches got more complex. Another trend is that researchers factor in political systems more intensively to explain and compare media systems. A more fundamental development is the shift from normative to empirically based approaches.
There are still problems of comparative media studies in various countries which must be faced. The validity of the country sampling procedure is one problem, beside the adequate definition of the scope of the comparison to meet the specific national features of the cases, and the definition of adequate indicators as the basis for the comparison.cf. Sparks (2006), p. 24. Additionally, the developed models are still relatively static not being able to describe changes adequately, and online media have been largely neglected though their importance has been increasing since the late 1990s.cf. Jakubowicz (2010), p. 1.
However, comparative media system studies are an important instrument for contemporary communication phenomena under study. The comparative design is a bridge between traditional and nation-centered studies of media systems and new media as well as globalization perspectives.cf. Hardy (2008), p. 21. Jakubowicz points out that contemporarily comparative media system analyses are seen as the key approach to understand globalization processes of the media.cf. Jakubowicz (2010), p. 1.
Systematic classification of the approach Comparative media system research is one possible approach to study transnational and border-crossing communication processes worldwide. A very useful and heuristic systematization of the vast field of transnational and border-crossing communication comes from Wessler and Brüggemann (2012)cf. Wessler & Brüggemann (2012, in press). (see also Dimensions of analysis). According to this heuristic, the approach from Hallin and Mancini can be identified and localized as one specific combination of the components along these three dimensions of analysis. Their perspective of analysis is focused on a systematic comparison of media systems within Western democracies. Consequently, their level of analysis concentrates on media systems within the context of nation states. Their main objectives are media-politics relations primarily on the level of structures, but in addition to it, they consider all objects of analysis to gain an encompassing understanding of these relations.
Objectives Developing a unifying conceptual framework for comparing media systems was essential for Hallin and Mancini. They focused on theory building rather than testing theories, as the then prevailing Four Theories of the Press and its subsequent normative modifications showed deficiencies in adequately analyzing present media systems. Consequently, Hallin and Mancini focused on an empirical “by treating these systems not as abstract ideals but as concrete social formations that developed under particular historical conditions.”Hallin & Mancini (2012a), p. 1-2. Hallin and Mancini initially chose a “most similar systems”-design – that is, comparing systems which are quite similar according to their structures and functioning to understand in which aspects they differ from each other to discover specific characteristics of each single system. Following this design, they conceptualized dimensions containing particular variables to analyze similarities and differences between the 18 countries under study. Their objective was to find more or less coherent patterns within their sample which could possibly be condensed into ideal types in terms of Max Weber’s conception of ideal types. Since the dimensions and the resulting models cover specifically the media-politics relations of the Western world, Hallin and Mancini do not claim universal validity of their framework. Hence, it must be reconceptualized to meet the specific conditions of media-politics relations beyond the Western world.cf. Hallin & Mancini (2012b).
Hallin and Mancini’s framework Hallin and Mancini's conceptual frameworkThe dimensions that Hallin and Mancini use for their framework are originally not devised by them. They trace to then existing concepts (e.g. the dimension of political parallelism is initially developed by Colin Seymour-Ure (1974)) but they “go beyond earlier scholars in amplifying these dimensions and exploring their linkages” (Patterson, 2007, p. 329). 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 cf. Hallin & Mancini (2004), p. 22-26.
Political parallelism Political parallelism refers to the “fact that media in some countries have distinct political orientations, while media in other countries do not.”Hallin & Mancini (2004), p. 27. 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) cf. Hallin & Mancini (2004), p. 26-33.
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) cf. Hallin & Mancini (2004), p. 33-41.
Role of the state This dimension stresses the power the political system has in shaping the structure and functioning of a media system.cf. Hallin & Mancini (2004), p. 41-44. “But there are considerable differences in the extent of state intervention as well as in the forms it takes.”Hallin & Mancini (2004), p. 41. 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.”Hallin & Mancini (2004), p. 45.