Media dependency: Mass media as sources of information in the democratizing countries of Central and Eastern Europe

Democratization

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 162-183

  Loveless, Matthew ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Central and Eastern Europe; Democratization; Mass media; Political socialization

Indexed keywords

EID: 38649100312     PISSN: 13510347     EISSN: 1743890X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13510340701770030     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Mihai Coman, 'Developments in Journalism Theory About Media, '"Transitions" in Central and Eastern Europe', Journalism Studies Vol. 1, No. 1 (2000), p. 35.
2. Peter Gross, Entangled Evolutions: Media and Democratization in Eastern Europe (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), p. 90.
3. See Katrin Voltmer and Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, 'New Democracies Without Citizens? Mass Media and Democratic Orientations - A Four Country Comparison', in K. Voltmer (ed.), Mass Media and Political Communication in New Democracies (London: Routledge, 2006) pp. 228-45.
4. S.J. Ball-Rokeach and M. L. DeFleur, 'A Dependency Model of Mass Media Effects', Communications Research, Vol. 3, No. 1 (1976), pp. 3-21.
5. Lucian Pye, Communication and Political Development (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963).
6. Voltmer and Schmitt-Beck (note 3), p. 231.
7. Ball-Rokeach and DeFleur (note 4)
8. see also C. H. Eyal, J. P. Winter, and W. F. DeGeorge, 'The Concept of Time Frame in Agenda-Setting', in G. C. Wilhoit and M. McCombs (ed.), Mass Communication Review Yearbook: Volume 2 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981), pp. 212-18.
9. While I am unable to directly test whether mass media serve as an alternative to parties as information providers, I can demonstrate that deliberate media consumption is prominent in these countries and therefore - in the language of media dependency - likely to ultimately exert a relevant but ignored influence in the period of democratization and the process of political socialization.
10. Voltmer and Schmitt-Beck (note 3).
11. Ibid., see section on theories on malaise and mobilization, p. 232-4.
12. Ibid., p. 234.
13. Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, 'Political Communication Effects: The Impact of Mass Media and Personal Conversations on Voting', in Frank Esser and Barbara Pfetsch (eds), Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 305.
14. Lee B. Becker and Charles D. Whitney, 'Effects of Media Dependencies: Audience Assessment of Government', Communication Research, Vol. 7, No. 1 (1980), pp. 95-120.
15. See also M. Mark Miller and Stephen D. Reese, 'Media Dependency as Interaction: Effects of Exposure and Reliance on Political Activity and Efficacy', Communication Research,Vol. 9, No. 2 (1982), pp. 227-48.
16. Craig Leonard Brians and Martin P. Wattenberg, 'Campaign Knowledge and Salience: Comparing Reception from TV Commercials, TV News and Newspapers', American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 40, No. 1 (1996), pp. 171-93.
17. Holli A. Semetko, 'The Media', in Lawrence LeDuc, Richard G. Niemi, and Pippa Norris (eds), Comparing Democracies. Elections and Voting in Global Perspective (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996), p. 270.
18. Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Touchstone, 2000).
19. See also Stephen H. Chaffee and Stacey Frank Kanihan, 'Learning about Politics from Mass Media', Political Communication, Vol. 14 (1997), pp. 421-30.
20. Denis McQuail, Mass Communication Theory: An Introduction (London: Sage Publications, 1987), p. 20.
21. Kenneth Newton and Malcolm Brynin, 'The National Press and Party Voting in the UK', Political Studies, Vol. 49, No. 2 (2001), pp. 265-85.
22. Kenneth Newton, 'Mass Media Effects: Mobilization or Media Malaise?', British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 29, No. 4 (1999), pp. 577-99.
23. David H. Weaver and Judith M. Buddenbaum, 'Newspapers and Television. A Review of Research on Uses and Effects', in G. C. Wilhoit and Harold de Bock (eds), Mass Communication Review Yearbook (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1980), pp. 371-80.
24. Also Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, 'Of Readers, Viewers, and Cat-Dogs', in Jan W. Van Deth (ed.), Comparative Politics: The Problem of Equivalence (London: Routledge, 1998), pp. 222-46.
25. Newton (note 19)
26. see also Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, 'Mass Communication, Personal Communication and Vote Choice: The Filter Hypothesis of Media Influence in Comparative Perspective', British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 33, No. 2 (2003), pp. 233-59.
27. Arthur H. Miller, Edie N. Goldenberg; and Lutz Erbring, 'Set-type Politics: The Impact of Newspapers on Public Confidence', American Political Science Review, Vol. 73, No. 1 (1979), pp. 67-84.
28. Thomas E. Nelson, Rosalee A. Clawson, and Zoe M. Oxley, 'Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and its Effect on Tolerance', American Political Science Review, Vol. 91, No. 3 (1997), pp. 567-83.
29. See also Jeffrey J. Mondak, 'Newspapers and Political Awareness', American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 39, No. 2 (1995), pp. 513-27.
30. Jens Kleinnijenhuis, 'Newspaper Complexity and the Knowledge Gap', European Journal of Communication, Vol. 6, No. 4 (1991), pp. 499-522.
31. David Altheide, 'Format and Symbols in TV Coverage of Terrorism in the United States and Great Britain', International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 2 (1987), pp. 161-76.
32. Thomas E. Patterson and Robert D. McClure, The Unseeing Eye: The Myth of Television Power in National Politics (New York: G. P. Putnam and Sons, 1976).
33. Chaffee and Kanihan (note 16), p. 425.
34. David Weaver and Dan Drew, 'Voter Learning in the 1992 Presidential Election: Did the "Nontraditional" Media and Debates Matter?', Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 72, No. 1 (1995), pp. 7-17.
35. These annual mass public surveys were originally funded by Radio Free Europe (Audience and Opinion Research, now InterMedia) to measure the audience of foreign media broadcasts. Bulgaria: Conducted by CSD (Centre for the Study of Democracy); face-to-face interviews; raw sample size: 2,031; fieldwork 17 May-31 May 1997. Czech Republic: Conducted by AISA; face-to-face interviews; raw sample size: 1,003; fieldwork 12 May-24 June 1997. Hungary: Conducted by MEMRB, Budapest; face-to-face interviews; raw sample size: 2021; fieldwork 8 March-25 March 1996. Poland: Conducted by CEM (Market and Public Opinion Research Institute); face-to-face interviews; raw sample size: 2,004; fieldwork 13 May-10 June 1997. Romania: Conducted by IMAS (Institute of Marketing and Surveys), Bucharest; face-to-face interviews; raw sample size: 2124; fieldwork 21 May-4 June 1997. Slovakia: Conducted by AISA; face-to-face interviews; raw sample size: 1,118; fieldwork 2 May-2 June 1997.
36. See Measurement Appendix. Internet use is not included as those self-reporting use of the internet in 1996-1997 are a tiny proportion of the sample: Bulgaria, 1 per cent; Czech Republic, 7 per cent; Hungary 5 per cent ('use email'); Poland, 4 per cent; Romania, 2 per cent; Slovakia, 5 per cent.
37. See Doris Graber, Mass Media and American Politics (Washington DC: CQ Press, 1993), p. 202-8.
38. See also John Zaller, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
39. Cross-sectional correlations are also useful as a first-order test of causal hypotheses because if we find no correlation between information-seeking and media use, the original proposition - the theory of media dependency - would be difficult to maintain. See Chaffee and Kanihan (note 16).
40. Schmitt-Beck (note 21), p. 241.
41. Jay G. Blumler and Elihu Katz (eds), The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1974).
42. Peter Golding and Graham Murdock, 'Unequal Information: Access and Exclusion in the New Communications Marketplace', in M. Ferguson (ed.), New Communication Technologies and the Public Interest (London: Sage Publications, 1986), pp. 71-82.
43. Zaller (note 31), p. 23. Individuals' predispositions approximate features of Zaller's R-A-S model as his 'reception axiom' estimates the general levels of information (or interest) and his 'acceptance axiom' is a measure of ideological congruency with messages received.
44. Schmitt-Beck (note 21), p. 235.
45. I do not have the ability to determine the like-mindedness of in-group discussion; yet, the presence of social communication allows us the opportunity control for its intervention.
46. Robert M. Entman, 'How the Media Affect What People Think: An Information Processing Approach', Journal of Politics, Vol. 51, No. 2 (1989), pp. 347-70.
47. See also Peter Dahlgren, 'Ideology and Information in the Public Sphere', in J. D. Slack (ed.), The Ideology of the Information Age (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co., 1987), pp. 24-46.
48. While it may seem relevant to include Western democracies for comparison, the theory of media dependency speaks specifically to countries with emerging polities. Or put another way, it is because these are democratizing countries that we can detect the effect of media dependency. The variation among the countries in transition is sufficient to test that countries further from democratic consolidation have higher linkages between information-seeking and media use than more consolidated countries.
49. See Larry Diamond, Developing Democracy - Toward Consolidation (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999).
50. This distinction has also been introduced by Jakubowicz's examination of media institutions in CEE (Karol Jakubowicz, 'Virtuous vs. Vicious Circles: Systemic Transformation and Media Change in Central and Eastern Europe', Paper presented at the Democratization and Media Conference, Bellagio, Italy, 2001). He argued that it was relevant to separate Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic from Albania, Macedonia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania, claiming that in the first group the institutional reforms were more transparent and oriented towards liberal market practices while the second group had struggled with reform. Other regional analyses have suggested the same.
51. This raises the issue of Slovakia being an exceptional rather than representative case of 'less consolidated'. Unlike Bulgaria and Romania, Slovakia benefited from early co-development as Czechoslovakia. However, political, economic, and media reform were all handicapped for a time following the 1994 election victory of Vladimir Meciar, leader of the Movement for Democratic Slovakia (HZDS). The following years were characterised by more restrictive legislation for independent, albeit still nascent, media. While the process of liberalization was stalled rather than resisted from the outset of reform, this backsliding pulled Slovakia into the second tier along with Bulgaria and Romania.
52. 'How much confidence do you have in media?' 1 None, 2 Not very much, 3 Some, 4 A great deal, from InterMedia Surveys, 1996-1997.
53. Katrin Voltmer, 'The Mass Media and the Dynamics of Political Communication in Processes of Democratization', in K. Voltmer (ed.), Mass Media and Political Communication in New Democracies (London: Routledge, 2006), pp. 1-20.
54. Gross (note 2); see also Jeffrey J. Mondak, 'Media and Tolerance: Empirical Evidence of Mixed Effects', in D. L. Paletz, K. Jakubowicz, and P. Novosel (eds), Business as Usual? Continuity and Change in Central and Eastern European Media (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2003), pp. 353-84.
55. Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963).
56. Schmitt-Beck (note 20), p. 227.
57. Zaller (note 31), p. 43.
58. Robert Lane, Political Thinking and Consciousness (Glencoe, NY: Free Press, 1969), p. 95.
59. Schmitt-Beck (note 12), p. 300.
60. Examples of comparative political communications moving in the appropriate direction include, Daniel C. Hallin and Paolo Mancini, Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)
61. and Frank Esser and Barbara Pfetsch, Comparing Political Communication Theories, Cases, and Challenges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).