Social Democracy or Corporate Libertarianism? Conflicting Media Policy Narratives in the Wake of Market Failure

Abstract

Assuming that crucial public services should not be left entirely to market‐driven forces, American policymakers attempted to establish safeguards for news media. An examination of conflicting narratives within postwar policy debates suggests that the US evaded this path largely because of a concerted backlash—often in the form of red‐baiting—encouraged by threatened newspaper and broadcast industries. Many lessons, parallels, and forgotten antecedents for current American media policy can be drawn from the postwar 1940s. Thus, it is instructive to explore how these earlier debates were framed, particularly in response to what might be referred to as “market failure.” Given the worsening journalism crisis and other persistent media policy challenges, this analysis of market failure holds much contemporary relevance.

Media Power and Plurality

“…These findings perhaps substantiate recent scholarship in the field of media policy studies (see above all Pickard, 2013) that found that when these dominant narratives are accepted as conventional wisdom, they go unchallenged (2013, p. 339). When media ownership is concentrated, policy narratives are defined by established incumbent players, becoming dominant and hegemonic.…”

“…This in turn is presented as a disinterested response to technologically and economically inevitable conditions. Pickard (2013) suggests that a possible means of achieving reform would be to uncover 'recurring themes, contradictions and tensions' (p. 341) in the dominant narrative. Since the neo-liberal narrative presents policy change as a 'product of objective reality' (Kunzler, 2012, p. 56), perhaps the only way forward is to unmask the illusory nature of this objectivity and those 'common sense' solutions which ultimately work to disempower citizens and further enrich Big Media.…”

From praxis to pragmatism: Junior scholars and policy impact

“…When policy impact is defined solely as "policy change", the power of policymakers to act as gatekeepers may seem insurmountable. Under the paradigm of "impact = change," policymakers, regulators, and major firms disproportionately hold the power to either maintain the status quo, enact change (often through deregulation), fail to act (what Pickard (2013) calls "policy failure"), or fail to communicate. These dynamics align with Lukes's (2005) second and third faces of power.…”

“Random acts of journalism?”: How citizen journalists tell the news in Sweden

“…In other words, not only is the financial stability of the market for journalism shaken, the very notion of what professional journalism is/should be is challenged (Singer, 2003; Singer and Ashman, 2009). Repeatedly, it has been pointed out that industrial journalism has failed in its task of providing truthful and relevant news and that it has not managed to engage the public in the sort of active participation that is required in order for a democracy to thrive (see, for example, Pickard, 2013). Financial problems are causing many news-providers to cut down or shut down their enterprises: According to Nichols and McChesney (2009), “newspapers, as we have known them, are disintegrating and are possibly on the verge of extinction” (p. 1).…”