MEDIA

The Irish broadcast media sector is regulated by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI), which was established in October 2009 following the enactment of the Broadcasting Act 2009. The BAI took over the work previously undertaken by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.
The BAI is charged with: “ensuring that the number and categories of broadcasting services made available in the state best serve the needs of the people, bearing in mind their languages and traditions and their religious, ethical and cultural diversity;
ensuring that the democratic values enshrined in the constitution, especially those relating to rightful liberty of expression, are upheld; (and) providing for open and pluralistic broadcasting services.”
Radio Telefis Éireann (RTÉ) operates the largest TV and radio stations. RTÉ is a state-owned public service broadcaster, and a nonprofit organization. It is financed by revenue from the mandatory TV license, as well as by advertising. It claims to be “Ireland’s cross-media leader, providing comprehensive and cost-effective free-to-air television, radio and online services, which are of the highest quality and are impartial, in accordance with RTÉ’s statutory obligations.”
Since 1988, RTÉ has faced competition from privately owned radio and television stations. RTÉ devotes a significant proportion of TV and radio air time to news and commentary on current affairs and political issues. It also undertakes original investigative journalism. In addition, the privately owned TV and radio stations have to devote specified proportions of airtime to current affairs and public service programs.
The main stations produce daily high-quality information programs analyzing government decisions and provide forums for in-depth analysis of current affairs, as well as outlets for public views and grievances. These programs have been influential in eliciting reactions and responses from politicians.

The mass media’s treatment of government decisions and policy is accurate and informative. The two largest broadcasting channels, NRK and TV2, both produce broad-ranging evening news programs that typically devote considerable space and time to governmental and political affairs. Both channels also regularly (almost daily) broadcast debates and discussions on current affairs.
Statistics show news and political debates to have a high number of viewers. Both large television organizations have recently strengthened their news coverage, in TV2’s case by establishing a new news channel, and in NRK’s case by reforming NRK2 into a news and facts channel. Political news is frequently featured on TV’s popular Friday night infotainment shows. The leading radio channels, NRK and to a lesser extent P4, also devote considerable time to political news.

Together with Norway and Japan, Sweden ranks as one of countries with the highest consumption of newspapers. Unlike other media, newspaper ownership is dispersed and there is a good coverage across the country. The public service company from the start and up until the 1980s controlled TV and radio. In the 1990s, the media market was partially deregulated and today there is widespread competition between public and private media. The consensus view seems to be that this has not improved quality; if anything, quality has deteriorated somewhat.
Politics and government activities and decisions receive a lot of attention. Both the public service company and at least some of its private competitors have both news shows and more in-depth programs covering politics and government. That having been said, there is a tendency in the media to use the “vox populi” strategy, i.e. asking the man on the street, rather than interviewing experts when commenting on political news.

Radio and TV programming is of high quality in Switzerland. With very few exceptions, radio reports are reliable and analyses done on an independent basis in a professional way. There is a tendency toward infotainment and personalization of politics on some TV programs.

The main TV and radio stations in the United Kingdom, especially those that run under a public charter such as the BBC, provide an extensive array of high-quality news services. Government decisions feature prominently in this programming, and information about and analysis of government decisions is both extensive and held to a high standard. There is substantial competition for viewers, in particular between the BBC, SKY and Channel 4, and in addition to news programs, all provide in-depth analysis programs on politics and policy in a variety of formats. The “Today” program on BBC Radio 4 is well-known for its highbrow political analysis and scrutiny, and often sets the tone for political debates. However, there are also news and magazine shows on other more popular radio channels.

The style of interview on these programs is often explicitly nondeferential, and sometimes even confrontational, which is justified by the need to hold politicians and especially government ministers to account.

The state-owned ORF (Austrian Broadcasting System), which is modeled in principle on the BBC, is the country’s dominant TV and radio broadcasting system. It is required to fulfill certain functions, which includes providing a pluralism of (“objective”) information and educational programming (e.g., independent films, opera and theater).
The legal requirement of “objectivity” leads to a permanent dispute over whether the ORF complies with this rule. Parties, especially those in opposition, are repeatedly tempted to argue that the ORF violates objectivity by showing a certain (especially pro-government) bias. As a result, the election of the ORF’s Director General (for a period of four years) is a highly politicized affair, even if this is not a decision made directly by the government but by an independent body (Stiftungsrat).
In comparison with private broadcasters, the ORF provides more information, that is generally in-depth and of high quality.

Canada’s main TV and radio stations produce a mix of infotainment and quality information programs. Public broadcasters, including the CBC and provincial TV channels such as TV Ontario (TVO), provide a minimum of five to seven hours per week of in-depth information on government decisions, and often more. Examples of such programs include the TVO’s The Agenda and CBC’s The House. Private broadcasters, especially the Canadian Parliamentary Access Channel (CPAC), also provide analysis of government decisions.

By providing a continuous flow of information and background analysis, the main TV and radio stations in Finland offer substantive in-depth information on decisions taken by the government. This provision takes different forms, like inserts in regular news programs, special features, debates between proponents of conflicting views, debates between representatives of government and opposition, regular broadcasts of government hearings in parliament, and so on. Empirical information about program volume is not available, but subtracting for “infotainment programs,” between five and seven hours a week is a rough estimate.

Substantive, in-depth information on decisions taken by the government requires several structural prerequisites. First and foremost worth mentioning is the plurality and heterogeneity of television channels (see Media Pluralism), which is further enhanced by the availability of satellite channels including BBC World, Al-Jazeera, CNN, CNBC Europe and so on.
Public TV and radio broadcasters generally offer in-depth reports on the political process. The two main public television broadcasters, ARD – along with its affiliated regional channels – and ZDF, accounted for 42.9% of the total television market . That substantial market share has in fact declined in recent years, forcing the public broadcasters’ head editors to copy the private channels’ successful “infotainment” and “politainment” formats. Nevertheless, with regard to international standards, ARD and ZDF in particular offer citizens the opportunity to obtain a relatively deep knowledge of political decision-making. There are also one public and two private channels that specialize in the provision of information, which together have a market share of 3%. Journalists’ organizations are trying to improve the quality of journalism, which has its deficiencies. Investigative journalism serves as a watchdog when it uncloaks scandals and malpractices in politics or economics. While editors in places such as the United States deploy substantial monetary and personnel resources for that purpose, German journalists are at best limited in their efforts and lack investigative tenacity (cf. Nagel 2007; Deutschlandfunk report). Volker Lilienthal, a journalist and media scholar, described the issue as follows: “Journalists are often too credulous and rely on statements of politicians and lobbyists in press conferences. The critical assessment of sources is underdeveloped and often leads to journalistic failures. Journalists are basically cheating the audience, because they cannot see the bigger picture” (Internetsource Deutschlandfunk; own translation).

The NHK public broadcasting station traditionally provides ample and in-depth information on policy issues. It had a near-monopoly on this role until the 1970s. Since that time, the major private broadcasting networks have also moved into this field, while trying to make the provision of information entertaining. NHK dominates the 7 p.m. news slot and also provides a long news program at 9 p.m., in addition to its widely seen morning programs (“Ohayô Nihon”). Private broadcasters have various interesting programs in the 11 p. m. slot. TV Asahi´s “Sunday Project” and NHK´s “Nichiyo Toron” are examples of a tendency to present high-profile information and serious policy-related talk shows on Sundays. NHK also operates a news/speech-based radio program (Radio 1). It is difficult to determine the extent to which TV-based information has been influential with respect to political developments and policy-making. This is certainly the case when political content can be combined with powerful pictures or video footage. In the early 1990s, TV Asahi´s Sunday Project famously and repeatedly featured a group of three younger LDP politicians (nicknamed YKK), among them Yunichiro Koizumi, and it is said that his publicity rose remarkably through this exposure. In recent years, the appearance of a drunken Japanese finance minister in February 2009 during a televised interview in Rome contributed significantly to the public´s disillusionment with the LDP.

Dutch television and radio stations produce on a daily basis high-quality information programs analyzing government decisions. The main public news channel, NOS, is required to provide 15 hours of reporting on political issues every week. On the radio, the First Channel is tasked with providing primarily information. In recent years, the scope of the First Channel within society has been decreasing. This is not surprising since new media (i.e., the Internet) have grown at the expense of more traditional media and are becoming more influential in the provision of news. Strikingly, parliamentary debates are no longer publicly broadcasted on television. Nonetheless, NOS broadcasts Politiek 24, a digital television channel on the Internet that contains live streams of public debates, analyses, background information and a daily political show.

The chair of parliament has recently criticized the media for its lack of investigative reporting on public debates. Journalists are said to report only on issues for which they expect to attract a large amount of public attention rather than report on politically important issues. The Netherlands has increasingly developed the features of a mediacracy, a democracy governed by those who exercise power over the media in order to influence the populace. For example, a highly unflattering interview of the minister for housing, residential areas and integration was broadcast on public television channels and resulted in her resignation.
This, in turn, influences politicians who act strategically in order to attract journalists. Politicians now more than ever have to react to short-term issues in order to get attention by journalists instead of focusing on the content of political issues that attract less attention.

The Council for Culture, Committee Media is tasked with providing recommendations on issues relating to culture and media to the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science every four years. The Council is also involved in the evaluation of public broadcasting and concession provision to channels. There is a performance contract with national government. The public broadcasting agency fears the performance agreement will lead to an increase of unwanted recommendations. Recently, the Council expressed concerns about the increasing influence of politics on news provision and media diversification among public channels. The worries are partly due to the loss of duties paid by citizens for accessing public television and radio broadcasts (kijk- en luistergeld). Other concerns relate to the growing number of public channels competing against each other within a limited amount of broadcasting time. The emphasis on news provision among public channels is fading as they aim to meet the goals of increasing their viewing figures, which entails a diversification of content.

Not all TV and radio stations produce high-quality information programs, but TV One and Radio New Zealand provide excellent and regular evaluation of government decisions. TV One has four news programs per day, each lasting between 30 minutes to one hour. TVNZ 7, a station established in March 2008, supports programming with about 30% news programs.

Reporting and discussion within the mass media concerning government decisions and policy varies between the various types of media. In the commercial electronic media, reporting tends to be superficial, although the government does go to considerable lengths to try and improve the quality of information by having ministers and the prime minister regularly appear on talkback radio shows, for example. The Liberal government from 1996 - 2007 was particularly effective at this type of media use, and the Labor government elected in 2007 has also emphasized the use of talkback radio to disseminate its policies to the electorate.

In the publicly funded electronic media, there is considerably more discussion and debate about political issues, which is generally of a high quality. The situation in the newspapers is similar to the electronic media, with the popular newspapers providing superficial coverage and the quality broadsheets providing balanced, in-depth coverage and discussion.

Television news programs provide a relatively reasonable level of information, with greater insight on content and lower personalization than in Italy or France, for example. Almost all television channels dedicate large amounts of time on weekends to political debates, typically on Sundays around noon, which are widely watched. There is no national or federal broadcasting company; media has been fully federalized. Programs dedicated to “infotainment” are more represented on Dutch-speaking rather than on French-speaking channels, but there are relatively few of such programs overall. Similarly, radio programs offer reasonable coverage, partially due to the large number of state-owned (but politically plural) radio stations.
Overall, media from each linguistic community focus mostly on their own community, with little attention paid to (and little in-depth analysis on) the events, personalities and perceptions in the other linguistic community. This has however improved somewhat in 2009 and 2010, with deliberate attempts (mostly from the two public companies, VRT and RTBF) to provide broadcasts examining the views of the “other side” of the country.

The main TV and radio stations provide daily news programs and some deeper discussion and analysis programs on a weekly basis. However, much of the commentary is superficial, and debates are usually structured to represent the views of the main political parties. There are very few presenters capable of asking searching questions of politicians. The quality of information on government decisions has improved with the digitalization process. Czech TV set up CT24, a channel dedicated to news, which also broadcasts on the Internet and offers continual analysis of domestic and international events. The Czech Republic’s commercial media sector tends to eschew in-depth analysis of current affairs and instead follows an infotainment or scandal-driven news agenda.

The media is, as in other democracies, rather important. Some have argued that the media constitute a fourth power, next to the legislative, executive and judiciary powers in modern democracies; and that journalists play the role of citizen advocate vis-à-vis public authorities. The media partly have power, through editorial decisions, not to cover certain stories, yet obviously have to be selective. Like media outlets elsewhere, the Danish media shows a tendency to make the news easier for the public to relate to by simplifying or personalizing the stories reported, and emphasizing an element of conflict. In editorial decisions about who or what is covered, there appears to be a tendency to favor top politicians and government representatives, as if what such actors have to say is considered more interesting. Weaker actors, such as immigrant representatives or ethnic minorities, get less coverage, although immigration stories have become important and now form part of daily news coverage.

Apart from daily news programs, television and radio stations offer more analytical programs where issues can be analyzed more in depth. Some of these programs can be quite informative. It is worth mentioning that the education of journalists has been improved in recent years.

Overall it is fair to say that the Danish media covers national news better than international news, including issues regarding the European Union.

Iceland’s main TV and radio stations provide fairly substantive in-depth information on government decisions. Radio analysis typically tends to be deeper than that found on television. The small size of the market limits the financial resources of TV stations. Critical analysis of government policies by independent observers, experts and journalists is a fairly recent phenomenon in Iceland. The Special Investigation Commission (SIC) report has a separate chapter on the mass media before and during the economic collapse in 2008. The report criticizes the mass media in general for not having been critical enough in their coverage of the Icelandic banks and other financial institutions during the pre-bust boom. The report argues on the basis of several content analyses that media coverage of the banks was to a large extent biased toward the banks’ own worldviews. This was likely associated with the fact that the owners of the banks also owned the main newspapers and the main private TV station.

Government decisions are widely covered by the country’s main TV and radio stations. TV and radio journalists often refer to, and make use of, the in-depth information provided in the print media. The quality of the public programs has suffered from the pro-PiS bias of the public stations, their worsening financial situation and a growing inclination towards infotainment. The two largest private TV stations, Polsat and TVN, broadcast mainly entertainment programs, but also feature several political information programs with well-known journalists and high-quality reportage. However, some of the most informative public and private programs on policy issues are broadcasted late in the evening, thus reaching only a small audience.

There are at least two daily news programs on all main TV stations that coincide with lunch and dinner prime time (that is to say 14:00/15:00 and 20:30/21:30). These are followed every day by close to 70% of the population. Even if TV channels have their political leanings, news programs are fairly objective and balanced, since it is not a common practice in Spanish TV journalism to mix opinion-based or “op-ed” statements along with information. Quite long “infotainment” debate programs are broadcast every workday morning, and some evenings as well. While political programs tend to be superficial on private TV stations (focusing on talk shows and polarized arguments rather than contextualized analysis or substantive reports), the public television (Televisión Española (TVE), a ratings leader that has gained much objectivity and political independence from the government since the mid 2000s) produces some high-quality programs, particularly during the weekends (although often relegated to time slots with relatively small audiences), analyzing government decisions, parliamentary affairs and international relations events. According to the most recent ratings as of the time of writing, pure news channels (TVE 24 horas and CNN+) are followed by only a 2% share of the total TV audience.
The main radio stations devote much more than seven hours a week to information on government decisions. Even if they are in general quite ideologically biased (with the participants in the radio debates blatantly biased in favor of or against the government), all main radio stations have a morning program combining background news and political debate (normally from 6:00 to 10:00), two afternoon/evening programs restricted to a straight news format (from 14:00 to 15:00 and from 20:00 to 21:00), and a late night one (from 22:00 to 24:00) which reproduces the mixed style of the morning programs with some in-depth information and much infotainment controversy. There are also daily radio programs of reasonable quality focused on business, and therefore on economic policy-making.

Mass media, notably the new morning (radio) and evening programs, offer quality information concerning government decisions. Other types of programs prefer political debates or infotainment and prominent personalities who are given a platform. Despite the existence of programs focusing on societal themes or new challenges, there is a lack of high-quality background programs, which would analyze and explain the impact of government decisions. Entertainment attracts more audience numbers and by way of consequence more publicity, especially in the private sector. While this phenomenon is less marked on public channels, it is also noticeable and in line with the decline in interest for politics and public affairs observed in many countries.

Television time (both public and private) allocated to political themes is quite substantial throughout the year, averaging more than seven hours per week. A large part of this time is devoted to debates and talk shows involving politicians, journalists and experts, and to covering the most important aspects of current political controversies. However, detailed, in-depth analysis of government decisions is much rarer, and debates tend to focus on the personality-driven dimensions of power politics.

Media reporting analyses government decisions poorly and superficially, very rarely engaging in in-depth policy analysis. Some policy analysis is carried out by in-house or guest expert commentators (often academics), but in-depth journalistic work on policy issues is almost nonexistent. In a poll of leading journalists (editors, coordinators and directors of newspapers and other media outlets), the overwhelming majority (70%) said the media coverage of the 2009 legislative campaign period focused predominantly on political controversies, as opposed to 30% that thought there was a sufficient balance between coverage of controversies and party programs. None of the poll respondents considered the campaign coverage to have been predominantly focused on parties’ policies and programs. Given that election periods are high points in political coverage, this is quite indicative of the lack of in-depth analysis by the Portuguese media.

There are huge differences between the various private and state-run TV channels with respect to coverage of government policy and politics. Whereas infotainment clearly overshadows analytical reporting on most private channels with high audience ratings, the state-run TRT (Turkish Radio and Television) has developed a number of news formats, including political talk shows, foreign policy reporting, and political and historical documentaries, which collectively provide politically balanced and comprehensive information.
However, very few radio or TV broadcasts offer in-depth analysis of government policies and their effects. This is basically due to the government control of the state-run stations, and the ratings objectives of the private channels. Providing in-depth political analyses may result in a private media organization being included on the government’s blacklist.
The third TRT channel broadcasts parliamentary debates live, and special programs regularly discuss the relationship of Turkey with the European Union as well as the reforms associated with Turkey’s EU accession process. In the period under review, TRT also introduced a special Kurdish language channel. TRT has overcome its former constraints in terms of subjects and approaches, which had been imposed by state ideology. Public TV has started to provide more in-depth programs, which rely mainly on invited experts’ comments. However, in some cases this may have the effect of providing disinformation. The state-run TRT broadcasting service does not provide a pluralism of opinions, and always takes a pro-government stance.

Reputable news reporting and news analysis programs are available on radio and TV networks. The information quality of talk shows varies, ranging from infotainment to the serious discussion of issues with experts frequently involved. The emphasis is on an adversarial dialogue. C-Span 1-2 offers in-depth coverage of political proceedings in Congress and of political events in the wider sense, including proceedings at think tanks and academic institutions. A majority of citizens obtain most of their news from television rather than newspapers, and the quality of the national news broadcasts has been in decline, as the emphasis on human interest stories and entertainment has grown and the resources for news gathering have been severely cut.
The most worrying trend for some analysts and commentators is the decline of journalistic standards, especially in certain right-leaning media such as Fox News and some radio stations. These media exhibit pervasive ideological bias and often reckless if not intentional inaccuracy – tendencies that are not confined to identifiable commentary or opinion segments, but also affect news reporting. Their broadcasts amount to outright, polemical campaigning for or against certain political positions and their advocates, without regard for professional standards. Of course, the United States has had polarized, partisan media before (especially in the 19th century) and there are counterweights to the hard-line conservative media, such as the left-leaning MSNBC. Influential late-night comedy-news programs, such as the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, sometimes fulfill a counterweight function despite their role as infotainment shows. Nevertheless, the conservative media are significantly more prominent and influential, with Fox News by far the dominant cable TV news network. In any case, the polarization of the media both reflects and reinforces the general polarization of American political discourse. It may tend to enhance citizens’ attention to and participation in politics, at the cost of creating deeper, more severe conflicts. It is certainly not conducive to consensus building and deliberation.

The media cover government decisions only in a rudimentary manner. Public and private TV and radio stations alike largely limit themselves to infotainment and suffer from political bias. The sharp polarization of political life has favored a replacement of in-depth analysis by a preoccupation with scandals, be they real or alleged.

Apart from some local stations, Luxembourg has only one television program that meets professional standards. This program, broadcast by RTL, consists of a core broadcast of one hour, comprised of a 30-minute news magazine with some additional features (e.g., sports, youth items), and is repeated throughout the day. Though privately owned and oriented mainly toward ”infotainment,” a convention with the government imposes a minimum standard, especially with regard to national information services. Recently a five-minute news flash in French was added, while the main news has been broadcast in Luxembourgish with French and German subtitles since 2007.

Radio broadcasting is still dominated by RTL but has diversified. Its small competitors include a public radio station (Radio 100.7), which has about a 10% share of the audience among Luxembourgers over the age of 18.

Parliament has its own channel, called ChamberTV, to broadcast public sessions, and a very modest television program (one hour per week repeated in loop). Even if its audience is modest (5.2%), the impact of this media presence is probably more significant than that of the parliamentary newspaper, entitled “Chamber-bliettchen,” which consists mainly of the verbatim transcripts of the proceedings, and is distributed free of charge to every household in Luxembourg.

Much broadcast and television programming is rather light. This reflects popular demand, and the fact that education levels in Mexico are not particularly high. Unusually, in Mexico the best news programs tend to be broadcast in the morning, with much less heavy coverage at night. However, most news coverage is accurate and reasonably balanced. It is possible to become reasonably well informed about major national and international events through the Mexican broadcast media.

The quality of media reporting has declined. The public TV and radio programs have lost market shares. Moreover, the commercialization of nationwide broadcasters has had a negative impact on public interest news, current-affairs coverage and public stations overall. One important problem is the quality of journalists. The number of highly trained and educated journalists is decreasing, meaning that many journalists lack policy knowledge and the requisite critical distance.

Measured against the three-dimensional understanding of democratic media that takes into account not only freedom of the press/media, but also media pluralism and media quality, the main problem with Korean media is the low quality of many media outlets in terms of their ability to serve as facilitator of a public sphere or “civic culture.” Part of the problem here is the country’s strong commercialism and associated weakness in political journalism. The main TV programs produce a mix of infotainment and quality information about government policies. Deeper analysis of information is rare on television, but takes place more often on public radio stations such as KBS 1. In the last two years, TV and radio organizations have shifted their programming in the direction of entertainment and infotainment. Political programs have either been replaced or their teams shuffled. Beginning in 2009, President Lee has instituted a biweekly radio address in which he explains government policies from his point of view.

Although locally produced news programs are generally of high quality and draw large audiences, particularly through radio, newspapers and especially the main public TV stations report tabloid news, and employ bold headlines and techniques of strong popular and entertainment appeal. Furthermore, statistics released by the National TV Commission (Consejo Nacional de Televisión) show that on average, less than five hours a week per channel or radio station is spent discussing in-depth political information.

The country’s main TV and radio stations provide daily infotainment programs early in the morning (6 am to 9 am), and news programs in the late afternoon (2 pm or 3 pm) and in the evening at 8 pm. More infotainment, plus a few political debate programs are also broadcast at 10 pm or later at night, two or three times a week. With very few exceptions, the news programs focus and thrive on sensationalist news and last for a long time (sometimes over an hour), since they involve not only reporting on current issues but also live commentary by invited journalists, politicians and media celebrities. The few existing information and debate programs typically involve government and opposition MPs or party cadres known for their tendency to provoke and fuel personal or ideological disputes rather than engage in substantive policy discussions.
Anchorpersons (most of whom are anchormen) are not well informed about the topics they address, and rarely use factual knowledge to structure the agenda of their programs or the questions they pose to their interlocutors. Generally, the tendency of anchormen is to dispute the government’s decisions and to reinforce a culture of distrust toward all political and administrative institutions. Discussions allow or even incite program participants to interrupt each other constantly in a way that completely marginalizes the information and analysis content, thus impeding the presentation of competing viewpoints.
In sum, a culture of opposition to every government decision often prevails among commentators, such as journalists and opposition party cadres. The available infotainment, news and information programs do not enable viewers to gain in-depth information either about the precise content of government’s decisions or about the parameters of the ensuing debate. In other words, except for confirming the almost instinctual drive of interest groups and opposition parties to reject almost all government decisions in toto, it is difficult to deduce exactly where parties and interest groups stand on specific aspects of government decisions.