民主模式与媒介批评 赵月枝 西蒙弗雷泽大学 加拿大国家研究教授

与上次讲座相关的文章 赵月枝：《传播政治经济学研究前沿与路径》，范敬宜、李彬（编），《马克思主义新闻观15讲》，北京：清华大学出版社， 2007， 页235-258。 赵月枝、邢国欣，《传播政治经济学》，刘曙明、洪浚浩（编），《传播学》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2007， 页511-538。

一、媒体批评 定义：按不同的民主模式对媒体表现进行系统检视与衡量的一个研究领域 媒体研究史上著名的例子: 广义媒体批评：面对整个媒体系统和结构 狭义媒体批评：根据“公认”的标准或规范对媒体内容进行系统检视与衡量 媒体研究史上著名的例子: 李普曼和Charles Mertz 对NYT 有关十月革命的报道的分析 Commission on Freedom of Press, 1947：一个自由与负责的报业 UNESCO sponsored “television traffic: a one way street?”／《一个世界，多种声音》

二、“民主是个好东西”,但什么是民主？ Basic Semiotics: Two dimensions of a sign Denotation Connotation 三种民主模式及相应的媒介批评

1. The Market Liberal Perspective on Media and Democracy Views democracy not as an end in itself, but as normally the best institutional arrangement to maintain political stability and individual rights, particularly economic rights of ownership, contract and exchange. Although market liberals often adopt a populist stance, their emphasis on private consumption rather than public virtue meshes with an elitist version of democracy, classically articulated by Schumpeter (1942). In this view, democracy is a procedure for selecting leaders, with citizen participation confined mainly to voting every few years -- essentially, the role of consumers in a political marketplace.

Media in this model are regarded basically as other industries, best left unregulated by government so as to respond to consumer preferences in the marketplace; The main civil role of media is to act as a watchdog on government, which is considered the main threat to individual freedom. If market liberal see a democratic deficit in Western media, they attribute it mainly to state intervention in the media sector (particularly public service broadcasting), and/or to the perceived leftist biases of journalists Problems: dismissal of public participation, lack of attention on private power

2. The Public Sphere Liberal Perspective on Media and Democracy Place higher value on citizen participation in public deliberation, and calls on the media to help constitute a public sphere -- "that realm of social life where the exchange of information and views on questions of common concern can take place so that public opinion can be formed“ Media's democratic roles include providing each significant group with a forum to articulate and develop its interests; facilitating the search for society-wide political consensus by being universally accessible and inclusive; and reconstituting private citizens as a public body in the form of public opinion

Many public sphere liberals perceive a malaise in contemporary European and American democracy -- declining voter participation, public mistrust and cynicism towards government, disconnection between politicians' and public's agendas, trivialization of political discourse Focus criticism on media practices, less on media structure: tabloidization and infotainment, the fragmentation of media audiences as channels proliferate undermined the cohesion of the public sphere, and facilitated a politics of division

Journalists' struggle for autonomy from politicians' "spin doctors" has driven them to a semi-adversarial stance, focussing on politicians' strategies and scandals rather than substantive policies. The public journalism movement in the US as an example to revitalize the media’s public sphere role. While public sphere liberals often favour such reform of media practices, they tend not to raise fundamental questions about media's market-oriented corporate structures, and still less the social and political order of capitalist liberal-democracies

3. The Radical Perspective on Media and Democracy If market liberals emphasize individual liberties and restrictions on government power, and public sphere liberals highlight public deliberation about policy, radical democrats add a third dimension -- a thoroughgoing view of democracy as not just a set of procedural rules or a form of government, but a type of society free of class and other forms of domination and a societal environment which nourishes developmental power -- everyone's equal right to the full development and use of their capabilities (C.B. McPherson, 1965, 1977), i.e, a free association of human beings in which “the free development of each individual is the condition for the free development of all”: “每个人的自由发展，是一切人的自由发展的条件。”

Such a standpoint seeks not just to reinvigorate representative democracy, but to promote more direct participation in decision-making, not only in politics, but also the economy and civil society. Radical democrats favour not only political equality, but also the more equitable distribution of cultural, social and economic resources. Regard power relations as antagonistic in societies with structured inequalities; even in prosperous capitalist democracies, political and economic elites may have interests in conflict with the subordinate population. Moreover, power is analyzed holistically: a democratic public sphere cannot be insulated from power hierarchies embedded in state, economy, gender and race; so long as they exist, they will tend to undermine equality of voice in the public sphere

Radical democrats endorse the watchdog and public sphere models in the previous two models. Moreover, they expect a democratic media system to counter-act power inequalities within the social order, and to enable horizontal communication between subordinate groups, including progressive social movements as agents of democratic renewal

三、以激进民主观为模式的媒介批评 俞可平: “民主最实质性的意义，就是人民的统治，人民的选择。” 但“人民”是分阶层和阶级的,因此问题核心在于民主与阶级的关系,或者说，是阶级社会里的民主问题 但是，我们如何面对“阶级”？ 本人相关文章：“国家、市场与社会: 从全球视野和批判角度审视中国传播与权力的关系” 《传播与社会学刊》2 (2007), pp. 23-50。 相关社会学观点，沈原：《市场、阶级与社会》（２００７:５－６）： “在改革前的近３０年中，“阶级”已经是一个被用滥的字眼。一提起“阶级”和“阶级斗争”，就难免使人联想起差不多与那个年代中每一个社会成员的个人遭遇，以及与整个民族的深重灾难联系在一起的大大小小、数不胜数的悲惨事件。但是，转型社会学还是需要指出两点：第一，那个时期所言说的“阶级”在很大程度上是一个政治话语虚构的范畴，而不是马克思所说的“阶级”；第二，随着市场转型，马克思所说的阶级确实出现了。因此，尽管人们在主观上对“阶级”颇有忌讳，但仍须将之作为一个社会学认知的范畴凸现出来。不讲阶级和阶级分析恐怕很难称为马克思主义学说。”

1.历史追溯：报业商业化和市场自由主义民主传播模式的阶级本质 英国历史上对出版印花税的废除以及对报业市场的开放不仅仅是一种简单的经济行为, 更不单是自由主义民主新闻理论叙事中所说的新闻出版自由对政府控制的胜利。英国学者James Curran 对英国议会就这个问题的辩论的分析证实，英国统治者中的改革派希望通过对让市场向资本的全面开放来达到对社会话语权有效控制的政治目的 当时, 英国劳工阶层正通过逃避印花税的非法出版物开拓他们自己的话语空间,　冲击现有的精英话语体制, 发展自己的阶级意识。在如何有效控制这些地下刊物以及它们的声音的问题上，一部分统治精英主张用政府的力量来“堵”,　而另种策略则主张放开市场,通过资本的力量来达到支配主流话语的政治与意识形态目的。

作为一般原则, 传媒资本与广告商是不会向那些反资本和面向没有消费能力的下层劳工阶层的报刊注资和在这些报刊上大量投入广告费的。在一个全面开放的市场中,这些声音会“自然而然”因为没有资本的青睐被边缘化。 这一策略在辩论中以及随后的政策与事实发展中获胜了。经典实例:１９６４年，虽然读者人数达474万之巨，却因这些读者大部分是劳工阶层的激进报纸《每日导报》(The Daily Herald)因没有足够的广告收入在20世纪60年代被迫关闭。最令人震惊和意味深长的事实是，这个读者数是《泰唔士报》(The Times)、《金融时报》(Financial Times)和《卫报》(The Guardian)这三份迎合统治阶层和中产阶层报纸的总数加起来将近一倍的数目！这一规律在其他各国的商业媒介市场中同样在发挥着作用。

这一传播政治经济学的核心观点表明，传播研究不仅要关注国家的权力，还要重视市场在传播资源配置中的社会倾向性. 广告成了事实上的报刊执照颁发机构 这种分析与关于市场如何把读者奉为上帝，竞争中如何“优”胜“劣”汰的泛泛之谈(消费者主权理论)大相径庭。对由广告商支撑的商业媒介来说，受众的数量固然重要，他们的质量(购买力)更为重要。这样一来，以市场为导向，以资本盈利为目的的传播制度就有了维护资本主义制度和“自然而然”地边缘化工人阶级意识形态的结构性倾向。

在加拿大,皇家报业委员会报告的结论是:“随着商业逻辑的加深,左翼观点倾向于被边缘化” (1980: 15)

广播电视: 西欧的公共广播电视制度和美国以“公共利益”与“本国控制”为原则的政府管制: CBS 新闻部门曾以亏钱为自豪 2. 战后(福利)自由主义民主(post-War welfare liberalism or “embedded liberalism”)和新闻的“现代主义高峰期” 报业:专业主义对商业逻辑的调节 媒体结构的变化和“经理人革命” 超越党派和广告商及业主利益的公共服务意识(“that the press look upon itself as performing a public service of a professional kind… there are some things which a truly professional man will not do for money” (Commission on Freedom of Press, 1947: 92) 客观性原则(见<<维系民主?>>) 广播电视: 西欧的公共广播电视制度和美国以“公共利益”与“本国控制”为原则的政府管制: CBS 新闻部门曾以亏钱为自豪

3.新自由主义政治经济转型(20世纪80年代以来)及其在媒体的表现 新自由主义作为一种治理术和一场政治革命 - 不是简单的“放任自流”(laissez-fair )和市场有先天的效益的理念 - 也不仅仅是基于“华盛顿共识”的一套经济政策,包括开放市场,放松管制,私有化,全球化等 作为对1960年代末和1970年代初世界范围内资本积累危机和对资本主义秩序的威胁的回应： - 新自由主义是“一个有关更广泛的社会和政治领域的革命性变化的概念”,作为一场革命,它“旨在把市场价值和关系推广到更广阔的社会和政治系统.” (Richard Robison, The Neoliberal Revolution, 2006:4)

David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (2005:19): 新自由主义是一项旨在重建资本积累的条件和恢复“资本家阶级权力”(capitalist class power) 的“政治工程:” “有非常充分的证据显示,商业和金融资本在思想和意识形态领域进行了大规模的干预.其途径包括对智库的投资,对技术官僚的培训,对媒体的掌控… 新自由主义转型导致了1920年代以来从未有过的惊人的财富与权力的集中．” 在美国,有数字为证: 最富有的1%人口占国民收入的变化: 从1920s的16% 到二战后30年的低于8%到2000年的15%. CEO与工人的中间工资的比例: 1970年的30:1 到 2000年的500:1.

报业:商业逻辑的深化和专业主义的衰落 以资本积累为核心目标的统筹经营:编辑,发行和销售共同服务于资本积累最大化 资本逻辑的深化 --上市: Gannett总裁称: newspapers could be “a dependable profit machine in good times and bad” (不管在好年成还是坏年成,报纸都能是可靠的利润机器)

电子媒体的新自由主义政策转向 市场准入和竞争的加剧,交叉补贴体制的瓦解 放松管制: 80年代开始, 1996年的电信法案为最主要标志,并不断深化 如80年代中期废除”公正准则” (fairness doctrine), 为右翼广播谈话节目的繁荣提供了政策条件 1996年对药品广告的放松管制. eg: Novartis用12亿美元的广告来促销5种新药 新闻业被娱乐业兼并，真人秀的兴起　－　娱乐性内容成为“Weapons of Mass Distraction” 媒体公司对媒体产业链各环节的控制导致利益冲突 大规模的兼并，对新媒体业的抢滩，和全球扩张导致媒体巨无霸们很高的金融负债率 新技术带来的市场分众化- “breaking up America” (J. Turow)

国家成为 “公司福利国家” (Corporate Welfare State) ,右翼政治激进主义(rightwing political radicalism) 成为政府媒体管理的指导思想 - 业界的游说: 1999-2003年, 十大广播电视商投入 $68 million影响监管者和立法者 政府主导思想的变化,把公共利益等同与商业利益: 里根的FCC主席Mark Fowler: “The public interest is that which interests the public”；布什的前任FCC主席Michael Powell: 我等啊等，公共利益女神就是没有降临． 政府与媒体“合谋”的可能　－　一方面对对包括“反恐”在内的重要内政外交事务的报道，一方面是产业要求进一步放宽国家媒体所有权上限等政策要求；越战报道与反恐报道的区别 – from “the Uncensored War” to “Embedded Reporting” 媒体忽略有关本产业的政策的报道　－　例：2001-2002年间72% 的美国民众不知道FCC要放宽媒体所有权上限的政策

激进主义者对媒体“民主赤字”的批评 “公共领域”的“先天不足”和扭曲与失败 权力的集中和传播资源分配的不平等 公共话语同质化和媒体对个人消费主义单一世界观的宣传 版权产业对人类知识共同体的圈地和对知识的私有化 传播政策过程的精英主导和缺乏足够公众参与 对公民传播权利的侵蚀, 包括在电子传播领域对民权的侵害

公民社会的“媒体改革”和媒体民主化运动 另类媒介, e.g. Indy Media 煤体改革运动: eg. The UK-based CRIS campaign – Communication Rights in the Information Society http://www.crisinfo.org/ Free Press – “a national nonpartisan organization working to increase informed public participation in crucial media policy debates, and to generate policies that will produce a more competitive and public interest-oriented media system with a strong nonprofit and noncommercial sector.“ (http://www.freepress.net)　In 2003, massive US popular resistance defeated the FCC’s attempt to change ownership rules in favor of media conglomerates Canadians for Democratic Media (http://democraticmedia.ca/) 媒体素养教育 全球媒体政策制－知识产权问题，文化多样性问题，因特网治理等问题

Two examples of ongoing policy battles in the US FCC tried to pass a new rule allowing cross-media ownership A mobilized public in New Jersey tried to press the FCC to deny the license of a Fox television station: On Nov. 28, the FCC held a public forum for residents of New Jersey to weigh in on Fox Television Inc.’s application to renew its broadcast license for WWOR-TV 9： Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) testified that WWOR-TV Channel 9 in New Jersey has not fulfilled its obligation to provide New Jersey with suitable coverage. Chuck Lovey of Voice for New Jersey: “By virtually any measure — quantity of news programming, coverage of local issues, level of public affairs programming, even the station’s refusal to identify itself with New Jersey in its branding and marketing — WWOR-TV has consistently failed to meet its obligations to the people of New Jersey… It is time for us to tell the station and the FCC that we need something better” (source: http://www.freepress.net)