Dr. Carolina MatosGovernment DepartmentUniversity of EssexE-mail: cmatos@essex.ac.uk

Media democratization in Brazil and Latin America after the 1980s

University of Helsinki, Finland

Core readings Held, David. 1995. Democracy and the Global Order,

Cambridge: Polity Press, 1-23 Matos, C. (2012) Media and politics in Latin America:

globalization, democracy and identity, London: I.B. Tauris Norris, P. (2004) “Global Political Communications: Good

Governance, Human Development and Mass Communication” in Esser, Frank and Pfetsch, Barbara (eds.) Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases and Challenges, NY: Cambridge University Press, 115-151

Scammell, Margaret and Semetko, Holli (eds). 2000. The Media, Journalism and Democracy, Hants: Dartmouth Publishing Company

Voltmer, Katrin and Schmitt-Beck, Rudiger (2006) “New democracies without citizens? Mass media and democratic orientations – a four century comparison” in Mass Media and Political Communications in New Democracies, London and New York: Routledge, 199-211

Key points Media and democracy in Latin America in comparative

perspectiveMedia systems and democratic governance Media democratization debates revisitedMedia and democracy in the US and UK in comparative

perspectiveDemocratic media and their dutiesComparing media systems: Southern Europe and Latin

AmericaMedia and democracy in BrazilChallenges for the further democratization of the media in

Brazil

The media, journalism and politics

Media and democracy in Latin America in a comparative perspective

Latin American countries have emerged at the dawn of the twenty-first century with a series of challenges to confront, from coming to terms with their authoritarian past to tackling economic and social inequality and inserting themselves fully in the global economic and political order.

Latin America are only just beginning to get to grips with the notion of freedom of speech in the context still for many of these countries of weak institutions, political confrontation and clashes between different elite groups and persistent poverty and inequality levels.

Brazil is being confronted with a series of problems - among them is the persistence of biased and manipulated information and politicization of the media, in contrast to a slow growth in media diversity and the availability of more ‘objective’ information due to commitments established by the mainstream media to balance (Matos, 2008).

Media systems and democratic governance

As Norris (2004, 1) correctly highlights, media systems can strengthen good governance and promote positive development, especially if there is a free and independent press which is capable of performing the watchdog role, holding powerful people to account and acting as a civic forum of debate between competing interests.

The 2010 Unesco report, Media development indicators: a framework for assessing media development, underlined the close relationship that exists between the health, independence and quality of the media with the development of a country

I underscored in my last research (Matos, 2008) how the role of the media in transitional, or emerging democracies like Brazil can be understood as being a complex and even ‘schizophrenic’ process. Throughout the twenty year period that the research focused open, different sectors of the media acted and performed in contradictory ways in different historical moments, and subject to various societal, political and economic influences, pressures and constraints.

Media systems and democratic governance As various academics have nonetheless affirmed (i.e. Raboy,

1995; Voltmer, 2006), the problems facing many media systems in the transition to democracy are often the best example of the problems of democratization more generally.

The pressures for wider media democratization in Brazil, and the various difficulties of implementing a new regulatory framework for the media, are being compared with the difficulties in advancing agrarian reform in the nation.

What does media democratization involve?: Media democratization involves more than the transformation

of media institutions, a freer press and the rise of journalistic professionalism, or even the good intentions of journalists. At its best, it involves a change of behavior in citizens’ understanding, use and approach to the media. Thus the demands are placed on media systems to provide better quality information and a commitment to representing political diversity, giving voice to different groups in society and wider attention to professional standards.

Media democratization debates revisited

• Norris (2004) has argued that there can only be a positive relationship between democratic governance, human development and media systems in countries that meet the conditions of an independent press which permits the access to pluralistic information to all

• Thus, a freer and more independent media and balanced press can only operate if they are not subject to either political or economic constraints (i.e. Hallin and Mancini, 2004), and if public service media systems serve the public interest and are not misused...

• Last research (2008) showed how large sectors of the media were biased and susceptible to ideological manipulation, in spite of the growth of professionalism and objectivity in the last decades. Partisanship and political constraints have continued to prevail, manifesting themselves during the 2006 and 2010 presidential elections

Media democratization revisited Political liberalization has thus not been enough to guarantee full media

democratization. The slow democratization of Brazil during the last three decades has taken place not altogether disassociated from the authoritarian legacy that has characterized the core formation of Brazilian society.

As Voltmer and Schmitt-Beck (2006) affirm in the context of their discussion of representative survey data of 4 new democracies, Bulgaria, Hungary, Chile and Uruguay, the fact that many citizens in new democracies lack the durable party identifications of the more established democracies makes many vulnerable to media biases.

Voltmer (2006) further argues that information quality and the need for orientation is even more significant in new democracies in the context of the breakdown of old regimes. Citizens in new or transitional democracies need to make sense of information which comes from various sources which are not only closely tied with political orientations…

Literature on media democratization (i.e. Voltmer and Schmitt-Beck, 2006; Curran and Myung-Jin, 2000; Sparks, 2007) has stressed how countries as different as South Africa, Chile and China encountered various problems when it came to the democratization of political communications.

Democratic media and their duties

Multiple systems exist, with no uniform model, although the US liberal model is considered the norm of democratic media

Basic characteristics of democratic media: 1) independence from the state; 2) diversity of views; 3) press freedom.

Duties of democratic media:

1) To exercise the watchdog function and scrutinise governments;

2) Supply accurate and sufficient information; 3) To represent the diversity of the spectrum of public opinion(Siebert, Peterson and Schramm’s Four Theories of the Press is

considered a classic in the field).

Media and Democracy in the UK and US

Some problems detected in media systems since the 80’s:

1) Public broadcasting in decline versus expansion of commercial broadcasting

2) Deregulation trends since the 80’s saw wider media concentration and proliferation of multi-channel TV

3) Rise of television as political influence 4) Rise of cynicism and decline of interest in

politics

Four dimensions to analyse media systems in North Europe and America (in Hallin and

Mancini, 2004)

Developed further from Blumler and Gurevitch (1975): 1) the development of media markets – emphasis is given

here on the strong or weak development of mass circulation press;

2) political parallelism – the degree and nature of the links between the media and political parties, or the extent that the media system reflects political divisions. Public broadcasting systems and the regulatory agencies have a significant relationship to politics;

3) the development of journalistic professionalism – refers to norms and codes of the journalism profession, the tradition of neutrality, impartiality and objectivity against militant and advocacy forms.

4) the degree and nature of state intervention in the media system – the role that the state has and its relationship to the media, and refers largely to governmental control or media independence from the state.

Three Models of Media Systems(Hallin and Mancini, 2000)

Mediterranean(Southern Europe)

Democratic Corporatist (Northern Europe)

Liberal(North America)

Newspaper Low circulation; elite-oriented

High circulation Medium

Political parallelism

High parallelism; external pluralism; politics/broadcast

External pluralism; party press; PSB autonomy

Neutral commercial press; internal pluralism

Professionalization

Weak journalism political activismnot differentiated

Strong professionalization; institutionalised self-regulation

Strong professionalization; non-institutionalised

Role of the State Strong state intervention

Strong state intervention; strong PSB

Market dominated; weak PSB

Comparing media systems: Southern Europe and Latin America (Hallin and Mancini, 2000)

Historical perspectives: State intervention in South America has reinforced governmental power (Waisbord, 2000)

But - Market liberalisation and political democratisation have assigned new roles for state (more democratic participatory) and market (liberating versus oppressive of debate)

Similarities between Latin American media systems and Southern European (Hallin and Papathanassopoulos (2002, 3):

1) the low circulation of newspapers;

2) tradition of advocacy reporting;

3) instrumentalization (political use) of privately-owned media;

4) politicization of broadcasting and regulation;

5) limited development of journalism autonomy.

Democracy and the media in South America New approaches to how communications can reshape Latin American

politics (Waisbord, 1995) Recent research (Matos, 2008; Hughes, 2006) has highlighted the

complexity of the role of the market in the democratization process, how journalism itself changed and how politicians, civil society representatives can exercise pressure on media systems and how the push for change is a contradictory process. These new studies are not grounded on purely economic positions, but assess the relationship between political institutions and the ways in which media actors can assist in the development of democracy.

As Voltmer (2006) points out, much of the literature in the comparative research tradition on media systems has deliberated on how information quality standards have been reworked in communication media after the dictatorships. They have further looked at how political and economic conditions can foster or inhibit the media’s capacity to fulfil their democratic role (i.e. Curran and Park, 2000).

Media and democracy in Latin America (in Matos, 2012)

Comparative political communication research offers us a set of knowledge that increases our intellectual sophistication and understanding of the complexities of the world and of other cultures.

•It forces us not to be narrow-minded, obliging us to deal with other cultures and ideas.

* Real, in depth knowledge is all about comparison

Triangulation methodology: online survey with segments of the audience in Brazil in contrast to audience research done by Ofcom in the UK: textual analysis of programmes from the public and commercial media; interviews with journalists and policy-makers

PSBs in comparative perspective:

Public communications in Latin America have traditionally been appropriated for the individual personal interests of politicians in contrast to the public service and educational role in UK

Freedom House: Latin America, Western and Eastern Europe and Middle East

Freedom House Survey on Press Freedom in 2007 – some clear regional trends:

1) Western Europe – declines in Portugal, Malta and Turkey;

2) Central and Eastern Europe – Largest region-wide setback (i.e. Russia and Georgia);

3) Americas – Mexico decline of three points;4) Improvements in the Middle East and

North Africa – the case of Egypt

Liberty of the press in Brazil and issues of press freedom

Although Brazil is now considered as having a relatively independent press, key studies which have examined the role of the media in democratization and the nature of the relationship between journalism and government (i.e. Fox, 1998; Waisbord, 2000; Straubhaar, 2001; Skidmore, 1993; Matos, 2008) have underscored how the contemporary reality is still embedded in an authoritarian legacy.

Problems of media democratization in Brazil include constraints on the media independence from both political and economic constraints

Regional differences – media in the South of the country is stronger and more “independent” than news organisations in the North

Press law in Brazil (1967) versus current debates on expansion of press freedom. According to the Decree no. 83.254 of 1970, during the dictatorship years, only those professionals registered in the Labour Ministry could legally exercise the journalism profession (Moreira and Helal, 2009, 94). In the last years, the necessity of the university diploma has been subject to heated debate amongst scholars and journalists.

Liberty of the press in Brazil and issues of press freedom

The Inter American Press Association (IAPA) affirmed in the 1990s that, in spite of the fact that the 1988 Constitution prohibited any restrictions on the press, the old press law, which dates back to 1967 and was implemented during the dictatorship years, is still being used in Brazil (Buckman, 1996, 15).

In 2010, the country engaged in a series of debates concerning the creation of a new press law.

The Supreme Court of Justice in Brazil suspended most articles of the old Lei de Imprensa (Press Law) in 2009. This included the articles that established penalties for journalists for crimes of defamation, perjury, the right of censorship of plays and public events and the article which gave government powers to apprehend printed material which offended ‘good’ behaviour.

Brazil has managed to be taken off the list of the countries which register impunity in crimes against journalists, according to the Committee on the Protection of Journalists (CPJ). Brazil reached the 13th place in 2009

Challenges for the further democratization of the Brazilian media: where do we go from here?

In spite of a wider adherence to the classic prescriptions of liberal media theory and the growth of the media’s role as a Fourth Estate, with journalists assuming a more confrontational stance towards authority following the impeachment of former president Collor in 1989, the fact of the matter is that the Brazilian media are still politicised institutions.

In the context of the fall of the old press law, many Brazilian media organisations defended the adoption of self-regulation and a creation of a code of conduct to regulate journalism practices.

There are various problems concerning the strengthening of the public communication platform in the country, including the politicization of media institutions and of broadcasting, hierarchical social relations between Brazil’s different groups based on class, race and regionalism, and exclusion of certain segments of society from the mainstream media’s public sphere.

Conclusions The democratization of the Brazilian media is still an on-going process

tightly connected with improvements in the social and economic inequality levels of the country and with the growth of educational levels in all sectors of the population

The Brazilian media and journalism has lived a turbulent life in the last three decades, with multiple journalism cultures proliferating in the newsroom, from professionalism to a social responsibility ethos

Since the re-democratization phase, civil society players, academics and others have pressured for advancements in media reforms and democratization, including the establishment of articles in the Brazilian Constitution of 1988 on the creation of a complex media sector and of a public media infra-structure

Media reform and laws capable of undermining media concentration, a wider commitment to transparency in the radio and TV public concessions