Mass Communication and Liberal Democracy

How far did developments in mass communications advance the cause of liberal democracy in the twentieth century up to 1989?

This paper discusses how far advances in mass communication advance the causes of liberal democracies. Mass communication is transmitting or imparting information to a wide range of people simultaneously, and spreading information on a large scale through various communication channels such as newspapers, television, radio, magazine, films and internet. Mass communication is referred to as a medium that aids in sending information to a large number of people (Frohlich, 2017). Understanding the history of mass communication, it is evident that introduction of mass communication to the general public had helped spread information, especially on politics and human rights, and developed a culture for change, and protests against the government and authorities. Some authors have argued against the utopic value of communication (Boni, 2016). Mass movements are significantly related to mass communication as these protests of the 20th century would not have been possible without an engaged, informed and empowered population. Mass communication or distribution of information through media such as through newspapers, television and radio. Internet was invented in 1983, although mass usage of the internet as a communication medium for news and information did not begin until the early 1990s. So, until 1989 the pre-internet era had the primary means of mass communication through radio, newspapers and television.

Van Beek (2010) suggested that political representation has a complex relationship with democracy. Although now we consider political representation as essential to democracy, this is not intrinsically linked. Women and minorities have become part of the democratic process through suffrage or voting rights, and yet they did not have political representation only until recently. Women's protest movements for voting rights was largely helped by rapidly developing mass communication media such as radio, television and newspapers (. There are other social, democratic movements that were supported and encouraged with the spread of information and people around the world embrace news and information through mass media to understand changes in politics, and political decision making, thus fundamentally bolstering public participation and the roots of democracy. Democracy needs political participation of the masses, and an educated, engaged public, knowledgeable and informed on all public and political decision making. Mass media made this public engagement possible and brought about a fundamental shift in the character and relationship between democratic movements and sociopolitical participation. Almond and Verba (1963) pointed out that the essential conformity of political structure and political culture is a stabilizing factor of the democratic system. Lijphart (1999) suggests that democracy brings about a redistribution of economic resources and this is one of the issues of conflict in modern political democracy.

The direct participation of the masses essential to the democratic process has found significant ground through mass movements and mass media or communication channels directly or indirectly helped organize these movements and direct political participation of the masses (Han, 2010). Distribution of socioeconomic resources that were in the hands of the few bourgeois or elite class, was also one of the primary factors that propelled such movements. Scharpf (1999) suggested that the institutional quality of political systems in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, must be understood through longer term dynamical interactions between political systems and sociocultural bases.

However, the sociocultural bases are largely shaped by cultures, of people and societies, and the interaction of the masses with the political system is a fundamental aspect of sociocultural development. Mass movements and public participation have successfully changed the concept of democracy as society transitioned from monarchies, autocracies and authoritarian governments to the institution of free and fair elections. True democracy however, still eludes until women's full participation in the democratic system. Communication between people, role of mass media in reaching out to millions of workers, minorities, women and members of all sections of society were crucial in the spread of information and propelling a culture of information sharing and mass participation.

Welzel (2007) noted that emancipative mass attitudes show a significantly positive effect on democracy, changing socio-structural and socioeconomic factors. Emancipative mass attitudes are bolstered by mass social movements and public participation and in all cultures and at all times, mass social movements have been largely possible due to the underlying supportive framework of mass communication channels and mass media such as radio and newspapers ( Porta, 2013). In the 19th century, mass movements were bolstered by information shared on the radio and public service announcements were increasingly important during historical events such as Wars and presidential elections (Messinger, 2011). These announcements triggered interest in the governmental decision making processes, leading to more engaged public forums and changes in mass political attitudes. This is also reflected in mass movements, protests, public engagement in the 21st century, largely supported by internet and social media. Emancipative attitudes motivate mass actions as argued by Welzel (2007), but at the same time emancipative attitudes are possible only in an informed public that is also vigilant and knowledgeable about changes in politics and policies. Mass communication and mass media brought knowledge, information and enlightenment to the masses, thus effectively paving the way for a more inclusive democracy and participation of all people in public or political decision making. Information sharing and mass communication also increase people's willingness to struggle for democratic systems and principles. This has happened throughout history as democratic systems were emboldened with civic participation caused in turn by rapid information sharing through mass communication channels.

Wirth (1948) discussed the power of knowledge in mobilizing human action that can stop the wrong forces from controlling the world. Democracy is necessary for the general public good, for equitable distribution of resources, for governmental structures free from corruption, for equal rights and human dignity. Yet democracy would largely remain elusive if not for mass mobilization and protest movements and these movements would not have been possible without an informed public fully engaged to challenge, oppose or change government policies. Complete democratic participation of individuals from all aspects of society is only possible with mobilizing through information and communication.

In the Victorian era, the newspaper was common in every household, just as we talk of a digital world in the 21st century. The emergence of mass communication in the 19th century was a triumph of human innovation, progress and egalitarianism. Popular journalism was pioneered in America, although in London, there were Sunday papers and the introduction of mass media, bringing news to people's doorstep ushered the era of modernization and new social movements (Rutherford, 1982). The widespread availability of news and information marked the beginning of a knowledge society, and people built businesses, created arts and crafts, and developed skills upon understanding the trends and directions of society. News and current events shaped people's attitudes, opinions and thoughts and there was no going back to the ages of ignorance. Information became the new symbol of power and all sections of society, rich and poor started having access to this information through radio, newspapers and later through television. The true impact of computers and internet were not felt until the 1990s. New labor and new industrialization made the equitable distribution of information possible as newspapers became widely available and democracy was bolstered in an informed and engaged society.

Potter (1975) argued that despite the outsized role of the media and mass communication, there are problems in how information is selected, distributed, presented or interpreted. The public will have its own interpretive sense of the knowledge provided, and this itself has created challenges, as objective information became invariably subjective creating opinions, but also confusing a percentage of the population. Misinformation have also existed at all times and despite an increased engagement, there was no lack of prejudice or bias that was harmful to society. Hackett and Zhao (1998) argued that public communication through mass media is important for a sustainable democracy. They suggested that newspapers and media have become "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."¹(Hackett and Zhao, 1998, p.6). The importance of public platform is clearly embedded in the principles of information sharing that include ideals, assumptions and practices. Before the era of a free press, free media, the government's control over public opinion was absolute. In the 18th and 19th centuries the press found freedom from government repression and laid the foundations for full civic participation and democratic systems in the West, that also influenced nations in the East.

Democracy became an important philosophical principle of the 18th century, primarily because the Scientific Revolution and other related changes in the culture were happening around the world. With Scientific and Industrial Revolutions and the advent of printing and other technologies that made mass production possible, labor unions formed and communities needed a voice and platforms to express their opinions. Mass communication made democracy possible, and without mass media, radio or newspapers, information could not have traveled so quickly or affected the masses it did in the 19th century. Social movements and protests that arose from frustrations with governments and governmental policies would not have been possible without sharing of information and using the media to mobilize communities and people to participate in civil disobedience and demands for social change.

The freedom and power of press effectively decimated the laws of libel that took away freedom of the press and new laws were proposed, and new organizations formed to protect press freedom. In the Victorian era, journals and newspapers also started attracting advertising revenue and mass media and public communication channels became supporters of businesses and industries, and people seeking jobs could actively participate in the newly evolving information economy (Rutherford, 1982). The industrial economy of the 18th and 19th centuries was also an information economy as knowledge and information became readily available to the public as never happened before and thus was the time, when true progress began and information technology started taking root in the inventions of machinery, industrial products and new tools and resources like the radio and newspapers. Journalism almost became a sort of transactional philosophy and debated on the most abstract like issues on the nature of truth to the more realistic or objective possibilities of human knowledge. These approaches along with a focus on facts became the core of the new information culture, spreading knowledge and facts to the public.

The newfound importance of facts was explicitly stated in many writings, novels, stories and anecdotes comprising the Victorian era literature. "Now what I want is, Facts.... Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them.... Stick to the Facts, sir!" (Hackett and Zhao 1998, quotes Charles Dickens, 1854 in Hard Times).

Das (1981) discussed how social change, social movements and mass communication are interrelated and are central to creation or sustenance of democratic societies. Social movements and social change are largely interconnected and initiate changes in society. Individuals who are affected by social constraints were able to successfully communicate about their need for social justice and thus frustration in society and demand for equality played out through mass media and mass communication, especially through news media. Radio was important for government and public announcements and kept the public updated on all current or contemporary events. The news paper on the other hand, gave more voice and shaped the views of the public, ushering in a new era of public opinion, consequent protests and movements for inclusive democratic systems. Mass communication has significance in affecting social change as mass communication channels clone the newspapers reached vast audiences and mass media could also effectively control the message to make these messages more impactful and politically or socially effective. The influence of mass communication, especially the news media in shaping public opinions, in creating and mounding democratic societies, cannot be downplayed.

In a paper on deliberative democracy, Chambers (2009, p.323) discussed the pathologies of the democratic public sphere and small scale deliberative democratic initiatives, suggesting that discrete deliberative initiatives within democracies have failed the needs of mass democracy, and mass democracy would mean mobilizing the masses rather than engaging in rhetoric with a few members of civil society.

Mass mobilization has been possible through mass media and mass communication and the initiatives of mass democracy, although not yet completely successful, have found considerable success in Western societies. Most nations in the West, in the 21st century are democratic institutions, with power to the people and decision making also lies in the hands of the people. This culture of mass democracy was the ideal of democratic systems or standards and yet, the obstacles to building democracies were presumably a lack of tools and technologies. 18th and 19th centuries saw a significant increase in the use of these tools that could promote democracies and create a world that truly belonged to the people. Information was at the root of this change and information sharing was the tool to open up society and show them a world beyond the confines of a home or a community. Information broadened the world, the worldview or people's knowledge of the world, shifting the seat of power from governments to the people. Yet, questions continue to remain, even in the 21st century, whether Western societies have truly achieved all goals of democracy, whether the balance of power must shift further to the people and how mass communication channels can change, improvise or upgrade to further push democratic agendas across the globe.

Miller (2014) asked that media organizations already play an important role in democracies, but are these organizations effective within their own boundaries or states? Based on data from 47 countries, Miller analyzed the role of media organizations in upholding democracies and to what extent they form a representative forum for the views of citizens and also serve as "watchdogs" against government overreach on its citizens. The results found that no country scored highly on these measures, although nations with media organizations not acting as watchdogs or forum for the people tended to fair poorly on the overall democratic progress. Although, this is largely applicable to 21st century democratic systems, the basic principles of mass media as watchdogs or offering a forum for public discussions have been largely accepted across all cultures, societies and historical periods since the 19th century. Mass media including radio, newspapers and television have become even more public oriented with the 21st century bringing new methods of public participation and more public engagement into the democratic system.

This paper discussed the rise of mass communication in the 18th and 19th centuries through newspapers, radio and later the television in the 20th century, and analyzes the role of mass media in promoting democracy across institutions and governments. Mass democracy was attained through the voting system and through suffrage movements around the world. Although incremental democratic systems such as corporate governance or through labor unions have also contributed to the change in society and a shift towards broader or more significant role of public opinion, mass democracies in western nations have brought significant change in participation of the people in government affairs (Chambers, 2009). Some democracies have attained full participation of the public in almost every government decision, as through referendum in the 21st century, whereas other governments have adapted a more streamlined approach, with parliamentary or presidential elections, so people have representational rights (Van Ginneken, 2018). Of course, there are questions on whether representation truly characterizes the opinions of the people, mass communication channels continue to expand the scope of democracy, since laying its foundations in the 18th century. Mass communication channels if the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries could be considered as very effective in influencing and shaping public opinion that led to the rise of global democratic societies and systems. However, looking forward to the 21st century and the rise of social media, with content being created by the people, a different kind of participatory democracy led by the people could take shape and change the world forever.

References

Almond, G., Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture. Sage Publications. London.

Boni, F. (2016). The Utopia of Communication: The Myth of Communication as a Positive Value. In Bait M., Brambilla M., & Crestani V. (Eds.), Utopian Discourses Across Cultures: Scenarios in Effective Communication to Citizens and Corporations (pp. 27-42). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang AG.

Chambers, S. (2009). Rhetoric and the Public Sphere: Has Deliberative Democracy Abandoned Mass Democracy? Political Theory, 37(3), 323-350.

Das, M. (1981). Social Movements, Social Change, and Mass Communication. International Review of Modern Sociology, 11(1/2), 127-143.

Fröhlich, T. (2017). Anticipating Democracy. In Tang Junyi: Confucian Philosophy and the Challenge of Modernity (pp. 206-239). LEIDEN; BOSTON: Brill.

Hackett, R., & Zhao, Y. (1998). Sustaining Democracy?: Journalism and the Politics of Objectivity. University of Toronto Press.

Han, S. (2010). Political communication and the quality of democracy. In Van Beek U. (Ed.), Democracy under scrutiny: Elites, citizens, cultures (pp. 263-296). Opladen; Farmington Hills: Verlag Barbara Budrich. doi:10.2307/j.ctvddzv92.15

Lijphart. A. (1999). Patterns of democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Messinger, G. (2011). The Battle for the Mind: War and Peace in the Era of Mass Communication. University of Massachusetts Press.

Miller, L (2014). The impact of the mass media on the quality of democracy within a state remains a much overlooked area of study. Eurocrisis in the Press. LSE Blogs.

Porta, D. (2013). Social Movements, Power, and Democracy: New Challenges, New Challengers, New Theories? In Van Stekelenburg J., Roggeband C., & Klandermans B. (Eds.), The Future of Social Movement Research: Dynamics, Mechanisms, and Processes (pp. 347-368). University of Minnesota Press.

Potter, J. (1976). Problems in Mass Communication. Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, 124(5239), 350-366.

Rutherford, P. (1982). A Victorian Authority: The Daily Press in Late Nineteenth-Century Canada. Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press.

Scharpf, Fritz W. (1999): Governing in Europe. Effective and Democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Van Beek, U. (Ed.). (2010). Democracy under scrutiny: Elites, citizens, cultures. Opladen; Farmington Hills: Verlag Barbara Budrich. doi:10.2307/j.ctvddzv92

Van Ginneken, J. (2018). On Mass Politics and Parliamentary Democracy. In Kurt Baschwitz (pp. 195-206). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Welzel, C. (2007). Are Levels of Democracy Affected by Mass Attitudes? Testing Attainment and Sustainment Effects on Democracy. International Political Science Review / Revue Internationale De Science Politique, 28(4), 397-424.

Wirth, L. (1948). Consensus and Mass Communication. American Sociological Review, 13(1), 1-15. Retrieved April 30, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/2086750