Читать книгу Media Freedom - Damian Tambini - Страница 23

It should be evident by now that this book does not take a purely legal approach to media freedom: I will discuss law in social context because law is part of, perhaps the decisive part of, the overall framework that contributes to the autonomy of media institutions. Media freedom is always the product of a combination of factors. If a newspaper, broadcaster or online news service proceeds with an investigation or publication that risks alienating the government or some sector of the population, or may involve some risks of being sued, decisions over whether to proceed will take into account all of the potential consequences; these may involve potential legal liability, but could also involve reputational and commercial consequences, administrative actions, or responses of private actors including self-regulation.⁹³ Whether such risks will be seen as acceptable will depend on the overall financial position of the outlet, which in turn may depend on issues such as tax, competition, subsidies or overall liability and reputation risk.

This book seeks to advance a democratic theory of media freedom derived from an analysis of the history of the media in liberal democracies, and of the treaties, legislative and constitutional protections and case law that have emerged in response to the democratic desire to protect freedom of expression.⁹⁴ The assumption is that in applying concepts of press and speech freedom, and more recently in developing the concept of media freedom, courts and regulators have developed a working theory of the role and importance of the media in a democracy. The task of the theorist is to isolate, articulate and summarize it and to examine its consistency and validity.

The aim of the book is to move the theory of media freedom beyond the confusions outlined above and set out an ideal normative theory⁹⁵ grounded in the law and history of the development of mass media – particularly press and broadcasting – to inform our current conundrums over social media. A full account of these institutions will include an understanding of the historical background, and of the myriad decisions that were involved in their emergence. As network industries, based on a combination of private and public standards, media are particularly subject to the path dependencies and network effects that lock in previous decisions, leading to a process of change featuring what might be described as punctuated equilibrium,⁹⁶ interrupted by what Paul Starr refers to as ‘constitutive choices’⁹⁷ and Victor Pickard calls ‘critical junctures’.⁹⁸ Understanding the emergence of the myriad settlements and policy battles is crucial. Media freedom is often presented as – and often is – a mirage propagated by hollowed democracies seeking legitimacy. By understanding more about its emergence, drawing on the research of Oster, Pickard, Starr, Seaton, Curran and others, we can resolve some of these dilemmas, and present a simple theory of media freedom to guide the emergence of new, free but responsible media in the internet age.

By examining the history of existing rules and institutions for the media, it is possible to locate, discover and isolate the democratic theory of the media. Where do the principles of media freedom come from, and how do these theories of the nature and necessity of media autonomy relate to their precursors of press and broadcasting freedom? How do they change over time, and what is their institutional and legal basis? The theory of media freedom is not stable or complete, nor as we have seen is it without contradictions, conflicts and ideological disputes. If the model of liberal democratic self-government is to survive the change in communications structure, and autonomous, choice-making liberal democratic subjectivity is to survive with it, we have to find ways of updating our understanding of media freedom, and the institutional frameworks necessary to implement it in the new environment.

I recognize that in this book I have attempted something tricky: to begin to outline what I see to be an emergent normative theory, which draws upon one particular reading of the emerging policy debate and case law, while also outlining some of its drawbacks and confusions, and identifying ways in which the historical record shows that real, existing democracies have fallen short of the ideal model to which their laws aspire. The contradictions I have illustrated above are real and they are deep. They will not be fully resolved by this book, which attempts to advance debate by suggesting a framework within which they can be addressed by the next phase of institution building.