Mass Media, The State and Freedom of Expression
To what extent can it be said that the nature of society is dependent upon and fashioned by the nature and content of mass media communication within and outside of its territorial boundaries? Or, is it closer to being true that the nature and content of mass media communication within a state is a consequential product and result of men who live and communicate in civil societies?
Man, the social and political animal has needs and requirements that are, often, best served through some medium that meets his needs, requirements or expectations. As a demonstrable rational being, communication becomes a very important tool in addressing man’s social and political needs.
Libertarianism attempts to clarify the link between mass media and the political functions of society in the modern world strive to ascribe normative (theoretical) purpose to political communications that impact and exert external pressures upon the administrative and regulative power of the state.
At best, it describes a relationship that is inherently difficult to uncouple from the complexity of political will that emanates or derives its authority from free and equal citizens exercising their unrestricted or unrestrained constitutionally protected rights and freedoms in a democratic manner.
In addition, there is an expectation that, if citizens are to be allowed to act in a co-operative and deliberative manner, through free association in their pursuit of commonly held or shared interests, the state ought to have restrictions imposed upon its role of political mediator.
If the press is of the people, by and for the people then the question need to be asked: where is the balance struck between the State as regulator and facilitator and the citizen’s constitutional guarantees of freedom in exchange and communication of ideas, pursuit and accumulation of wealth, property, power and social status?
Issues such as these confronting modern states are developing critical mass as technological advancements outpace the social institutions originally erected to serve as regulators of the political interests of the state. These advancements in technology emphasize structural and sociological problems within liberal and libertarian theories; issues that must be confronted as increasing political and economic pressures threaten to retard evolutionary or progressive potentials of the modern state.
Governments, increasingly pressured to intervene as state regulators, see themselves as needing to find a balance between purpose and function of the press as a mass communication device and ownership and control of the press which continue to be concentrated in the hands of a select number of commercial interests and enterprises that, increasingly, demonstrate that they have the means, power (and will) to wield enormous political clout over state institutions.
So, how can we best gain understanding of the relationship between mass media and society?
Libertarianism
A generally agreed upon assertion of Mass media is that it does not operate in a vacuum, which is obvious and a truth in and of itself: nothing that exists do so without the assistance of some context.
So, in any study of the relationship between mass media and the government it becomes necessary that we must understand or learn about the social and political consequences of a society in which civil liberties or rights are represented as being an equitable balance between legislative and regulative arms of the state.
But, to the extent that the State can and does legitimately exert and wield power or authority over the citizens it is constituted to serve, the political will of the citizens – in what capacity? To what extent should the state be a servant of the citizens themselves – its masters; what are to be its limits – if any?
In a liberal and democratic society, it is expected or accepted that limits exist; and these, those that do exist, define the extent to which the state can impose its will in the control or regulation of those it was constituted to serve – the people.
There is an expectation that derives from the notion that the intent or purpose of the state’s constitution acts as a check against deliberate or unintentional abuse or misuse of state authority; especially by those selected to guide and administer the political institutions of the State.
This is especially important when discussing the level or degree to which liberties can (or should) be subject to restraints or curtailed ‘in the considered best interest of the Public or State’. This takes on a paramount importance in a liberal society where constitutionally entrenched principles advocate the protection of free exchange and communication of ideas, within the constraints of Law.
So, resident among the cornerstones of liberal theories are questions about the nature, function or role of the state. Questions such as, how can political autonomy be achieved (an autonomy that is representative of liberty and freedom – principles) in spheres of social relationships and interaction that are co-dependents of each other?
The Press as a (normative) theory
A well-known attempt to clarify the link between mass media and the political link of society was Frederick Siebert’s in his Four Theories of the Press. It sets out to establish and explain normative theories that ought to be used when illustrating the press’ position in relation to its social, political and economic environments.
Siebert use of the term ‘press’ appears to refer to all medium of communication – which includes television, radio, and newspaper. These, no doubt, were representative of dominant forms within the sphere of mass media during the time of his writing. It is a utilitarian approach to understanding the nature of the press as an element of mass media and communication. And so, as an attempt to clarify the linkages between mass media and the politics of society, Siebert’s Four Theories of the Press establish and explain, normatively, how we can illustrate and learn about the press’ role and position in relation to its environment.
Siebert’s four theories of the press – Authoritarian, Libertarian, Soviet (communist) and Social Responsibility– are acknowledged normative categories that can still be used to describe how different media systems operate worldwide. Beyond that scope, his theories begin to unravel as social, political and technological advancements have all worked to transform the dynamics of the press and Mass Media. There is a need, then, to examine the four models in light of the fact that mass media and its under-pinning technologies have since advanced well beyond Siebert’s original scope of examination.
In addition, since the Soviet empire no longer exists it, undoubtedly, impacts and alters the foundation and complexities contained within the Soviet model of the press. And, additionally, there is also a need to include other global political changes and shifts as they too impact on the Soviet model of the press.
So, if we are to determine the current validity of Siebert’s approach in terms of as usefulness, functionality or applicability to explain relationships between mass media and government, we must then also acknowledge that the models appear outdated and, perhaps, somewhat simplistic to the current needs of a 21st century political state.
Such criticism of its outmoded approach does not completely invalidate his theories; rather, it provides room to include consideration of current (future) and existing variations of political and press systems on a global scale. Some of these influences and changes do not fall neatly into any one category within his models: this becomes apparent when elements such as global hegemonies that have undergone significant social, political, technological, economic and cultural alterations since his theories were posited are added. His models, in essence, are rather static instead of dynamic though fixed in a particular point in time.
The Authoritarian model
According to Siebert, the authoritarian state system requires direct governmental control of the mass media. This system is easily recognised in societies where the government consists of a very limited and small ruling class. The media in such a system are not allowed to print or broadcast anything that could or threatens to undermine the established authority – to the extent that an authoritarian government exercises an authority to impose punishment on anyone who questions the state’s dictates or ideologies.
A fundamental assumption of the authoritarian system is that the government is infallible. Members of the media are not allowed to have any independence or autonomy within the organization. Foreign media are subordinate to established authority; and all imported media products (irrespective of content) are controlled by the state.
This parallel relationship between a totalitarian society and an authoritarian media system is especially true where a government is openly totalitarian. However, totalitarianism is not a necessary or pre-condition for authoritarian based or controlled media. For example, feudalistic societies exhibited authoritarian media tendencies through the auspices, and with the blessing, of the Church.
Further, there are other examples and variations of democratic states that, at times, revert to authoritarian control of the media. The relationship between the state and the media in an authoritarian system can be described as – information and control flow is in one direction: from the ruling or dominant class for dissemination through specific and stringently regulated media systems.
The libertarian model
In contrast, the libertarian view rests on the idea that the individual should be free, as in unrestricted, to publish or advocate whatever he or she likes; and in any form or medium available to his or her liking. This is referred to as the free-press model; and it dates back to 17th century thinkers such as John Milton asserted that human beings would, inevitably, choose the best ideas and values in a liberal arena.
In addition, the libertarian system advocates that it is a right (if not a duty) to attack and criticise government’s policies without fear or reprisals. It further argues that there should be no restrictions placed on the import or export of media messages across national borders; and that journalists and media ought to have full and complete organizational autonomy.
The closest examples or realisation of this ideal model of libertarian media systems are to be found in places (to name but a few) such as the U.S., Canada and Britain. However, the argument can also be made that even the media systems in these countries have, at times, demonstrated a tendency toward authoritarianism that are not structurally built into them.
This, in itself, is a key difference between the libertarian and authoritarian models: that there is no explicit connection between the government and the media; and since information and its control flow in a bi-directional manner it is ‘freer’.
There is, however, an assumed equality that acts as a self-regulating constraint since all citizens are governed by constitutional laws that are available and applicable to all parties with vested interests. This difference, however, amounts to semantics regarding the degree or extent of control or regulation that is readily available to each in truly liberal states.
The Soviet (communist) model
This model is closely related to the specific ideology of communism and can be traced back the ideologies of the Russian Revolution which found its basis in the postulates of Marx and Engels. Media organization is not intended to be privately owned or even administered entities, as the term communism implies. Media is conceived as a necessary instrument to serve the needs and interests of the working class but left, for all intents and purposes, under the administrative control of the state. The Soviet system appears to be similar to authoritarian model, to the extent that both maintain that the State Authority is superior to the media institutions.
A major difference, however, between the two: mass media in the Soviet model is touted as being self-regulating with respect to content and their messages. In addition, Soviet theory differs from the authoritarian model, as well, in that media organizations are further expected to adhere to a certain responsibility that meets the needs of their audience – the working class and the State apparatus. These represent the underlying ideological or world-view as informed by Marxist-Leninist principles.
Sometime around the mid-1980’s and continuing after the fall of the Soviet empire, Russia began transforming its mass media model to be closer to the social responsibility principle. The closest approximation to the Soviet model would be in countries such as China or Cuba where TV, radio, and newspapers are completely dominated and controlled by members reporting to state officials.
The social responsibility model
This is representative of an initiative of the late 1940’s. It became the basis of a growing realisation that the free-marketplace had failed to meet or fulfill its promise: that press freedom would reveal or result widespread dissemination of The Truth and the enlightenment of the citizens.
And as such, The Commission on Freedom of the Press provided a model in which the media would be held to meeting certain civic obligations to society at large. Some of these obligations are expressed in terms such as informative, truth, accuracy, objectivity, and balance reporting. The apparent goal of a socially responsible media system is to be pluralising, inclusive and reflective of the diversity of society and to provide the means or access to various points of views that may be of interest or value to all citizens.
In contrast, but not opposed to libertarian theories, a socially responsible media would adhere to principles that provide avenues or access to various facets of mass media. The purpose of which be to allow minority groups the opportunity to have their views given equal public expression. Journalists, as such, were to be accountable to their audiences, their bosses and the government (through its regulatory bodies).
So, as we can see, Siebert’s models were intended to be normative. That is, they do not attempt to stipulate how social systems do operate, but rather how they should or could work according to some pre-existing criteria. In them we find theories that provide descriptions of various political systems that serve to explain how to discern their direct or indirect influences on mass media development expose the role and position the press in modern societies. Minority access to the medium is insufficient to significantly alter the media system in any significant or immediate fashion.
Thus, with respect to Siebert’s four models of the Press, we see not an idealised system that can be construed as being synonymous with the best system but, instead, theories of how mass media as social and political systems of communication do, in fact, function in modern states.
Liberalism
A normative view of democracy argues that it’s constituted of members who, aware of their inter-dependence, act deliberatively and in concert, to develop and shape the nature of their social relationships; and that, ideally based on free and reciprocal social associations, they work toward the furtherance of their collective self-interests.
The state’s purpose, as a decentralized mechanism, is to seek ways that facilitate social integration in a publicly administered manner; and to mediate conflicting private interests endanger civil liberties of others or threaten the functional stability of the Public Sphere, the State and the citizens.
In a market-driven and liberally based society, civil independence is presupposed as occurring in a manner where civic self-determination manifests itself as political communication that is autonomous; and, to keep the communicative aspect of the state from being usurped by a state apparatus or assimilated by market forces or structures, the institutional role of the state is to be that of regulator or facilitator.
The state, as an apparatus for the public administration of civil society constructed around a system of liberal market-driven economic interactions and forces among private persons, is a representative embodiment of the public will as political power and authority.
It also represents – in so far as it can be seen as ‘bundling and bringing to bear private social interests’ – an apparatus whose specialised purpose and function is to administer, facilitate and regulate the political will of free people in pursuit of collective goals. It further assumes the role of arbitrator and acts as facilitator, integrator or regulator of the individual and private needs of citizens as they impact the public realm.
Communication Theory
A requirement or dictum of communication theory is that it should not reflect only a limited period of time, a particular mass media or society, nor correspond to any actual and existing political system if it’s to be considered useful or valid.
Siebert’s four models of the Press appear to adhere to these requirements. It is this appearance that provides them with a normative aspect – to the extent that, as theories, they can be applied to various conditions and time periods.
However, not all of the required conditions are stringently met by Siebert; and so, we see a failing in their usefulness of his Soviet model as the Soviet empire as disintegrated. The other models are also closely related to political ideologies of their age as well; thus, we can expect a further weakening as the political conditions or systems changes or diminish in stature.
It should be noted, however, that these weaknesses do not unduly detract from the normativeness implied in the theories themselves. However, if the actual political conditions differ significantly from the normative description of the media then the conclusion are apt to be suspect.
Another possible criticism of Siebert’s model is that he does little to clarify or account for how the mass communication channels are influenced by the political environment in which it arises. In his four models the political environment appear to be identical with the governments and the ideologies that they espouse. He seems to ignore the fact that the political conditions within a state are far more complex than the politics of the existing state authority.
He gives the impression that transmission of political opinion is a simple matter of two parts: the medium itself and government. Here he fails to account for input from the audience, their role and how they contribute to the formation of state ideology that is then reflected via the mass media.
Consequently, with the exclusion of the press’ audience as a consideration, he is clearly asserting that the function or role the press is political rather than communicative. Thus, we see that the political conditions become the basis of his mass media theory since they accord with known conditions.
Mass media as a communication tool
The orientation of Siebert’s press theory models places political conditions and influences as key factors in mass media development. This then reveals materialistic influences of social structures as elements, not only in the development of but also in purpose and application of mass media; and as such, they can be said to dictate the system of media rather than the reverse.
From this perspective – that political and economic conditions are pivotal in the development of mass media communication – it is clear that social structures exhibit an inherent interdependence of mutual interests that inform and influence the structural development of mass media in any given territorial state, at any given period in time.
Every social, and, therefore, political system, can lay claim that their system of mass media communication is based on a belief in free expression (a vague term) of cultural ideas. They can also claim that they endorse some doctrine of ‘social responsibility’ that serves or meets the needs and interests of the people and/or the state – often one and the same. This is especially the case in totalitarian and authoritarian states. As such, Siebert’s models do not address questions about what social value is or can be ascribed to the media, who ascribes it, how can or is it assessed in empirical and measurable terms?
We can only assume that such values or assessment do exist since Siebert inclusion of the social responsibility model infers there has to be or is an expectation that mass media is to be an advocate of positive qualities that the other models lack. With the exception of the social responsibility model, the others are verifiable in an empirical manner since history is the source of the data.
Siebert’s approach also lacks flexibility in the way that he approaches or even glosses over two required or necessary elements. That is, for effective communication to occur, context of the medium and content of the message require receptivity, acceptance, digestion and understanding of its meaning. And so, he fails to bind the array of influencing factors into a more general and normative model where these ‘other necessary conditions’ are allowed or included media categories within the structural functions or purpose of mass media as a system of communication.
We know from Siebert’s four models where ownership or control the media resides and how messages get distributed or disseminated. However, we have no clear indication on who ought to determine what message is to be sent, how that is determined, or is it to be composed, what is to be achieved by the message’s transmission, who is it aim at, for what purpose or what is the most effective method of transmission and communication?
What Siebert’s four models do demonstrate is how mass media may be used, normatively. In a more practical sense, it can be suggested that mass media ought to strive for content that is audience oriented. But that too raises specters of authoritarian control of mass media and is contrary to libertarian or liberal ideals and notions of free-press principles – self-regulating.
This begs the question: who, if any, should be in control of the press as a mass media – if not the government of the people, by the people and for the people? Assuming, of course, that concentration of press ownership and control should not be allowed to accrue to purely commercial interests or be totally under control of state institutions.
The role of mass media in the formation of Public opinion
The problem that libertarianism struggles with (as seen in Siebert’s models) relates to the dynamics of inter-dependence that is inherent to questions about the scope, purpose, function and application of communication in general. Questions about its form or structure, as a subset of mass media, imply that there are distributive and cumulative aspects or attributes to the form as well as the media.
Some of these categories are: the printing press, radio, television, film, music and so on. Each with attributes which are applicable only to the particular medium. Most, if not all, share in certain attributes.
Speaking face-to-face with another person is communication via a human medium linked to the physical vocal chords and controlled voluntarily (involuntarily, at times) by the individual. Yet, it is not mass-communication. The questions are obvious.
Such as, at what point, in what manner, to what extent and to what purpose would ordinary communications between private persons need to be before becoming ‘public communication’ – as in, aimed at a mass of people?
Is speaking to a group of 5 individuals a basis to classify the communication as a form of ‘mass messaging’? If there is a median point, where and how is it determined or delineated – by what measures or means.
Is addressing a crowd of, perhaps, hundreds without any outwardly mechanical or electronic device considered ‘mass communication? Does doing so with the assistance of such devices make the communication ‘a more massive communication’ or does it remain simply another form of ‘mass-communication’.
Why, if the purpose of communicating remains unaltered, regardless of medium utilised (since these can and do vary across media) does degree of impact or influence remain such contested social issues when assessing results about mass media and society? Neither is capable of existing without the presence of the other.
The social-political ordering of states expresses the principles upon which they are founded. These, inevitably, evolve out of the structural underpinnings that are upheld and given voice or expression in the form ideology by dominant individuals – separately or collectively, as class or hierarchy.
In essence, the distinctions consist of the very same amphoral socio-poli-economic elements that define the structure that they represent – the State, a set of dynamic relationships within a specific sphere (in this case, the constructs of human social relations that define and constrain by the state as an entity accessible only in a public realm or sense).
Socio-political inter-relationships, dependencies and interaction among diverse individuals consist of varied and divergent personal and/or civic objectives. What seems to govern guiding principles of any social class is that which brings and binds them together as a social group – their humanity. All else is of a social nature that is not a necessary pre-condition of social organisations. Such an over-riding principle is capable of communicating and expressing itself, via a variety of medium, the press being one such.
Those who are able to make the press (as a medium) can compose and produce its contents; and then make it possible to have it disseminated ‘freely’ through society – but for a fee. As a result, they also have a greater degree of access to the source of the news or the newsmakers. So, it appears natural that they’d seek to retain control over what, how widespread and even at what pace ideas (or principles) will be circulated, in what form or manner, to what purpose and with what expectations or objectives – as examples. Answers to such questions, in time, come to be widely used or accepted as Freedom, liberty, equality, justice and so forth – ideas that ideally overlay the political aspects of all such social relationships.
That, I believe, is what becomes dominant and gets reproduced as social and cultural products. All of which, perhaps, invariably follow the dictates of economic theories. Global commercial interests are primarily motivated to act or initiate social or political change if it results in either an economic benefit, followed by wealth accumulation, social status, political clout (power and authority are more like incidental benefits).
The transforming role of technology on mass media
In understanding the role or nature of the press (mass media, modern society and the contextual aspect of its socio-poli-economical consequences) we can see buried amid the facts indications that public forums exist in varied forms throughout modern liberal states?). It should also be noted that they can become the means, instruments or methods by which innumerable individuals engage in public discussions about socially relevant (as well personal) issues in a massive and public manner. This, then, make their communications (social voices) significant enough to be worthy of consideration and inclusion within categories of mass media and the transforming role that it plays in society.
For, not only is public communications often political in nature and context. Aided by the commonness of existing technologies it puts at the disposal of ‘non-commercial’ interests the means to compose, produce, distribute and have disseminated (with very little interference from either commercial interests or state authorities). Liberal self-interests of all types are being served or catered to by a mass media that is a ‘global communication medium’, in and of itself, with astounding political and economic power and influence.
Moving at its current pace, flexible and pliable enough to allow its forward momentum to initiate rather than institute whole-scale cultural, political and economic shifts and alterations, the owners, producers and controllers of commercial mass media enterprises are far more content to allow structural changes within diverse nation states to occur according to the dictates of global economy and international monetary institutions.
It is in this area that they wield both economic and political power in a somewhat apolitical manner. Sovereignty of individuals or nations is considered incidental to mass media’s development, as are political stripe, orientation or principles. For, as long as conditions exist for commercial enterprises to freely compete among themselves, mass media will find root for development and flourish on the basis of supply and demand.
It is the engine that propels global economies forward: capital and wealth realisation based around global commercial enterprises. All that lacks for its legitimacy of political will is globally cohesive guiding principle that would represent ‘the voice of the global citizens’ who have not yet been consulted or asked to cast their votes for a world government guided by liberal capitalist economies of scale on a global basis.
Politics is, within nation states, after all else, a mere mechanism through which a dominant class rises to a position of social prominence or dominance through skillful use of the public will as constituted within a state. Politicians, apparently, do not easily or willingly relinquish their social statuses – at times, not even after a vote is taken and confirmed.
Control of mass media
Some, such as Zechariah Chafee, have pointed out that the methods employed to suppress or control mass media are easily discerned.
There are, for example, requirements that books and other publications be licensed in advance, censorship of offending material before publication or while it’s under way is imposed, seizure of offending material, injunctions against publication of newspaper or book or specified material contained within them, compulsory disclosure of ownership or authorship, post publication criminal penalties, civil action suits, post publication correction of libels or mis-statements, discrimination in access to news sources and facilities, taxation, discriminatory subsidies, and other general interferences with the buying reading, listening or other consumptive forms of mass media. These all occur – even within liberal societies.
Examples such as these and numerous others, taken as a whole, give validity to the notion that freedom of the press is more of a fiction or lie of mass media itself; and of those who seek to control the power at its core and disposal.
Mary Ryan states, “the word public has long served as a placemaker for the political ideal of open, inclusive and effective deliberation about matters of common and critical concern”. Contrasted with libertarian ideals that seek to demonstrate that both theoretical and practical advantages accrue to men as the shackles of social domination is erased from their minds, we are often confronted with the fact that such noble ideals for humanity are constrained or fail to actualise themselves through the failure to have set and rigorous standards of purpose and operation of mass media.
The reality is not an actualisation of libertarian ideals, as there appears to be vague distinctions between freedom, control, purpose, function and abuse of the press as mass medium – A reality where mass media has very little to do with the achievement of lofty ideals. What it is has more to do with is competition in which pursuit of wealth, its capitalization and accumulation is done in a very public manner and through public means.
This is accomplished by having control of the means and methods of media production. What Mass Media mean, in this sense, a mere representation of public ways to control (set limits to) the collection, dispensation and dissemination of private information that can be made available to the public as a consumptive product (in service of some purpose that can only be realised in the social context of a culture.
Conclusion:
To a certain extent, mass media is itself a self-actualising theory that is dependent on the existence of competitive market economies and forces, as much as it acts to stimulate or agitate the competitive forces with the marketplace itself.
The general citizenry is – presumably, sufficiently informed or engaged in rational and reasoned discussions (both in theory and reality); and so, allowances are made for calculable impacts or influence of a public that is catered to via media that selects and decides what and how to disseminate its notions regarding things such as civility or free expression with the blessings of the state.
If put to the test, societies founded on democratic, liberal and capitalistic come closest to liberal and democratic ideals and principles. They can be seen as combining and transforming themselves to become the basis by which a Free State is becomes far more than symbolic and representative of social authority.
Viewing the modern state as an institution with instruments at its disposal that it legitimately exercise through its combined power of control and authority. This it uses to direct and regulate naturally occurring (private) self-interests among free men. Seldom resorting to illegal methods of undue coercion to force compliance creates an illusion of idealization that is a normative and a very modern view of 21st century society.
The ends to which political power of the state has been applied show that the state has itself become mostly, if not fully, dependent upon the liberalizing nature of competitive capitalism and free enterprise (both commercial and private). Mass media, under such conditions, then become wealth and political status accrued through competitive capitalization of the free flow of information in society. The very public spheres of society are what come to be reflected through the media that arise and actualises itself as commercial cultural commodities, consumed by the public that it serves..
This Siebert does with his four models, even though he does not touch on the press as representative of self-interested individuals with specific interests and needs that cannot or should not be viewed as being neutral within the social and political contexts of their lives.
Mass media, as a concentration of power and resources in support of economic or commercial interests within any given society, places the means of political power in the hands of non-elected and non-representative voices of a minority within the state itself. The legislative and executive arms of the people then truly become a tool or instrument that is not of or by the citizens but for control of the people and the state of which both are inextricable parts.
We do live in very interesting times. So, what is News or The News of which the Mass Media Speaks?
Footnotes:
(1) Four Theories of the pres s- Frederick Siebert
(2) The Social Contract – Jacques Rousseau
(3 The Leviathan – Thomas Hobbes
(4) Two Treatises of Civil Government – John Locke
(5) Four Theories of the press – Frederick Siebert
(6) Four Theories of the press – Frederick Siebert
(7 Four Theories of the press- Frederick Siebert
(8) Mass Media Communication – Denis McQuail
(9) Four Theories of the press – Frederick Siebert
(10) Gender and Public Access: Women’s politics in 19th Century America – Habermas and The Public Sphere – Mary Ryan
Bibliographies:
- Fred Siebert, et all.; Four Theories of the press: The Authoritarian, Libertarian, Social Responsibility and Soviet (communist) Concepts of what The Press should Be and Do. 1963, University of Illinois Press, pgs 1-7, 39-71
- Mary Ryan, Habermas and The Public Sphere, 1992, MIT Press, pgs 259 –288
- Denis McQuail, Sage Press, Mass Communication Theory, 1984 – pgs 17 -38
- Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan – Everyman Press, Great Britain, 1984 pg 65
- Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract – Oxford Press, Great Britain, 1981, pg 16
- John Locke, The Social Contract – Oxford Press, Great Britain, 1981, pg 16
- Herbert Gans ,Deciding What’s News – The Commission on Freedom of the Press – Vintage Books, 1982 pg 182
31/01/2022 16:01:49 -0500