Dec 10 2014

The impact of the mass media on the quality of democracy within a state remains a much overlooked area of study

By Lisa Müller

Media organisations are generally assumed to play an important role in democracies, but how effective are they in performing this function within specific states? Lisa Müller outlines results from an analysis of 47 countries, based on a framework which rates two separate aspects of media performance: the extent to which they perform a ‘watchdog’ role by providing information, and the degree to which they act as a representative forum for the views of citizens. She finds that no country in the analysis scores very highly on both of these dimensions, but that the variations between states match differences in the quality of their democracy.

Modern societies could not be imagined without mass communication. Television, newspapers, the radio and the internet are the main sources of information for citizens all around the globe. But what does this mean for the functioning of political systems and processes? Few would doubt that mass media in authoritarian regimes – which are typically controlled tightly by the state – serve to maintain the existing power structure. One only has to think of the pervasive state propaganda disseminated by North Korean media to keep the country’s citizens in line. There is also broad agreement that mass media contribute to democratisation processes, as seen for example in Eastern Europe during and after the Soviet Union’s collapse.

By contrast, there is a great deal of controversy when it comes to the issue of whether free mass media serve or harm democracy once it has been established. On the one hand, adherents of what is often referred to as the ‘media malaise’ theory claim that because mass media in established democracies mostly operate according to market principles, they disregard their democratic duties. This is alleged to have serious repercussions for democracy, causing apathy, cynicism and ignorance with regard to politics among citizens.

On the other hand, supporters of what might be termed the ‘mobilisation’ perspective (who appear to be in the minority) hold that the expectations imposed on both the media and citizens by media malaise theorists are too high. In what they perceive to be a more realistic assessment, mobilisation theorists conclude that media sources provide enough information for citizens to recognise when their interests are in danger, and that media consumption actually increases civic engagement.

Assessing the mass media’s role in democracies

My book, Comparing Mass Media in Established Democracies, argues that neither of the positions within this debate are well substantiated by solid empirical evidence. Most notably, there is a lack of research on democratic media performance and its effects on democratic outcomes across a wide range of countries and by means of a comprehensive theoretical framework and systematic multivariate analysis.

A large part of my research therefore deals with the question of how democratic media performance can be assessed in a comparative perspective. To this end, a theoretical model of media performance is developed and found to be empirically valid. It is defined by two normative functions that mass media should fulfil in a democracy. First, mass media should disseminate politically relevant information to as many citizens as possible and thereby act as a public watchdog (which I term its ‘vertical function’). Second, mass media should provide a public forum that reflects the diversity of the society (what I term its ‘horizontal function’).

Based on this two-dimensional concept, I identify indicators to measure media performance on two different levels of analysis: the structural or media system level, and the content or media coverage level. While the structural analysis comprises media market statistics for 47 countries – including most of Europe – from 1990 to 2008, the content level focuses on data from a content analysis of 50 newspapers from ten countries during the year 2008.

How does media performance differ across countries?

The comparison of democratic media performance reveals a considerable variation across the 10 to 47 countries examined, and different patterns can be identified. Although some countries may be ascribed a higher overall degree of media performance than others, none of them score particularly highly on both the vertical and the horizontal functions. It therefore seems that optimising both media functions at the same time is only feasible up to a certain point. Countries either perform badly or moderately on both functions, or outstandingly on just one of the functions.

In a nutshell, while the younger democracies within the sample generally lag behind (especially the Eastern European, Asian and Latin American cases, but also some Southern European countries), different patterns of media performance can be observed with respect to the more mature democracies. The vertical function – the degree to which media provide political information – seems to be best guaranteed in Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries as well as in Japan. This includes the United States, often considered a worst case in terms of media performance. In contrast, the horizontal function – the capacity for the media to act as a representative public forum – is found to be much stronger in central-western European countries, such as Austria, Germany and Switzerland.

These patterns are observed with regard to both the structural and the content level. Further evidence shows that a country’s performance on the structural level has an impact on its performance on the content level, thereby suggesting that the two levels are not independent of each other. The systemic conditions that media outlets operate in also appear to influence their news coverage.

Does media quality actually affect the quality of democracy?

Do these differences in media performance according to the vertical and horizontal functions actually have an effect on how well democracy works in the respective countries? As it happens, countries with a higher degree of media performance show higher levels of political participation and less corruption. They also tend to have a more lively civil society, and elected representatives seem to reflect the preferences of citizens more adequately. These findings illustrate that media performance is clearly related to at least some aspects of the functioning of a democratic regime. Therefore, given its relevance for democracy, it can be concluded that the discussion over whether media fall short of or fulfil the normative demands imposed on them is highly significant.

My findings also question the general and sweeping assumptions that both the ‘media malaise’ and the ‘mobilisation theories’ make about the state of media and democracy. Ultimately, both perspectives could benefit from considering comparative empirical evidence that distinguishes between different aspects of media performance and their influence on different elements of democracy.

This piece originally appeared on LSE’s EUROPP blog.

Note: This article gives the views of the interviewee, and not the position of the Euro Crisis in the Press blog, EUROPP, nor of the London School of Economics.

Lisa Müller is the author of Comparing Mass Media in Established Democracies (Palgrave, 2014). She received her PhD in Political Science from the University of Zurich in 2012. Her research interests include democracy theory and measurement, comparative media research and political communication.

Related articles on Euro Crisis in the Press:

A Shrinking Brussels Press Corps Could Put Investigative EU Journalism at Risk

The Myth of Journalistic Impartiality under Austerity

The European economic crisis has coincided with a decline in press freedom in the EU

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in Media, Other and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The impact of the mass media on the quality of democracy within a state remains a much overlooked area of study

  1. Pingback: The influence of American Media on Global Issues –

  2. Axel Baez Obregon says:

    Furthermore, to understand Lisa Muller’s text more precisely, we need to go back to the premises of the medium. For this, we can look at Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception.” It demonstrates how the effects of mass media indoctrinate individuals into a passive form where they can be manipulated by the mass media, thereby suggesting the term used in Muller’s text, ‘media malaise,’ which claims, in this case, that the media commodities shape us into a standardized society. Therefore, when people are aware of these facts, they show their nonconformity against the mass media by showing apathy and cynicism.

    In today’s society, citizens are more objective and reflexive, and this can be attributed to their involvement in independent media outlets like those that can be found on social networks. Ergo, media consumption is higher, and the ‘mobilisation’ perspective is less apparent.

    To conclude, I really liked your comment about the necessity of independent media for the survival of any democracy. Independent media nowadays have a big role in keeping societies awake to the extent that they can spot what is biased and what is rhetorical. As both you and Adorno mentioned, in the past, all media was influenced by and affiliated to the governments of democratic regimes for the sole purpose of maintaining the current dynamism of the status-quo. Although these polarized mediums are still present to this day, Adorno points out that the primary obstacles to social progress are cultural and phycological; therefore, media organizations are crucially important in democracies since they obey to the establishing authoritarian regimes in keeping the mass culture as low culture. This means people are easier to fool and be deceived. To this end, independent media help to hinder regressive consumption, benightment, and mass deception, in which all of these alter the political reality to keep us captivated in the open prison in which we exist.

    Now, I would like to ask you a question, if you do not mind. I am writing a paper and I would appreciate your contribution very much. In regards to Muller’s text, and taking into consideration what I mentioned earlier about Adorno’s views, do you think that Anglo-Saxon countries scored higher in the vertical function because of their democratic regimes with an emphasis on capitalism?

    • Angie says:

      Hi Axel,

      I am a student currently conducting a research project surrounding whether or not mainstream media in the 21st century successfully deepens democracy. My research so far suggests the opposite, that the media more so contributes to public cynicism and democratic decay. Your comment seems very relevant to my topic and I would love to discuss this with you further and receive your insight.

      Please email me at

  3. Pingback: Readings: Journalism and trust – Trusting Journalism

  4. August Benson says:

    In my opinion, using the lectures from my Communication, Media and Politics class as background, success of any democracy will b short-lived without press freedom. Media’s regulatory role makes them the conscience of both the government and the people. This is achieved through the publication of stories that are written critically, objectively and patriotically. This role sometimes leads to rift between government and media as the government always wants to hide what the press ants to reveal in a bid to stand by their social responsibility to the public.
    For any democracy to survive, it requires an alert, independent press that is free from the brown-envelope syndrome.

    Mabel Benson
    Mass Communication
    Caleb University, Lagos.

  5. Pingback: Mass Media vs Social Media in Politics – MACEY MANRIQUE

  6. Pingback: Own the media, own it all. – Laurence's blog

Comments are closed.