Communications and Media

For almost half a century, the Four Theories of the Press by Siebert, Peterson, and Schram (1963) have been part of the national press literature. The four theories are Authoritarian Theory, Libertarian Theory, Social Responsibility Theory, and Soviet-Totalitarian Theory and they describe the various views on the role of the press in relation to the state and social needs. They are described in relation to the nature of man, the nature of society and the state, and the nature of media, knowledge, and truth. This paper provides a background for each theory and it also criticizes them. This critique argues that the four press theories lack empiricism, because they are prescriptions, instead of descriptions of the evolving nature and dynamics of the press, they also focus on state-press relationships and overlook the effects of the economy and individual choices on the national press, and they come from a Western perspective, which espouses the Western ideas of democracy.

The Authoritarian Theory of the press is described as the most pervasive theory because Siebert (1963) argued that it has lasted historically and spread quickly across the globe (in Siebert et al., 1963, p.9). He pointed out that, for countries that have the society and technology to generate mass media in its modern sense, they almost always begin with the authoritarian model of the press (Siebert et al., 1963, p.9). His examples date back to sixteenth century England, such as the Tudors in England, Bourbons in France, and Hapsburgs in Spain. As a result, this theory accounts for the beginning of press systems in many Western countries. In addition, Siebert (1963) argued that as the foundation of modern press, the Authoritarian Theory continues to affect government policies surrounding press practices (p.9). He stressed that this is because of the inherent need to develop and maintain social control (p.10). The Authoritarian model postulates that the state controls the press and subordinates their freedom. The state does not receive negative comments on it appreciatively and they can punish journalists and close press organizations that dare to undermine their authority.

The Libertarian Theory of the Press is the ideal model, because it advances individual human rights, including the rights of the media to freedom of speech and freedom of press. Siebert (1963) argues that this theory assumes that man is a rational being who must be treated as an end in himselfherself and that the society promotes the interests of its members (p.39). Since man is a rational being, heshe does not need the government to think for himher and make decisions for himher (p.39). As a result, libertarians distrust the government and they see the press as a source of information, entertainment, criticism, and marketing.

The Social Responsibility Theory is already practiced in the United States in the 20th century and has emerged from the criticisms of the society on the media as a source of consumerism and corruption. According to this theory, the press has the primary responsibility of providing accurate information to the public, so that the people can make informed decisions (Ostini  Fung, 2002, p.42). The Commission on the Freedom of the Press stated It is no longer enough to report the fact truthfully. It is now necessary to report the truth about the fact (Peterson in Siebert et al., 1963, p.88).  The media is compelled to think not only of its self-interests, but the welfare of society in general.

The Soviet-Totalitarian Theory is developed in Russia and Nazi Germany, wherein the state owned the press (Ostini  Fung, 2002, p.43). The primary basis of the theory is Stalinism, which Schramm postulates on the basis of the cold war theory. It is the extreme form of authoritarian model because the state uses the press for the promotion and sustenance of the totalitarian rule. The main goal of the press then is to assure the existence of the Soviet state through strict government controls of the media.

This paper proceeds to the critique of the Four Press Theories. This critique argues that the four press theories lack empiricism, because they are prescriptions, instead of descriptions of the evolving nature and dynamics of the press. They are more of the description of philosophies and governments and societies of the past, than of the present society and its complex relationship to the media. As a theory, they must also be tested, but they have not been tested by the authors on modern press and state systems. It is good to relate to and describe past political systems, especially how the authoritarian state reconnects to the ideals of Plato and Hobbes. These are political ideologies that help understand the philosophical underpinnings of government systems and societies, at large. However, they do not test these theories in a rigorous sense. There should be a series of researches done to determine if these four theories still apply to modern societies, whose politics, culture, and economy are in a constant flux. Four Press Theories also remain as they are, forty years ago, with only examples added for more recent versions. They have not greatly changed in terms of including other factors and nuances to their theories. These models are also normative. They tell readers how the media, society, and the state should act in different political states. They disregard the possibility of other factors and how they change the ideas of the nature of man, the nature of society and the state, and the nature of media, knowledge, and truth.

The Four Press Theories focus on state-press relationships and overlook the effects of the economy and individual choices on the national press.  Several scholars pointed out that this model does not consider the impact of economic factors, when the conglomeration and diversification of media companies affect media interests and purposes (Ostini  Fung, 2002, p.44). A good example is Walt Disney. Some people only know the company from its animation movies, but in reality, it operates in four business segments Media Networks, Parks and Resorts, Studio Entertainment, and Consumer Products. Disney owns ABC and ESPN, which are all media companies. How does this affect the national press system Many companies also own TV, print, Internet, and radio companies. How does this affect the partiality of each media channel The Four Press Theories do not understand or even identify how economic conditions impact the development of the national press, when economics can clearly impact how the media covers stories and what choice of stories they will seek to pursue. In addition, the Four Press Theories neglect the concept of individual choices and the process of individual decision making (Ostini  Fung, 2002, p.45). The press is not a homogenous unit, but is made of people who also have personal goals, interests, and aspirations. These media people are not mere products to be changed, but they can also affect changes individually. They may not be the media in its largest most influential sense, but together, they can affect the politics and economics of their profession.

The Four Press Theories come from a Western perspective, which espouses the Western ideas of democracy. The authors did not integrate other forms of perspectives, because they are already submerged in their Western ideals of democracy, which is liberal democracy according to Western values and ideas. It is not argued that there is anything inherently wrong with Western perspectives and ideals of democracy. However, they undermine other press theories that are more culturally-based, which makes these theories highly inflexible to diverging cultures. For instance, though attacked as an authoritarian model, the Chinese government practices a market socialist approach to society, governance, and mass media. They may be censoring the media, but it is not something that the public fully believes as for merely social control. They have a culture that accepts authority and its controls, so this is not something entirely negative as the Four Press Theories depict. The Arab press model also does not cleanly fit the authoritarian model or totalitarian model. In itself, it represents a literary form of media that is based on Islamic ideals and values. Thus, the Four Press Theories do not represent the wide range of press theories all over the world.

In conclusion, the Four Press Theories are normative press theories. If they describe society and press dynamics, they do so in relation to the past and philosophies that supports each theory. As theories, they have not been widely empirically tested and have not been subjected to broad changes. They neglect the impact of economics and individuals, and they are Anglo-centric with Western views and ideals of humanity, democracy, press, and government. They hold specific values and attitudes that do not necessarily completely apply to and understand numerous different cultures and subcultures. They do not consider that other variations of press models can arise, especially when societies themselves have cultures and subcultures that shape the medias interests and priorities. The Four Press Theories is great for simplifying past societies and their press concerns, but it is not updated enough for the modern press that lives in complex and changing societies.