A comparison and contrast between the Social Responsibilities and Libertarian Theories

The Libertarian and Authoritarian theories were propounded by Frederick Seibert in his “Four Theories of the press”. The “press” in Seibert’s work refers to the media of mass communication namely Radio, television and newspaper.

The Libertarian theory proposes that the media is at liberty to report whatever they deem fit whether true or false and leave it in the judgement of people to decide. They proposed that the media landscape was a free market place of ideas. This theory arose against the authoritarian theory, which proposed government control of the media. The proponents of the theory argued that “if individuals could be freed from the arbitrary limits on communication imposed by church and state, they would “naturally” follow the dictator of their conscience, seek truth, engage in public debate and ultimately create a better life for themselves and others (McQuail, 1987, Siebert, Peterson, Shramm, 1956)

To further consolidate this theory, John Milton, hold that truthful and good arguments will always win out over lie and deceit and this idea became known as the self-righting principle (Altschull, 1990).

Worthy of note is the fact that, with this absolute freedom that the media enjoyed under this theory might tend to use for more harm than good. There are no restrictions to what the media could report and even the state and individuals need to be protected from the excesses of the media.

The Second of Siebert’s theories to be discovered is the Social Responsibility theory. The theory emphasized professionalism and self regulation on the part of the media. This places the responsibility on the media to place priority on the society as against pursuing profits.

In Ghana, the social responsibility theory is enshrined in the Ghana Journalists Association at its Sunyani General Meeting in July 1994.

The preamble of the code reminds the media that “the public expects the media to play their watchdog role. They should do this with a high sense of responsibility without infringing on the rights of individuals and the society in general.

This document guides the media to function in such a way that the public will be protected from its excesses but derive the maximum benefits from them. This is not the case with Libertarian theory.

Article 5(I) states that “Journalists should respect the right of the individual, the privacy and human dignity” (GJA code of ethics).

Upon close analysis, both the Libertarian and social responsibility theories have some things in common. In the first place, both theories have a high regard for the role the media plays in society.

According to (Altschull, 1990, p 117), Thomas Jefferson, after suffering scurribus newspaper criticisms during the second term of his presidency, reaffirmed Milton’s self-righting principle in a letter to a friend in 1787, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without governments, I should not hesitate to prefer the latter.” (Altschull, 1990, p.117).

Both theories, again, are much preferred against the Authoritarian theory, which places strict restriction on what the media can do. Authoritarian theory places censorship and punishment or media houses that do not broadcast in favour of the established authority (a government).

In addition, the main aim of the theories is to see to the well-being of the citizenry or media consumers. The Libertarian proposes a free marketplace of ideas where individuals can discuss and solve their problems rather than elites governments having the control over the media. Social responsibility theory also has the consumer in mind when it tasks the media to be responsible in their reportage. They are to guard against yellow and base journalism for profits and put society’s interest first.

In contrast, the responsibility placed in the social responsibility sets it apart from the Libertarian theory. There is a sort of restriction placed on it which demands practitioners in the social responsibility theory to work in a particular framework. The Libertarian theory however has no restrictions.

The social responsibility theory also protects the public more than the Libertarian theory. It charges journalists to guard against invading people’s privacy and respecting human dignity and national interest. All these are not mentioned in the Libertarian theory and as such, practitioners in this theory infringe on these with impunity.

A

A comparison and contrast between the authoritarian and libertarian theories

A contrast and comparison between the authoritrain and libertarian theories of the mass media

Frederick Seibert propounded the libertarian and authoritarian theories in his ‘Four theories of the press’. The term “press” in Siebert”s work refers to the media of mass communication, namely, radio, television and newspapers.

According to Seibert, the media in an authoritarian system requires government control. In this theory, the assumption is that not all men are endowed with wisdom and as such, only the wise few (government) should direct the affairs of the people.. it also assumes that these wise men are infallible.

The system prohibits the publishing of any material that the government deems to undermine the security of the state, or its social or moral values. The authoritarian practice controls the media by granting licenses and sometimes censorship. The governments do these with the aim of protecting the collective interests of the public; or that is what they believe.

Ghana at one time also did its fair suppression of the media. This authoritarian

“it is part of our revolutionary credo that within the competitive system of capitalism, the press cannot function in accordance with a strict regard for the sacredness of facts and the press, therefore, should not remain in private hands”

On another occasion, he stated, “the truly African press does not exist for the purpose of enriching its proprietors or entertaining its readers. It is an integral part of our society…must carry out our revolutionary purpose”.

The control of the media was reinforced with legislation. A Criminal Code (Amendment) Act was passed requiring “newspapers and other publications of matters calculated to prejudice public order or safety” to be submitted for scrutiny before publication.(Audrey Gadzekpo)

According to Gadzekpo, “the final overt policy… was the passing of the newspaper licensing law (PNDC Law 211) in1989that revoked the registration of all newspapers.

Seibert graphically describes the relationship of the media and authoritarian systems as such:

Government

Media

The libertarian or free pres theory contrasts with the authoritarian theory. It rests on the idea that the individual had the right to publish what he or she likes regardless of whether it was true or not. It advocates for a free marketplace of ideas where each one would choose from among various ideas, which one was true. Even attacks on the government are accepted. The government does not intervene or censor the media in this system’s material.

The First amendment of the United States constitution prevents any law from being passed that blocks the freedom of the press.

Seibert illustrates it thus:

Media Government

This illustration does not suggest any link between the media and government

All this not withstanding, the authoritarian and libertarian systems do share some things in common. The media in both systems are understood to wield tremendous power. Both systems recognize the vital role that the media plays or can play. It is how they manipulate the knowledge that differs in both instances. In Audrey Gadzekpo’s Ghana case study, she cited Joyce Aryee, as giving a clue into the PNDC government’s communication policy when she said:

I do not see the press as laying outside of the political institutions that we have…People ought to realize the role of the media differs from country to country. In a situation like ours when we need to conscientise people and where we have an illiteracy problem, you use institutions like the media to do the conscientisation”(African Contemporary Report,1983-84).

The conscientisation effort meant that private newspapers were randomly banned for “distorting news”…and also for distorting the ideals of the 31^st December Revolution. (Asante, 1996)

In addition both systems have a level of restriction. There is no absolute freedom in either system. This is because the constitution has provision for the protection of citizens against libel and slander by media houses. Any citizen who feels aggrieved can petition any law court against a media house. This acts as a check on the freedom of the press although the check may not come from government.

The law of contempt also curtails the right off the media to publish even what is true... The Sunday Times of London was found guilty of publishing below a picture of Michael Malik, who was then awaiting a retrial for an offense, ‘he took to politicks after an unedifying career as a brothel keeper, procurer, then a property racketeer”

It would also amount to contempt if an accused person’s confession statement is published however true it might be.

In contrast, each system is inclined towards the few in the society (the rulers) or the majority. The authoritarian theory is a tool in the hands of the government or the select few. The libertarian theory on the other hand puts much power in the hands of the people since owning and operating a media could be done by anyone, in the absence of strict regulations.

REFERENCES:

Gadzekpo, Audrey. Communications policy of civilian and military regimes; a case study of Ghana.

Terje, Steinulfsson Skjerdaly: Seibert’s Four Theories of the Media; A Critique.