four theories of the press
four theories on the press, released in 1956, discusses four conceptions of the press since the emergence of mass printing: the authoritarian press under monarchical regimes; the enlightenment-inspired libertarian press, the social responsibility press of the united states, and the soviet communist press of obvious provenance.
while its descriptions of the historical evolution of the press are intriguing, particularly as a document written early in the cold war, the sociological philosophies that underlie these theories of information distribution struck me as profound and timeless, which are the focus on here.
the authoritarian theory of the press follows the philosophy of negative authority, embodied by the late renaissance sovereigns tasked with incorporating and channeling the power of the early press. these rulers see the affairs of the state as above and beyond the concern or understanding of the masses, for whom they view pessimistically and in service of the body politic. “knowledge was discoverable through mental effort” (11) of those rare few with naturally superior intellect and leadership qualities. their hard-won wisdom can’t be taken for granted, and must be instilled and defended to keep the social order stable. under this select minority of proper rulers, the public requires guidance and control for civilization to flourish, otherwise declining into primitivism. for these reasons, the press only communicates to the public what maintains the ruler’s established orthodoxy, operating as a dutiful and obedient servant of the state and for the legitimization of its objectives. a rigorous control of opinion was necessary to keep the baser elements of society in line; therefore, only official and credentialed forms of media were permitted, licenses revoked and charges of treason applied when necessary. elites were permitted to debate the merits of policies or ideas among themselves, but any direct or open criticism of leaders themselves was forbidden, viewed as seditious attempts to undermine and unseat them.
the proliferation of presses beyond the state’s capacity for censorship, operating from new conceptions of man of the enlightenment, gradually overturned the authoritarian worldview through the revolutionary emergence of democratic nation-states, correlating with a libertarian theory of the press that embodies the philosophy of negative liberty. in this view, the masses are not cultivated by the state but hindered by it, individuals and their fulfillment being ends in themselves. collective restraints and censorship suppress the natural human pursuit of capital-t truth, “a definite and discoverable entity capable of demonstration to all thinking men” (41) through impartial investigation and the open marketplace of ideas. there should be no line between what is known or discussed among the elite or the masses, as the best ideas can come from any position or part of society. “a wrong opinion may contain a grain of truth necessary for finding the whole truth,” (46) and truth must be contested to maintain its vitality, emerging through the wisdom of the crowd’s “self-righting” process. along these lines, the press is best when free to permit the voicing and distribution of all ideas, the state merely serving this process. while often chaotic and unproductive, this approach’s adaptability and flexibility allows for progress and the advancement of humankind through individual self-direction.
the nineteen and twentieth centuries put negative liberty to the test, finding it wanting: censoring media that creates “a clear and present danger” during times of crisis was necessary. professionalized detached and aloof reporting, in addition to the government’s growth in size and complexity, left the public unsure how to evaluate facts; big business could self-servingly distort information through obfuscation and sensationalism. in turn, faith in the unbridled rationality of man came under question, whose “aim is not to find truth but to satisfy his immediate needs and desires” (100). further, the belief a singular truth itself seemed naive, as the best we could achieve was a multiplicity of “lesser truths, tentative truths, working truths.” (103)
from these struggles and insights emerged the the theory of social responsibility, tasking the press with the purpose to not merely inform or opine but to educate and elevate the public. this view balances the pessimism of negative authority against the optimism of negative liberty, producing a worldview of positive liberty in which ”moral duties that are implicit in libertarian theory become explicit in social responsibly theory.” (101) this philosophy contends that the press has an obligation as the fourth estate watchdog of government and elite corruption while also minding the limits of the the masses’ time and energy to be meaningfully informed, expediting the self-correcting process of negative liberty. with the great privilege of having the public’s ear came the responsibility of embodying a higher ethic of conduct and conscience: the press must fairly and comprehensibly present all relevant sides of an issue, serve as a forum of exchange of comment and criticism, clarify the goals of society, and maintain high standards for what it distributes. the state and independent agencies operate as partners and guides for setting the standards of fair and balanced media, an uneasy arrangement balanced against the need for media to be financially self-supporting through private patronage and advertising.
the fourth theory of the press comes from the former soviet union, developed out of the Marxist belief in the dictatorship of the proletariat as the dialectical end of history, and therefore the one true and final form of the social order. this worldview is necessarily all-embracing and monolithic, requiring a “hard and sharp distinction between right and wrong” (107) and a “submission or destruction of all competing power” (113). truth is partisan, so objectivity is impossible; what matters most is the impact of ideas over some illusory impartiality that can only violate the already-complete ideology. to maintain this absolutist vision, no deviation from the official party line can be permitted, requiring mass surveillance, the total subjugation of the individual, and purges of any deviation from the official party line.
while the book doesn’t use this term, i would consider this worldview a form of positive authority. while under negative authority “the press is not permitted to do a number of things, largely related to criticism of the regime,” (140) the positive authority of the soviet system requires the press to act in certain ways, instrumentally “straining events through a ready made theoretical sieve” (145). negative authority has the media under the state, while positive authority has it in and of the state, an authority embodied not in individuals but an idea. all analysis and proclamations of the press must reinforce the ostensibly perfect worldview; whether reporting or entertaining, acting as propagandist, agitator, or organizer, the sameness of the media’s message was regarded as a sign of health.
i can’t help but notice some correspondence between these four worldviews of negative and positive authority and liberty with four of the moral foundations of authority, liberty, fairness, and sanctity.
both models describe a theory of the individual and its relation to the collective, but the theories of the press are based on the ideas of leading worldviews of their time, while the moral foundation theories are based on insights of cultural anthropology and evolutionary psychology. despite these disparate starting places, both theories seem to evoke similar axioms of the human condition.
negative authority and liberty seem closely aligned with the moralities of authority and liberty, and not just in name. both frameworks on authority emphasize the great effort necessary to create a solid social foundation and cultivate worthy leaders, requiring restraint and punishment for challenges to the established order. both libertarian perspectives are associated with the autonomy of individuals against oppressive systems of control, referring to the revolutions of the enlightenment as embodying these values.
positive liberty and authority have less obvious associations, but i see some correlations with the moralities of fairness and sanctity, respectively. positive liberty, like fairness, attempts to balance competing interests for the sake of all parties involved, recognizing mutual responsibilities and the contextuality of what is true and fair. both the morality of fairness and theory of social responsibility are upheld as supreme in their respective fields: the west still uses this theory of the press, and moral psychology orthodoxy views justice as the bedrock of all morality. positive authority, like sanctity, pursues an unwavering reverence for an absolute that is held above and beyond individuals, viewing pure conformity as essential and any deviation as abhorrent and meriting eradication.