Download the eBook (8.25 MB) - ECREA Thematic Sections

Diversity of Journalisms. Proceedings of ECREA/CICOM Conference, Pamplona, 4-5 July 2011
The dilemma is finding a balance between diversity and selection (c.f. Rössler, 2001, p.
163). Which position on this continuum is optimum for society is not known (c.f. Trappel
& Meier, 2002, p. 58).
Van Cuilenberg (2002) has illustrated the concept and dimensions of diversity in a
chain: On the first level, social diversity in society, on the second level media diversity
reflecting social diversity and on the third level opinion diversity nurtured by media
diversity. The diversity chain ends up in democracy since this is the final aim that
diversity is supporting (c.f. van Cuilenberg, 2002, p. 2 f.).
The level of interest here is media diversity. This is, of course, a very general term and
needs further definition. From the perspective of media content and the media system,
Knoche (1980) and later McQuail and van Cuilenberg (1983), McQuail (1992b) and
Schulz and Ihle (2005) differentiate between three levels for measuring diversity: the
macro-level (media system/ownership), the meso-level (outlets/genre) and the microlevel
(issues/protagonists). The three levels can but do not necessarily depend on each
other, as Rössler states (2007, p. 500 f.):
Decreases in diversity at the macro-level should lead to decreases at the meso-level;
subsequently, decreases in diversity at the meso-level should lead to decreases at the
micro-level, resulting in overall lower content diversity. However, evidence so far
suggests that observable decreases in diversity at the macro-level did not necessarily
create decreasing diversity on the meso-level. Concentration in ownership does not
inevitably reduce the range of genre, formats, or outlets available. Moreover, even if an
increase on the meso-level is recorded, this change did not automatically prompt an
increase in diversity on the micro-level.
These distinctions mainly focus on media content and the media system. In addition,
McQuail (1992b, p. 157 f.) differentiates between content that is sent and content that
is received, which was later taken up by Napoli (1997) as exposure diversity.
Furthermore, diversity within a specific medium can be differentiated from all media in a
given market. While the former is called intra medium diversity, the latter is named inter
media diversity (c.f. McQuail, 1992b, p. 145 ff.). Following the previous argumentation,
intra media diversity is a measurement for diversity on the micro-level, while inter
media diversity is connected to the meso-level (c.f. McQuail & van Cuilenberg, 1982, p.
685).
The request for media content diversity is also a consented demand of different models
of the public sphere – from the liberal model up to the deliberative model. Central here
is the transparence function of communication on the input side, meaning openness to
speakers, information and opinion. The deliberative model of the public sphere
furthermore demands a rational and discursive way of discussion with a consented or
argumentative supported public opinion at the end of the process (c.f. Neidhardt, 1994,
p. 8 ff.).
The reality, however, seldom fulfills those normative conditions as empirical studies
have shown. Access to the media is not equal (e.g. Gerhards, Neidhardt, & Rucht,
1998, p. 42 f.). Neidhardt states that in reality the public sphere on the mass media
317