Post on 03-Feb-2023
1 | P a g e
Abstract
This study examines and discusses the liberal pluralist broadcasting principles in liberal
societies. While discussing these issues, it tries to provide us with some sources that
touches upon new ideas in liberal pluralist principles in both contemporary
democracies as well as in classical democracies.
A liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy in which elected
representatives who hold power are limited by a constitution that emphasizes
protecting individual liberties, equality and the rights of minority groups. Among the
many liberties that might be protected are freedom of speech and assembly, freedom
of religion, the right to private property and privacy as well as equality before the law
and due process under the rule of law.
Such constitutional rights, also called liberal rights, are guaranteed through various
controlled institutions and statutory laws. Additionally, the constitutions of most
contemporary liberal democracies prohibits majoritarianism, a form of democracy in
which decisions are made by a simple majority of some organized group, which is rule
by the will of majority, when it harms those in the minority.
Through the course of this research, it came to the knowing that according to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion
and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and
impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers". Now with
this in hand, it illustrates to us the basis for which a Liberal Pluralist society is meant to
operate. This declaration not only gives the background for which a Liberal democratic
state is meant to operate, but also admonishes the media organizations in the states,
on which basis they are to take their broadcasting principles.
The function of the press is to protect the people’s liberties and rights, and to inform
the public so they can participate as citizens in democratic self-government. The liberal
theory prefers a privately owned news media that is maximally free to inform citizens
2 | P a g e
and criticize public policy, as well as act as a watchdog on authorities. The right to
publish and express oneself freely is not a prerogative of the state or a government. It
is a fundamental right of free individuals. The liberal theory argues that a free
marketplace of ideas, while it may cause harm over the short term, is the best
safeguard in the long run for a free and liberal society.
Introduction
Freedom of the press is what we are talking about when we say a state is liberal to the
diverse broadcasting organizations within its confinement. It doesn’t just end at the
media organizations, but it goes ahead to randomly touch all citizens who are under
such government (Plural approach).
The concept of Pluralism is used, often in different ways, in a wide range of issues. In
politics, pluralism is often considered by supporters of modern democracy to be in the
interests of its citizens, and so political pluralism is one of its most important features.
In democratic politics, pluralism is a guiding principle which permits the peaceful
coexistence of different interests, convictions and lifestyles. Unlike totalitarianism (e.g.
Marxism), pluralism acknowledges the diversity of interests and considers it imperative
that members of society accommodate their differences and express their ideas
without any fear of contradiction whatsoever via the media. (Marxist Media Theory,
Daniel Chandler 2011)
According to the data conducted in the course of this research, one can say that
Pluralists see society as a complex of competing groups and interests, none of them
prevalent all of the time. Media organizations are seen as organizational systems,
enjoying an important degree of autonomy from the state, political parties and
institutionalized pressure groups. (Pluralism and Liberal Democracy, Richard E. Flatham
2005).
3 | P a g e
Control of the media is said to be in the hands of an independent managerial elite who
allow a considerable degree of flexibility to media professionals. The audiences are
seen as capable of manipulating the media in an infinite variety of ways according to
their prior needs and dispositions, and as having access to 'the plural values of society'
enabling them to 'conform, accommodate, challenge or reject'. (Marxist Media Theory,
Daniel Chandler 2011)
The free media performs an important and essential function in monitoring the
activities of politicians and powerful institutions. Therefore corruption cannot thrive
(e.g. the role of The Washington Post in uncovering The Watergate Scandal in the mid-
1970s; the role of The Daily Telegraph in exposing the scandal of MPs’ expenses in
2010). (Watergate's impact on modern America, Examina.com 2011)
The mass media are free to operate and to express themselves with very few checks
and balances. The mass media ensures that the population is well educated and has a
good understanding of issues when they vote. The relationship is generally entered
into voluntarily and on apparently equal terms.
4 | P a g e
Freedom of the Press
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to freedom
of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of
frontiers". Freedom of the media is the freedom of communication and expression
through mediums including various electronic media and published materials. While
such freedom mostly implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state,
its preservation may be sought through constitutional or other legal protections. (The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948)
There are some certain ideas that runs through the minds of people when the term
democracy is used in describing the systems used by governments. Many of us will
always relate democracy to a free and fair state rule. A society where the government
is power to the people, by the people and for the people.
5 | P a g e
We always assume that every democracy is a form of government in which all eligible
citizens participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the
proposal, development, and creation of laws. We always think it encompasses social,
economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political
self-determination.
The one thing democracy allows of its people to breathe and air out their thoughts
about the development of their society. When we point out the economic benefits, we
see Capitalism as a key to forge ahead in a world of free market. The governments in
democracy are always seen to be holy, because they operate in freedom sense for the
benefits of its citizens who earn a living by working hard and no one disputes their
earnings.
But it is about just being far from that. Today, democracy has been remixed and twisted
about into different factions. It has been renamed and rebranded in different
vocabularies and recreated into different forms and systems that in one way or the
other, it has lost its meaning to these new terms.
With respect to governmental information, any government may distinguish which
materials are public or protected from disclosure to the public based on classification
of information as sensitive, classified or secret and being otherwise protected from
disclosure due to relevance of the information to protecting the national interest. Many
governments are also subject to sunshine laws or freedom of information legislation
that are used to define the ambit of national interest.
This philosophy is usually accompanied by legislation ensuring various degrees the
sense of Freedom of thought and Freedom of the press, publishing, press and printing
the depth to which these laws are entrenched in a country's legal system can go as far
down as its constitution. The concept of freedom of speech is often covered by the
same laws as freedom of the press, thereby giving equal treatment to spoken and
published expression. (Freedom House, Freedom of the Press 2013)
6 | P a g e
Liberal Democracy
A form of democracy based on the recognition of individual rights and freedoms, in
which decisions from direct or representative processes prevail in many policy areas.
The distinction between a pure class democracy and a liberal democracy can be drawn
from this context. Their various definitions are clear enough to give us a clue about
what the two terms mean. A liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy
in which elected representatives who hold power are limited by a constitution that
emphasizes protecting individual liberties, equality and the rights of minority groups.
(Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, "A Greek-English Lexicon, 1889)
Among the many liberties that might be protected are freedom of speech and
assembly, freedom of religion, the right to private property and privacy as well as
equality before the law and due process under the rule of law. Such constitutional
rights, also called liberal rights, are guaranteed through various controlled institutions
and statutory laws. Additionally, the constitutions of most contemporary liberal
democracies prohibits majoritarianism, which is rule by the will of majority, when it
harms those in the minority.
A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional
republic, such as France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, or the United States, or a
constitutional monarchy, such as Japan, Spain, the Netherlands or the United Kingdom.
It may have a presidential system (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, the United States), a semi-
presidential system (France and Taiwan), or a parliamentary system (Australia, Canada,
India, New Zealand, Poland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom).
To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution,
either formally written or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and
enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th
century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world.
7 | P a g e
No matter how free and effective the application of the principles of democracy is, no
matter how the stress of freedom and universal suffrage is, there are various legal
limitations such as copyright and laws against false statements that harms the
reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or the
wellbeing of a nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal action to deter various kinds of
defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.
Many governments considered to be democratic have restrictions upon expressions
considered anti-democratic, such as Holocaust denial and hate speech. Discriminatory
behaviour may be prohibited, such as refusal by owners of public accommodations to
serve persons on grounds of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. For
example, in Canada, a printer who refused to print materials for the Canadian Lesbian
and Gay Archives was fined $5,000, incurred $100,000 in legal fees, and was ordered
to pay a further $40,000 of his opponents' legal fees by the Human Rights Tribunal.
Liberal Democracy in United Kingdom
The broadcasting principles in the UK has been one practiced based on the advantage
of a Free Press. The United Kingdom has for some time now adhered to the section of
the Universal Suffrage Declaration, which states that everyone has the right to freedom
of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of
frontiers".
Freedom of expression is a universal human right. It is not the official right of the
politicians. It is not the privilege of the journalist. It should not be the casualty of their
rash disagreements nor regarded as a matter of little importance to anyone else.
Freedom of expression is fundamental to a democratic society, most especially the
societies that claim to be liberal in their democratic systems.
Democracy is government by the people. This should require the participation of all.
Yet it would be meaningless without information to inform, debate, shape policy, or
8 | P a g e
found judgment. Proper democracy entails an open society. A free press is an essential
prerequisite to an open society. The media searches out and circulates information,
ideas, comment and opinion. It provides the means for a multiplicity of voices to be
heard. At national, regional and local level, it is expected to be the public’s watchdog,
activist and guardian as well as educator, entertainer and contemporary reporter.
In United Kingdom, journalist exercises only the UK citizen’s free speech. The media
has few special rights. It has traditionally sought to resist new restrictions upon
freedom of expression in general or special controls upon the press. The media has
normally expedited for greater rights of the public: to promote freedom of speech, to
enlarge freedom of information and to safeguard the freedom of the press which
contains those rights.
UK journalists rarely face the same degree of intimidation or censorship as crude as
assassination which is the everyday reality of some of their overseas counterparts. But
they do face a range of legal restrictions which inhibit freedom of expression.
These include the defamation laws, official secrets and anti-terrorism legislation, the
law of contempt and other legal restrictions on court reporting, the law of confidence
and development of privacy actions, intellectual property laws, legislation regulating
public order, trespass, harassment, anti-discrimination and profanity. There is some
special provision for journalism and other literary and artistic activities, predominantly
intended as protection against prior restraint, in the data protection and human rights
legislation. There are some additional, judicial safeguards requiring court orders or
judicial consent before the police can gain access to journalistic material or instigate
surveillance in certain circumstances, but, in practice, the law provides limited
protection to journalistic material and sources.
Moreover, the United Kingdom has a culture of official confidentiality, with only limited
public and press rights to local government information and meetings, which have
worn down over the years as congress and private bodies take over their functions.
9 | P a g e
The Society campaigned for improvements of the Local Government Act 2000 and
Freedom of Information Act 2000. Government, public, press and public bodies all have
a role in trying to change the prevailing culture from secrecy to openness.
The Human Rights Act 1998, incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights
into UK law, which includes both rights to privacy and rights to freedom of expression,
open justice and to protection of private life.
Although there are no restrictions on who can launch a newspaper and no state
licensing of the press or journalists, media ownership is regulated. At present
newspaper companies’ mergers and transfers of their assets are governed by special
controls, other than the operation of general competition law. Cross-media ownership
restrictions are prescribed by law. The Communications Act 2003 changed newspaper
and cross-media ownership controls but the government has a wide discretion to
intervene in media mergers on public interest grounds, in addition to general
competition and merger examinations.
The Newspaper Society and the regional press have campaigned on changes to the
media ownership regime. The Society and its members have also campaigned on a
range of issues to safeguard press freedom and promote freedom of expression.
Conflicting Policies in the UK Liberal Democratic System
Many people would argue that a liberal democracy isn't democratic or liberal. They
would argue that a liberal democracy does not respect the will of the people except
when citizens are asked to vote for their representatives, and that liberty is restricted
by the constitution or by precedent. Critics would argue that, by denying citizens the
right to cast votes on all issues especially serious matters such as going to war or
constitutional amendments.
A liberal democracy is a prelude of an oligarchy, or a government that is controlled by
the elite few. One of his cardinal convictions was that Britain was not run as a
10 | P a g e
democracy but as an oligarchy; the big cities were notoriously in the hands of the
oligarchy of local businessmen. Others would say that only a liberal democracy can
guarantee the individual liberties of its citizens and prevent the development into a
dictatorship. Unmodulated majority rule could, in their view, lead to the oppression of
various minority groups.
In the recent policies which was formed by the UK parliament, series of restrictions has
been penned down to curtail the freedom the press has been enjoying. There's one
big stumbling block in the deal on newspaper regulation finally agreed by the three
main political parties and that is the involvement of politicians at all. This remains a
charter written by politicians, imposed by politicians and controlled by politicians.( Bob
Satchwell, 2013)
In March 2013, a Leveson Report was released. It’s Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of
the Press which was drafted out by the 3 Main Political Parties in the UK after series of
discussions were help in the Parliament. They claimed it was aimed at making it easier
for the media and creative industries to grow, while protecting the interests of citizens.
(Leveson Report, 2013)
The head of the Society of Editors Bob Satchwell says there is no place for "political
interference" in a free press (Bob Satchwell, 2013). The issues with the charter meant
that there will be no freedom of the press any longer as you cannot have a new system
of press regulations drawn up and imposed by the ruling political class.
The press should have the freedom and ability to speak the truth, expose the absolute
truth by whatever means and safeguard rights of all citizens, including politicians. But
it’s also believed that the press shouldn’t be allowed to insult, lie and hurt innocent
members of the public including politicians. (BBC UK Press Reform, 2013)
The Press organisations has so far been feeling as though their rights to the Freedom
of Press and rights to official confidentiality has been tampered with by the contents
enlisted in this latest policy which was shed more light to on the 11th of October 2013.
11 | P a g e
There has been some aired out dismay and expression of frustration by Newspaper
firms and Bloggers as to how they can start cooperating with these policies or not.
(BBC UK Press Reform, 2013)
Out of many, these are a few of the comments made by the Press firms in
the UK.
The Sun
Celebrations are premature. Yes, it is welcome that parliament seems to have stepped
back from the worst case scenario - full-scale control of papers by politicians. And yes,
the Sun is committed to tougher rules that safeguard the public. But much remains to
be studied before the royal charter can be accepted as the foundation stone of new
regulation. (BBC UK Press Reform, 2013)
The Times
This was a deal done without the involvement of the British press, even though the
campaign group Hacked Off was, remarkably, present during the negotiations. The
most rational reaction came from Index on Censorship, which declared the deal "a sad
day for press freedom in the UK". There was a basic principle at stake and it has been
12 | P a g e
lost. The role of a free press is to hold the government to account. It should not work
the other way round. Despite Mr Cameron's bland reassurance, there is no such thing
as a "dab" of statute. Regulation of the press is a matter either recognised in law or it
is not. (BBC UK Press Reform, 2013)
The Guardian
The politics, then, have played out, but will the practicalities? There is still no guarantee.
Monday night's non-committal statement by the Newspaper Society suggests that
many powerful players are still calculating whether to play ball. After doing a deal
among themselves, the politicians will breathe a sigh of relief and hope they can move
on. But as the industry alights on grievances, both real and hyperbolic, the political
class as a whole could discover that the brokering has only just begun. (BBC UK Press
Reform, 2013)
The Daily Mail
Over the coming weeks, it will be for the newspaper and magazine industry to decide
whether it can co-operate with a system involving politicians, many of whom will be
here today and gone tomorrow, which overturns 300 years of press freedom. The bitter
irony is this long-drawn out debate comes when the internet - which, being global,
has no regulatory restraints - is driving newspapers out of business. If politicians had
devoted half as much of their energies to keeping a dying industry alive, instead of
hammering another nail into its coffin, democracy would be in a healthier state today.
(BBC UK Press Reform, 2013)
Fleet Street Fox
When journalists talk about press freedom we are accused of defending ourselves but
we are also defending you. There are 62.6 million people in this country, and 20 to 30
million of them read a mass-market newspaper every day. If we successfully defend
the rights of the press, we defend the rights of our readers and our non-readers too.
Objectively speaking, I don't mind what I write being controlled by law, so long as the
13 | P a g e
law guarantees that I can otherwise write what I like. We've only got one law for that.
It's the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 10. And the government wants to repeal it. (BBC
UK Press Reform, 2013)
To conclude everything, these points and text highlights discussed above, one can
agree with me that the Liberal democratic policies are not purely democratic. First of
all, for a government to gather up a set of ruling class to delegate on whether or not
the press and the entire citizens should be allowed to enjoy the privilege of information
is a violation of the universal suffrage decree.
Nevertheless, the world still recognises the United Kingdom’s amongst which states
give full privileges to their Citizens to exercise the right to air out their opinions for the
development and wellbeing of the country, as long as it doesn’t violate the law of
defamation. So the question to ponder is that “are all the Press firms in the UK
accountable of violating the Libel law?” If no, then why are all of them put under the
same consideration? Why isn’t the Constitution handling the matter, but a set of
political class?
References
BBC News UK, Press reform: Media reaction to regulation deal, 19th March, 2013.
14 | P a g e
BBC News UK, Press regulation: Royal charter risks freedom – editors, 12th
October, 2013.
GOV. UK, Leveson Report: Final draft Royal Charter for proposed body to
recognise press industry self-regulator, 11th October, 2013.
Society of Editors Fighting for Media Freedom. UK, 2013
Henry George Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford.
Clarendon Press. 1889.
James Curran and Jean Seaton Power Without Responsibility: the Press and
Broadcasting in Britain, London: Routledge, 1997.
Geoffrey Levy, The man who hated Britain: Red Ed's pledge to bring back
socialism is a homage to his Marxist father. So what did Miliband Snr really
believe in? The answer should disturb everyone who loves this country. 27th
September, 2013.
The Local Government Act 2000, as originally enacted, from the Office of Public
Sector Information.
Official text of the Local Government Act 2000 as in force today (including any
amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database.
BBC News UK, Press regulation: Reaction to deal, 18th March, 2013