Are the opinion pages a forum for public participation? A comparison of
Danish and British models
Paper submitted to the Critical and Cultural Studies Division of the AEJMC
April 1, 2003
Author contact information:
Karin Wahl-Jorgensen, Ph. D.
Lecturer
School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies
Cardiff University
Bute Building, King Edward VII Avenue
Cardiff, CF10 3NB, Wales, UK
Phone: +44(0)29 2087 4000 extension 7151
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Are the opinion pages a forum for public participation? A comparison of
Danish and British models
Karin Wahl-Jorgensen
Cardiff University
Abstract
This paper compares the potential for public participation in the opinion
pages of Danish and British quality newspapers, which have radically
different models for these pages. The paper is based on an examination of
op-ed and editorial pages in the three largest-circulation Danish dailies,
as well as in the British papers, The Guardian, The Telegraph and The
Times, during a randomly selected two-week period in the autumn of 2002.
The paper draws on deliberative democratic theory as its normative framework.
Are the opinion pages[1] a forum for public participation? A comparison of
Danish and British models
This paper compares the potential for public participation in the opinion
pages of Danish and British quality newspapers, which have radically
different models for these pages. The paper is based on an examination of
op-ed and editorial pages in the three largest-circulation Danish dailies,
as well as in British broadsheet newspapers The Guardian, The
Telegraph and The Times during a randomly selected two-week period in the
autumn of 2002, and on interviews with key personnel at the six newspapers.
The paper focuses on broadsheet newspapers because they have a tradition of
much more extensive debate than tabloids, and a stronger commitment to the
kind of political news associated with traditional conceptions of
citizenship (cf. McNair, 2000, p. 16).[2] The study seeks to uncover
whether the range of voices and topics heard on the opinion pages of the
Danish newspaper is any different from that in their British counterparts
and, if so, how we should theorise these differences.
What I hope to illustrate is that the opinion pages of British newspapers
perpetuate a debate tradition that has an elitist, 'top-down' and
professionalized vision of public debate in mind. The Danish model seeks to
include a wider variety of voices and experiences, and succeeds to some
extent in opening up for a democratic public debate, as well as for
agenda-setting by regular citizens. Nevertheless, it does remain a forum
for the those who have cultural capital.
Understanding the Opinion Pages
Opinion pages have a privileged standing within the newsroom, and within
the self-understanding of quality journalism, both in Denmark and in the
UK. First of all, they are the only pages of the paper where the ideal of
objectivity does not apply: They allow for the expression of opinion, often
guided by the political leanings of the newspaper, but also informed by the
desire for a "balanced forum" (cf. Page, 1996, p. 21). As McNair (2000) has
pointed out, the opinion pages grant the press the
power to set the dominant political agenda, as elaborated over weeks,
months and years, in editorials, columns and other forms of pro-active,
opinionated journalism....In this capacity the institutions of the press
take the lead in establishing the dominant interpretative frameworks within
which ongoing political events are made sense of. (p. 30)
The opinion pages also constitutes the only place in the newspaper where
members of the public, and individuals who are not journalists, are allowed
to contribute as writers, if mainly just in the shape of letters to the
editor. Given the journalism profession's allegiance to ideals of free
expression and diverse public discourse, the section is often taken for
granted as a crucial forum for public debate. One former op-ed editor of
the Philadelphia Inquirer, Phil Joyce, wrote in the Masthead, the US
editorial writers trade magazine: "we consider our commentary page as a
marketplace of ideas, a forum in which our readers can discuss everything"
(Joyce, 1990, p. 8). Another editor suggested that the editorial pages are
a "vehicle for an intellectual transaction between writer an reader...[and]
ought to be a place where a wide range of voices can speak to the issues of
the day; where controversy can blossom or consensus wilt" (Liefer, 1990, p.
9). Scholars have argued that the opinion pages encourage "public discourse
in an open forum of ideas that nurtures the community involvement so
necessary to the effective functioning of government and democracy at all
levels" (Ciofalo, 1998, p. 18; cf. also Ciofalo & Traverso, 1994, p. 51)
Examinations of the pages demonstrate that their content, authorship and
mode of address direct themselves to a top-down understanding of news. As
Fowler has put it, "editorials suggest a distinctive 'voice' for the
newspaper' (Fowler, 1991, p. 209). Editorials and columns function to
"critique and advise specific (often elite) groups or institutions, and
hence involve (power) relationships between the media, politicians and
businessmen and readers" (van Dijk, 1998, p. 62). The discourse of opinion
pieces implies a power differential between the writers and their audience:
The rhetorical and didactic form of address, though oral in tone, is more
like a lecture, presupposing power difference, rather than a conversation,
which would presuppose solidarity with the addressee (p. 60).
As such, the form does not spring out of a model of the editorial page as
a democratic forum, but rather leans on an understanding of the page as an
agenda-setting and educational site. Supporting this argument, one of the
few studies of the feature, Benjamin Page's (1996) Who deliberates, shows
that the debate in US opinion pages is dominated by professional
communicators, and that citizens' say is limited to issues already on the
news agenda.
Nevertheless, the rhetoric surrounding the page, as we shall see in more
detail later, is one that celebrates its democratic promise. Given the
democratic aspirations journalists express in relation to the pages, and
given the fact that the dominant liberal democratic model of the media
stress the need for such forums for public discussion, it is worthwhile
investigating whether different ways of organising the page can contribute
to citizen empowerment.
Opinion Pages as a Democratic Forum: The normative visions of journalism
The opinion pages are interesting to examine not only as a unique set of
journalistic practices, but also as a microcosm of democratic public
discourse, highlighting the strengths and limitations of existing forms of
political participation. This is true because when democracy depends upon
the existence of an informed electorate, "it is principally through the
media that such an electorate can be formed" (McNair, 2000, p. 1). In
today's liberal democracies, media to play a range of important roles. As
Street (2001) has explained it:
Where the media are to provide a political forum, their aim should be,
firstly, to enable people to choose between those who wish to stand for
office and to judge those who currently are in office and, secondly, to
provide a platform for interest groups to publicize their concerns and
claims. This means informing citizens about their (prospective)
representatives' plans and achievements; it also means reflecting the range
of ideas and views which circulate within society, subjecting those who act
in the name of the people to scrutiny, to make them accountable. (p. 253;
see also McNair, 1995, pp. 21-22)
The responsibility for reflecting the ideas and views of society also
entails facilitating public debate and participation, and providing a
platform for citizens to express themselves (cf. McNair, 1995, pp. 21-22).
However, the question of how this responsibility, central to the
self-understanding of journalism should be put into practice is hotly
contested among both theorists and practitioners (see, for example,
Wahl-Jorgensen, 2002b). Broadly, proponents of the dominant liberal
democratic tradition of media practice are wedded to the notion of the free
marketplace of ideas, in which consumers/citizens are exposed to a wide
range of opinions, and are free to choose whichever positions are most
compelling to them (cf. Salmon & Glasser, 1995, p. 447). In this view, mass
media are simply a site for the display of politics, and the role of
journalism is one of delivering opinions to consumers (cf. Salmon &
Glasser, 1995, p. 446). The task of citizens, in turn, is to process as
much political information as possible, judge it in comfort and privacy,
and act according to their considered convictions when voting in elections.
This liberal conception, which provides a 'thin' account of deliberative
participation for citizens, has come under fire since the early 1990s. The
dissatisfaction with the liberal approach is rooted in concerns about the
ability of the liberal model to deliver democratic decision-making. In
particular, observers have suggested that there is a "crisis in public
communication," which manifests itself in voter alienation, declining
participation in activism, and a plunge in newspaper circulation (cf.
Blumler & Gurevitch, 1997). A number of scholars suggest that the growing
disenchantment with politics stems from the lack of places and
opportunities for citizens to talk about politics (e.g. Eliasoph, 1998;
Buckingham, 2000; Wahl-Jorgensen, 2002): Citizens feel they are outsiders
to the political process because the public sphere is dominated by elites
who overdetermine the political agenda (cf. also Lewis, 2001). Quite
simply, the existing arenas for public debate do not allow for citizens to
express and debate their opinions. Such a trend has profound consequences
for democratic practice, and worries about the ability of citizens to
participate in public deliberation have become central to political theorists.
Critics of the liberal model hold that to cure the ailments of democracy,
we must find ways for citizens to substantively participate in the public
sphere, and to express both consent and dissent. A particularly forceful
theoretical alternative has been crafted by deliberative democrats, who
believe that "legitimacy in complex democratic societies must be thought to
result from the free and unconstrained public deliberation of all about
matters of common concern. Thus a public sphere of deliberation about
matters of mutual concern is essential to the legitimacy of democratic
institutions" (Benhabib, 1996, p. 68; see also Dryzek, 2000, p. 1).
Deliberative democrats, then, stress the importance of the ability of those
affected by political decisions – whether they be rich or poor, well-spoken
or inarticulate – to contribute their opinions. Deliberation is seen as
instrumentally valuable, insofar as it generates better decisions (cf.
Christiano, 1997, p. 255). More than that, deliberation also has intrinsic
value because individuals debating issues of the common good are empowered
to participate in and reflect on politics (cf. Christiano, 1997, p. 255). A
deliberative democratic critique of the media's role in providing the
conditions for public participation would emphasize the significance of
active discussion. Thus, Habermas (1995) argues that it is not enough for
the individual to reflect on whether he can assent to a norm... What is
needed is a "real" process of argumentation in which the individuals
concerned cooperate. Only an intersubjective process of reaching
understanding can produce an agreement that is reflexive in nature, only it
can give the participants the knowledge that they have collectively become
convinced of something. (Habermas, 1995, p. 67)
The deliberative position, then, views the moment of communication as the
cornerstone of democracy. To borrow Barber's nice turn of phrase, "the
right of every individual to speak to others, to assert his being through
the act of communication, is identified with the precious wellspring of
human autonomy and dignity" (1984, p. 311). However, merely talking to
others does not make for democratic communication –- deliberative democrats
are adamant that the discursive process should be characterised by
procedural equality, and by respect for the contributions of others, even
if their opinions are at odds with your own (e.g. Cohen, 1997, p. 69).
Theories of deliberative democracy provide us with a series of key
questions to ask of media practices. They show us the need to examine
whether the media, as key political institutions, are egalitarian and open
to all. Secondly, they alert us to the need for media institutions to not
merely host a variety of views, but actively encourage widened
participation by providing the conditions for mediated discussion of
politics by all those concerned. Deliberative democratic theory thus points
us towards examining the diversity of individuals and perspectives
represented in the media in general, and the opinion pages in particular.
As Cottle (2000) points out, whose "voices and viewpoints structure and
inform news discourse goes to the heart of democratic views of, and radical
concerns about, the news media" (p. 427).
It is important to recognise that no media text ever operates in
isolation, and that any news medium should be properly seen as just one of
many institutions of the public sphere. Nevertheless, a comparative study
of the models of debate in the opinion pages of Danish and British
newspapers can call attention to the different roles that newspapers may
play in facilitating citizenship. They can show us how institutionalised
media practices have very real consequences for political life.
The genre of the editorial page: Comparing British and Danish models
The British model
British opinion pages share with their Danish counterparts a range of
features. Firstly, both publish unsigned leading articles that express the
newspaper's opinion. Danish and British broadsheets devote a similar number
of column inches to the leading articles, and the pieces are of similar
length in both countries. These leading articles are broadly reflective of
key topics on the news agenda. Secondly, the opinion pages of both
countries feature letters-to-the-editor sections, where readers are allowed
to contribute substantively, if briefly, to the public debate. In Danish
broadsheet newspapers, the letters tend to be considerably longer than in
their British counterparts; some of them being as long as the shortest of
the commentaries.
Though the rest of the pages in both British and Danish papers are made up
by commentaries and columns that are laid out on the page in similar ways,
and belong to the same genre of writing, the philosophy behind them is
radically different. The British columns and commentaries are written
almost entirely by a panel of regular elite columnists, who are
professional journalists, political insiders or celebrities. The ideal
columnist on a British broadsheet is "experienced and informed,
knowledgeable about the things they describe, their judgments based on
expertise and good contacts" (Kettle, 2002, p. 14). Thus, an employee of
The Telegraph described the opinion pages as constituted of an elite group
of writers whose charge it is to provoke debate. She suggested that "a lot
of the people who write for the paper are often prominent politicians or
journalists, or high-profile in academia or religion." The ultimate aim of
The Telegraph's opinion pages, in her view, is to profile the positions of
this "quite established, traditionally British, right-of-centre newspaper"
by drawing on the work of these elite individuals. In doing so, the
newspaper aims to stimulate public debate and action, and to provide
readers with useful information (The Telegraph, personal communication,
March 27, 2003). Similarly, Ian Mayes, the reader's editor of The Guardian
suggested that "if you're going to have someone writing on the pages of
the pages, you want them to be as articulate and well-informed as
possible." To Mayes, this both justifies and necessitates the exclusive
nature of the opinion page forum, because only an expert has access to the
knowledge necessary to provide authoritative commentary and analysis. Mayes
suggested that it is extremely rare for national broadsheets to publish
unsolicited material (Mayes, personal communication, March 31, 2003). In
fact, the only contributions written by individuals who are not regular
columnists tend to be solicited on the basis of suggestions made by
journalists on the paper (Mayes, personal communication, March 31, 2003).
The tradition on relying on "insiders" for the content of opinion pages is
so engrained that the pundits who people the opinion people are seen as a
cohesive political force in and of themselves. Martin Kettle (2002, p. 14)
has referred to this group the "commentariat" and the "columnists' party,"
consisting of the "120 people in the British media who write regular
week-in-week-out opinion pieces about domestic politics."
Staff on British broadsheets suggest a financial motivation for the
prevailing model of opinion page debate: As audiences are increasingly
turning to television for news updates, the press is compelled to carve out
a new niche for itself (cf. Mayes, personal communication, March 31, 2003).
While the British popular or tabloid press has relied on entertaining and
spectacular covers and stories to sell (cf. Sparks, 2000), broadsheets have
moved toward a focus on interpretation of news.
At the same time, the philosophy underlying the British pages is consistent
with a liberal democratic understanding of the media's role. Thus, the
journalists I interviewed stressed that they wanted to provide "a valuable
forum for the free exchange of opinion" (cf. Mayes, personal communication,
March 31, 2003), and designed their pages to "stimulate debate and offer a
range of views" (The Telegraph, personal communication, March 27,
2003). More than that, the British journalists stressed the fact that
their opinion pages are not simply a vehicle for the official editorial
positions of the newspaper. Instead, the broadsheets pride themselves on
offering a wide variety of views, especially ones that conflict with the
well known political opinions of the newspaper.[3] Ian Mayes of the
left-leaning Guardian suggested that the most compelling feature of his
paper's "Comment & Analysis" section was its commitment to publishing
"opinions that conflict with government, the majority of the public
opinion, and the view of The Guardian as a whole." (Mayes, personal
communication, March 31, 2003). This not merely shows the newspaper as
balanced and in tune with the range of opinions, but also fits with
journalism's ideal of providing a "free marketplace of ideas."
Overall, then, the British model fits the description of editorial page
debate offered by Benjamin Page (1996):
Because airtime and print space are expensive, and because citizens want
only the most concise and vivid messages, most of those who speak in or
through the media are professional communicators, highly skilled at
producing political discourse and paid to do so. These professional
communicators include reporters, writers, commentators and television
pundits, as well as public officials and selected experts from academia or
think tanks (p. 6).
Page thus explains the democratic rationale for the exclusive nature of
the opinion pages, based on the idea that the wisdom of professional
communicators will shine a light on impenetrable, but crucial elements of
political information. Page is critical of this position as he concludes
that those who dominate the pages "could have values and interests at odds
with those of the general public" (p. 6). Despite taking this critical
stance, Page operates squarely within a liberal democratic model.
This position assumes that the media's role in the democratic process is
limited to one of providing information to citizens, rather than
facilitating their ability to participate directly in politics and
influence the agenda of public debate. This narrow conception of the
democratic purpose of journalism is evident in the following symptomatic
passage, written by the celebrated BBC journalist Andrew Marr, who is also
a columnist for The Times:
Good political prose is democratic in effect because it alerts, provoking a
response. It wakens us up and engages us in the arguments...Democracy
cannot exist without a common culture...If political communication becomes
over-specialised, or jargon-ridden, it becomes the enemy of that common
culture, and the enemy of democratic politics (cited in McNair, 2000, p. 13).
These conceptions, which are intricately tied to the self-understanding of
British journalism, understand democratic discourse narrowly, as the tool
for provoking citizens to reflect on politics. Altogether, the statements
of British journalists have a Lippmannesque ring to them: They assume that
citizens have no ability to shape or access important political events, and
that they therefore need precise and skilful journalism for the "pictures
inside their heads" to correspond to the "world outside" (cf. Lippmann,
1965[1922], p. 10). Lippmann believed that democracy was endangered by the
"failure of self-governing people to transcend their casual experience and
their prejudice" (p. 229-230), because most citizens, in his view, had
little access to events. The public could salvage itself, he suggested,
through the mechanism of precise informative journalism, or "by inventing,
creating, and organizing a machinery of knowledge" (p. 230).
Ultimately, the model of the British opinion pages limits public access
and participation to the realm of reception. Members of the reading public,
in this conception, read the newspaper, think about its content, and
perhaps discuss key issues with families and friends, but restrict
deliberation to private or non-mediated settings. The British papers'
expressed allegiance to public debate entails a celebration of the
communicative abilities of professionalised elites, who can impart
difficult political ideas to a public that needs education. The
contributions of members of the public are limited to letters to the editor
(cf. Telegraph, personal communication, 27 March 2003). In British
broadsheet newspapers, letters usually take the form of short replies to
news articles or commentaries on topics that are already an integral part
of the news agenda.
The Danish model
On the surface, the Danish opinion journalists express support for the
same liberal democratic ideals that underpin the British conception. Thus,
the editor of Jyllandsposten, the largest Danish newspaper, suggested that
the aim of his paper's opinion pages is to support journalism that provokes
debate and sets the agenda (Østergaard, personal communication, March 31,
2003). However, the Danish model is built on an entirely different
philosophy, based on a belief in public access and participation in terms
of both production and reception. As described the editor of
Jyllandsposten, "our pages are part of a healthy political and democratic
tradition based on the idea that the debate should not just be elitist. At
its best, the debate should include a popular contribution, so that the
newspaper can be a listening post" (Østergaard, personal communication,
March 31, 2003). Similarly, Per Michael Jespersen, the debate editor of
Politiken, argues that the Danish newspaper tradition is grounded in a set
of democratic values that emphasise the ability of regular citizens to
contribute to the "bottom-up" determination of the political agenda, and to
challenge figures of authority (Jespersen, personal communication, 27 March
2003):
There are not many cracks in the public sphere to allow regular people to
participate. We try to ensure that our opinion pages are committed to the
voices of members of the public, rather than the powerful interests who
monopolise all the other pages of the newspaper. Therefore, our highest
priority is to include a diversity of individuals.
The Danish model thus moves beyond the liberal commitment to publishing a
range of views, as it embraces a conception of public debate that
emphasises the ability of regular citizens to have a voice. As such, the
Danish model entails a much more active conception of citizen involvement
in public debate.
This philosophy is put into practice through a distinctive set of opinion
page conventions. First of all, regular columnists are almost entirely
absent from the Danish editorial pages and op-ed pages. Instead, the
commentaries, analyses and columns on these pages consist of unsolicited
contributions from members of the public -- frequently elite individuals
who are experts on particular topics, such as academics or writers, but
with a substantial contribution from 'regular folks.' In fact, the Danish
journalists suggest that they positively discriminate against the voices of
the powerful, so that the pages will not be taken over by spin doctors,
lobbyists, politicians and others advancing "their own agendas" (cf.
Jespersen, personal communication, March 27, 2003; Østergaard, personal
communication, March 31, 2003). Jespersen cited an in-house study of
Politiken's opinion pages, which revealed that while a third of
contributions came from political and interest group elites, a third were
written by academics, and the final third was the work of individuals who
were not identified by title or affiliation. He suggested that Politiken
receive an overwhelming number of contributions from academics, press
officers, and spin doctors, while the number of submissions from 'regular
people' is much smaller (cf. Jespersen, personal communication, March 27,
2003). However, Jespersen further said that Politiken reject many more of
the contributions from elites than those from 'regular folks.' Generally,
the Danish journalists prefer contributions from regular citizens because
their experience is concrete, and they can therefore contribute a
journalistic dimension that is impossible to obtain for 'insiders.'[4] The
Danish model thus reverses the conventional valorisation of professional
expertise, and instead celebrates the grounded wisdom of 'the people.'[5]
At the same time, the commitment to broadening participation also slots
into Danish journalists' conceptions of the press' role in society: They
suggest that by opening up the forum of the opinion pages to citizens, the
paper provides a venue through which politicians and other elites are held
accountable for their actions (e.g. Jespersen, personal communication,
March 27, 2003; Østergaard, personal communication, March 31, 2003).
Interestingly, the Danish opinion page editors also provide an economic
justification for their policies. Thus, Østergaard suggested that
Jyllandsposten had responded to a decline in circulation figures by
expanding their opinion pages. In the reorganisation, an emphasis was
placed on increasing the diversity of voices represented on the pages. It
was this change, Østergaard suggested, which transformed Jyllandsposten
from being an important regional newspaper, primarily serving the peninsula
Jutland, to taking the lead in readership on a national basis, with
circulation figures climbing up to 180,000 (Østergaard, personal
communication, March 31, 2003).
As we shall see, these fundamental differences in the two national
newspaper traditions' philosophies about how the pages ought to operate
have profound consequences for the kinds of voices that are heard.
Elites and publics: An analysis of the content in Danish and British
opinion pages
A two-week[6] sample of the opinion pages in the British Times, Daily
Telegraph, and Guardian newspapers, along with the Danish Politiken,
Berlingske Tidende, and Jyllandsposten,[7] was analysed to provide evidence
for the differences between the two models in terms of voices heard, and
topics discussed.[8]
Beginning with the British pages, the analysis of two weeks of content in
The Telegraph shows that only 5 out of 62 columns or commentaries, or 8%,
were written by individuals who were not members of the regular panel of
commentators. These contributions were made by an all-male and all-star
cast of political elites, including Greg Dyke, the director general of the
BBC, Oliver Letwin, the shadow home secretary, and David Frum, a former
speech writer for George W. Bush.
More than any of the other papers, the Telegraph has a tone of exclusivity,
privilege and insiderness to its editorial and op-ed pages, and this also
comes across in the tone of some of the commentary. For instance, the paper
has a daily commentary running down on the far left side of the comment
pages, written by dignitaries such as BBC's political editor Andrew Marr
and comedian Armando Iannuci which take the form of personalised diaries
and thus give a glimpse into the glamorous lives of celebrities.
The Times had substantially more outside contributions, with 20%, or 9 out
of 46 commentaries being contributed by individuals not working for the
newspapers. Nevertheless, the range of voices represented on their pages
was not much wider than that evidenced in The Telegraph: It included elite
individuals such as bishops, professors, writers and Members of Parliament.
The Guardian featured substantially more outside contributions, with 17 out
of 67 columns, or 25% contributed by non-columnists, but the profile was
not much different from that of the other papers: The contributors, who
were writing about special areas of expertise, included Members of
Parliament, academics, journalists and writers. In addition to these
elites, however, The Guardian had invited workers in Britain's public
services to write about their experiences in a special section titled
"public voices," "a Guardian initiative offering space to people in
hard-pressed areas of the public sector to speak directly to all of us
about their work, achievements, frustrations and solutions" (The Guardian,
2001, p. 15). The contributors to this section included three police
officers and a psychologist, who contributed short opinion pieces on this
topic.
The topics of the British editorial and op-ed pages generally reflect
dominant news agendas, addressing a range of topics from reform of the
House of Lords to the political influence of Jews in the US and a strike by
the fire fighters' union. It is noteworthy, though, that these pages do not
provide any opportunity for elites, let alone members of the public, to
introduce new ideas of common concern into the public debate. British
opinion pages constitute a genre of journalistic writing that informs an
ongoing debate between national elites, and with sparse letters to the
editor sections that are dominated by other elite figures there is very
little substantive public participation of the kind ostensibly desired by
editors.
By comparison, the Danish newspapers analysed only rarely used columnists:
In Jyllandsposten only 2 out of 69 contributions, or 3%, were written by
"insiders" -- in this case, the opinion editor of the paper who was
providing his analysis of Denmark's role in European politics (e.g.
Pittelkow, 2002, p. 10).
Out of 87 columns and commentaries, Politiken had no contributions written
by outsiders. Finally, Berlingske Tidende, the oldest newspaper in Denmark,
was the only paper to have regular columnists. The regular columnists are
senior journalists on the paper and their columns, which appear three days
a week, are brief, each individual piece shorter than any of the
commentaries written by members of the public. These columns are mostly
opinionated responses to other contributions on the same page, or news
items in brief (e.g. Hansen, Hedegaard & Nielsen, 2002, p. 13). Altogether,
these columns made up 16 out of 69, or 23% of all contributions. Because of
their brevity, however, they took up less than 8% of the total space on the
page in the period examined.
Given the more extensive opportunity for public participation provided by
the Danish model, the individuals who contribute commentaries are from a
much wider spectrum of society. While the political elites – members of
Parliament, professors and pundits made their opinions known on the Danish
pages, they were by no means the only voices. Thus, students were frequent
contributors to the pages, as were teachers, musicians, actors, the
unemployed, NGO workers and individuals who were simply identified by their
names, rather than by their professional status, but who nevertheless
contributed new facts and opinions to the public debate. A tourist guide
critiqued new plans for a national opera house in Berlingske Tidende
(Kaiser, 2002, p. 8), while a bank clerk called for a reconsideration of
the government policy on child custody in Jyllandsposten (Bang Mortensen,
2002, p. 10).
To further enhance participation, all Danish broadsheet newspapers include
a longer commentary or "kronik," which is up to 2100 words in length. The
kronik is contributed by someone who is an expert on a topic -- either
because of educational or work background, or because of personal
experience. Even though the genre is the preferred forum of academics,
contributors range from kindergarten teachers to artists and ministers.
Journalists employed by the newspaper are prohibited from contributing to
the kronik (cf. Jespersen, personal communication, March 27, 2003). As
Østergaard of Jyllandsposten suggested, the kronik is characterised by its
quasi-scientific discourse and is considered the "flagship of the
newspaper, where we try to establish a serious and impressive debate"
(Østergaard, personal communication, March 31, 2003). Most remarkably,
there is no correspondence between the news agenda of the paper and the
topic of the "kronik" -- it can cover anything from the writer's memories
of a Danish island to a discussion of women in the Renaissance, a plan for
the future of the National Archive, and a scientific discussion of oxygen
deficiency in Danish seawater, to mention just a few pieces from the
sample. The "kronik" regarded as a highly influential genre of news
writing. They often make it into evening news programmes, and a large
number of letters to the editor refer to the "kronik." As Per Michael
Jespersen pointed out (Jespersen, personal communication, March 27, 2003),
the kronik is the single most important site for members of the public to
introduce fresh topics, perspectives or opinions into the debate. He
recalled a couple of examples of such 'bottom-up' influences. First of all,
he suggested that a recent debate on reform of the Danish high school
system had been enriched and changed by contributions from high school
students and teachers. Secondly, he recalled that a recent proposal by the
Minister of Justice to register all egg donors had been met by stiff public
resistance after an intelligent and articulate egg donor had contributed to
Politiken's opinion pages with a piece arguing that such a practice would
be humiliating and demeaning. These writers, he suggested, were qualified
to comment on policy matters because they had concrete lived experience
that offered more authentic and comprehensible perspectives on policy
issues. Their perspectives were not only important to members of the
public, but also provided a "lifeline" between politicians and citizens.
Nevertheless, in all of Jespersen's examples of significant interventions
into the public debate by regular citizens, as in those of journalists on
the other Danish broadsheets, the contributions that were viewed as most
influential were ones that changed the direction of a debate that was
already firmly rooted in the dominant news agenda, rather than introducing
entirely new topics into the discussion.
Ultimately, however, the Danish opinion pages are characterised by a
greater diversity of individuals, and a somewhat greater diversity of
topics. The pages demonstrate a commitment to widening access and
participation. The Danish model of opinion page debate seeks to include
"regular people" who are affected by the issues on the agenda. As such, the
Danish pages are peopled by individuals who are articulate experts in
particular areas on the basis of lived experience or professional background.
Conclusion
The Danish model relies less on journalistic expertise, and more on
commitment to the voices of public intellectuals and citizens. The
non-professionalised Danish model means that the editorial pages contain a
wider range of vocabularies, and a greater number of different individuals.
It also introduces the possibility of "bottom-up" contributions to the news
agenda. In the main, however, it remains a forum for members of the elite.
First of all, the contributors must possess extensive cultural capital: It
is not enough for them to attain the competence to decode the cultural
texts of opinion pages (cf. Bourdieu, 1984, p. 2). To actually
produce newspaper commentary, writers a fluency in its language, which is
necessary to produce well-written, compelling and accessible commentary.
However, there is one important difference which has real consequences for
democratic participation: The Danish newspapers' reliance on members of the
public for their contributions signals a respect for citizens' opinions and
deliberations. It means that the discussion of the editorial page is not
constituted narrowly by an insider culture, but that it is made up of a
greater diversity. Finally, the Danish model opens up a space for
contributions that lie outside of the conventional news agenda. Sometimes
these contributions are tedious and narrow in their appeal, but sometimes
they allow for regular people to provide fresh perspectives or contribute
to knowledge.
References:
Bang Mortensen, C. (2002, October 24). For børnenes skyld. Jyllandsposten,
p. 10.
Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bell, A., and Garrett, P. (1998). Approaches to media discourse. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Benhabib, S. (1996). Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy.
In. S. Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries
of the political, (pp. 67-95). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Blumler, J., & Gurevitch, M. (1995). The crisis of public communication.
London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of
taste. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Buckingham, D. (2000).The making of citizens: Young people, news and
politics. London: Routledge.
Christiano, T. (1997). The significance of public deliberation. In J.
Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and
politics (pp. 243-279). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ciofalo, A. (1998). Survey probes status of op-ed journalism and practices
of op-ed editors. Newspaper Research Journal, 19(2), 18-30.
Ciofalo, A., & Traverso, K. (1994). Does the op-ed page have a chance to
become a public forum? Newspaper Research Journal, 51-63.
Cohen, J. (1997a). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In J. Bohmann &
W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp.
67-93). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cottle, S. (2000). Rethinking news access. Journalism Studies 1(3), pp.
427-448.
Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals,
critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eliasoph, N. (1998). Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in
everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the News. London: Routledge.
Habermas, J. (1995). Moral consciousness and communicative action.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hansen, C. K., Hedegaard, L., & Nielsen, A. V. (2002 October 27). Groft
sagt. Berlingske Tidende, p. 13.
Joyce, P. (1990). Our commentary page is a marketplace for ideas. Masthead
42(2), 8.
Kaiser, E. (2002, October 31). Dominerende operahus. Berlingske Tidende, p. 8.
Kettle, M. (2002, December 17) Don't believe everything you read on the
comment pages. The Guardian, p. 14.
Lewis, J. (2001). Constructing public opinion. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Liefer, R. (1990) The page is a vehicle for intellectual transaction.
Masthead, 42(2), 9.
Lippmann, W. (1965[1922]). Public opinion. New York: Free Press.
Livingstone, S., & Lunt, P. (1994). Talk on television: Audience
participation and public debate. London: Routledge.
McNair, B. (1995). An introduction to political communication. London:
Routledge.
McNair, B. (2000). Journalism and democracy: an evaluation of the
political public sphere. London: Routledge.
Page, B. (1996). Who deliberates? Mass media in modern democracy. Chicago,
IL: Chicago University Press.
Pittelkow, R. (2002, October 23). Fogh med pagajen. Jyllandsposten, p. 10.
Salmon, C.T., & Glasser, T. L.(1995). The politics of polling and the
limits of consent. In C. T. Salmon & T. L. Glasser (Eds.), Public opinion
and the communication of consent, (pp. 437-458). New York: Guilford Press.
Sparks, C. (2000). Introduction: the panic over tabloid news. In Sparks,
C., & Tulloch, J., (Eds), Tabloid tales: Global debates over media
standards (pp. 1-40). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
Street, J. (2001). Mass media, politics and democracy. Houndsmills,
Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave.
Van Dijk, T. (1988). News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates
Van Dijk, T. (1998). Opinions and ideologies in the press. In A. Bell & P.
Garrett (Eds.), Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2001). Letters to the editor as a forum for public
deliberation: Modes of publicity and democratic debate. Critical Studies in
Media Communication 18(3), 303-320.
Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2002a). Coping with the meaninglessness of politics:
Citizenspeak in the 2001 British general elections. Javnost/The Public
9(3), 65-82.
Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2002b). The normative-economic justification for
public discourse: Letters to the editor as a 'wide open' public forum.
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 79(1), 121-133.
[1] The term "opinion pages" is used to describe the pages that are, in the
language of practicing journalists, typically referred to as the editorial
and op-ed pages. However, most newspapers provide their own headings for
these pages, such as "Comment & Analysis" (The Guardian) and "Comment" (The
Times). In British and Danish broadsheet newspapers, the opinion pages take
up at least two pages of the daily paper, but often more.
[2] At the same time, tabloid newspapers would be interesting to examine
because they, given their historically more populist approach, have been
innovative in providing ways for citizens to participate.
[3] While The Guardian is known to be left-leaning, The Times is typically
viewed as center-right, and The Telegraph is traditionally seen as right-wing.
[4] A similar argument is made by journalists in the U.S. in relation to
letters to the editor – see Wahl-Jorgensen (2001).
[5] See, for a more detailed discussion of the privileging of experts in
traditional news media, Chapter 5 in Livingstone & Lunt (1994). Livingstone
and Lunt compellingly demonstrate how television talk shows challenge the
dominant hierarchy of knowledge to emphasize the authenticity of regular
people's contributions. The same could be said of the Danish opinion pages.
[6] Between October 21 and November 1, 2002.
[7] Approximate circulation figures for the newspapers analyzed here:
The Times: 688,000
Daily Telegraph: 970,000
The Guardian: 404,000
Politiken: 140,000
Berlingske Tidende: 150,000
Jyllandsposten: 180,000
(Sources: http://www.do.dk/, accessed March 15, 2003;
http://www.tcsmedia.co.uk/html/newsletters/Feb2003.pdf accessed March 2, 2003).
[8] Sunday newspapers were excluded from this analysis because some of the
papers have adopted entirely different formats for their Sunday editions.
This fact should be taken into account when considering the quantity of
columns and commentaries, though the balance between contributions by
columnists and "outsiders" is probably similar in Sunday papers to the
distribution in regular editions.
|
