This article draws on Jürgen Habermas's discourse ethics work to build a case for the regulation of U.S. media, with particular attention to the newspaper. The authors focus on two facets of Habermas's theory: they draw on his distinction between the system and the lifeworld to illustrate the need to protect sites for democratic discourse, and outline his idea of the ideal speech situation as a tool for critique. Against this dual-level theoretical backdrop they investigate the conceptions and practices that structure the U.S. newspaper, and take a closer look at the relationship between market metaphors of media operation and the conditions for free expression. Finally, the article analyzes how the potential for public deliberation is affected by three consequences of U.S. newspapers' market orientation: (1) the central role of advertising support, (2) the concentration of newspaper ownership, and (3) the professionalization of journalism.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Apel, K. O.
1995. Is the ethics of the ideal communication community a utopia? On the relationship between ethics, utopia, and the critique of utopia. In The communicative ethics controversy, edited by S. Benhabib and F. Dallmayr, 23-60. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Bagdikian, B.
1992. The media monopoly. 4th ed.Boston, MA: Beacon.
3.
Baker, E.
1994. Advertising and a democratic press. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
Barron, J. A.1967. Access to the press—a new First Amendment right. Harvard Law Review80 (b): 1641-1678.
5.
Barron, J. A.
1981. Public rights and the private press. Toronto: Butterworths.
6.
Baynes, K.
1992. The normative grounds of social criticism: Kant, Rawls, and Habermas. Albany: State University of New York Press.
7.
Benhabib, S.
1992. Situating the self: Gender, community and postmodernism in contemporary ethics. New York: Routledge.
8.
Christians, C. G.
, J. P. Ferre, and M. P. Fackler. 1993. Good news: Social ethics and the press. New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
Curran, J.
, and J. Seaton. 1991. Power without responsibility: The press and broadcasting in Britain. New York: Routledge.
10.
Elliott, P.1982. Intellectuals, the “information society” and the disappearance of the public sphere. Media, Culture and Society4 (3): 244-246.
11.
Friedman, M.
1962. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
12.
Garnham, N.1979. Contribution to a political economy of mass communication. Media, Culture and Society1 (2): 123-146.
13.
Glasser, T.1992. Professionalization and the derision of diversity: The case of the education of journalists. Journal of Communication42 (2): 131-140.
14.
Glasser, T.
1995. Communicative ethics and the aim of accountability in journalism. Vol. XXI in Social responsibility: Business, journalism, law, medicine, edited by L. W. Hodges, 31-51. Lexington, VA: Washington and Lee University.
15.
Glendon, M. A.
1991. Rights talk. New York: Free Press.
16.
Golding, P.
, and G. Murdock. 1991. Culture, communications, and political economy. In Mass media and society, edited by J. Curran and M. Gurevitch, 15-32. London: Edward Arnold.
17.
Gomery, D.
1997. Media economics: Terms of analysis. In Critical Studies in Mass Communication, edited by P. Golding & G. Murdock, 33-51. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.
18.
Habermas, J.
1979. Communication and the evolution of society. Boston: Beacon Press.
19.
Habermas, J.
1987. The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.
20.
Habermas, J.
1989a. The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
Habermas, J.
1989b. The uncoupling of system and lifeworld. In Jürgen Habermas on society and politics: A reader, S. Seidman, 188-230. Boston: Beacon Press.
22.
Habermas, J.
1990. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
Habermas, J.
1993. Justification and application: Remarks on discourse ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
Habermas, J.
1996. Between facts and norms: Contribution to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
Hackett, R. A.1984. Decline of a paradigm? Bias and objectivity in news media studies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication1 (3): 229-259.
26.
Hallin, D.
1994. We keep America on top of the world: Television journalism and the public sphere. New York: Routledge.
27.
Hayek, F. A.1945. The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review35 (4): 519-530.
28.
Held, D.
1987. Models of democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
29.
Hoffmann-Riem, W.
1996. Regulating media. New York: Guilford.
30.
International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems
. 1980. Many voices, one world. New York: Kogan Page, Unipub and Unesco.
31.
Keane, J.
1984. Public life and late capitalism. Toward a socialist theory of democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Keane, J.
1991. The media and democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
33.
Liebling, A. J.
1961. The press. New York: Ballantine.
34.
McChesney, R. W.1992. Off limits: An inquiry into the lack of debate over the ownership, structure and control of the mass media in U.S. political life. Communication13:1-19.
35.
Meiklejohn, A.
1948. Free speech and its relation to self-government. New York: Harper & Brothers.
36.
Mill, J. S.
1989. On liberty. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Murdock, G.
1990. Redrawing the map of the communications industries: Concentration and ownership in the era of privatization. In Public communication—the new imperatives: Future directions for media research, edited by M. Ferguson, 1-15. London: Sage.
38.
Murdock, G.
1995. Large corporations and the control of communications industries. In Culture, society, and the media, M. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curran, and J. Woollacott, 118-151. New York: Routledge.
39.
Nagel, T.
1973. Rawls on justice. In Reading Rawls, edited by N. Daniels, 1-15. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40.
Peters, J.1993. Distrust of representation: Habermas on the public sphere. Media, Culture, and Society15 (4): 541-571.
41.
Peters, J. D.
, and K. Cmiel. 1991. Media ethics and the public sphere. Communication12:197-215.
42.
Rawls, J.
1972. A theory of justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
43.
Salmon, C. T.
, and T. L. Glasser. 1995. The politics of polling and the limits of consent. In Public opinion and the communication of consent, edited by C. T. Salmon and T. L. Glasser, 437-459. New York: Guilford Press.
44.
Schiller, D.
1981. Objectivity and the news. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
45.
Schiller, H.
1971. Mass communications and American empire. Boston: Beacon Press.
46.
Schudson, M.
1978. Discovering the news: A social history of American newspapers. New York: Basic Books.
47.
Schudson, M.
1984. Advertising: The uneasy persuasion. New York: Basic Books.
48.
Schudson, M.1997. Why conversation is not the soul of democracy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication14 (4): 297-309.
49.
Sigal, L.
1986. Who? Sources that make the news. In Reading the news, edited by R. K. Manoff and M. Schudson, 9-38. New York: Pantheon.
50.
Streeter, T.
1996. Selling the air: A critique of the policy of commercial broadcasting in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
51.
Thompson, J.
1995. The media and modernity. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
52.
Tuchman, G.
1978. Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: Free Press.
53.
Venturelli, S.1998. Human rights and democracy in cyberspace: Frameworks, standards and obstacles. Journal of International Communication1-2:11-25.
