The political and ideological dimension of the measurement of freedom of information. Assessing the interplay between neoliberalism and the Freedom of the Press Index
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2014
The political and ideological dimension of the measurement of freedom of information. Assessing the interplay between neoliberalism and the Freedom of the Press Index
The article aims to analyse the role of measurement in legitimising a specific conception of freedom of information. From a neo-Gramscian perspective, the work draws attention to the way a political and ideological paradigm influences measuring instruments, as well as the contribution of such tools in strengthening the hegemony of that paradigm. By illustrating the rise of neoliberalism as a case in point, the study hypothesises a neoliberal influence on the measurement of freedom of information. To test such assumption, the work describes three ideal typical models of freedom of information – the liberal, egalitarian and neoliberal models – and their connection with specific conceptions of democracy. Then, the article focuses on the Freedom of the Press Index by Freedom House, that is the most used and recognised instrument for measuring freedom of information. Though the Freedom House contends to measure a liberal conception of freedom of information, the analysis of the indicators of the Freedom of the Press Index shows that they mirror the neoliberal model at least with respect to the role of State and Market on media systems, and the conception of media pluralism. The results bring into question the uncritical acceptance of the Freedom of the Press Index as the universal yardstick of freedom of information.
AlgerD (1998) Megamedia: How Giant Corporations Dominate Mass Media, Distort Competition, and Endanger Democracy, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
2.
AlonsoWStarrP (1987) The Politics of Numbers, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
3.
BakerCE (2004) Media, Markets, and Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BakerCE (2007) Media Concentration and Democracy: Why Ownership Matters, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BandaF (2011) What Are We Measuring? A Critical Review of Media Development Assessment Tools. In: PriceMEAbbottSMorganL (eds) Measures of Press Freedom and Media Contributions to Development: Evaluating the Evaluators, New York: Peter Lang, pp. 89–107.
6.
BarshRL (1993) Measuring human rights: Problems of methodology and purpose. Human Rights Quarterly15(1): 87–121.
7.
BeckerJ (2003) Review article: Keeping track of press freedom. European Journal of Communication18(1): 107–112.
8.
BeckerLBVladTNusserN (2007) An evaluation of press freedom indicators. International Communication Gazette69(1): 5–28.
9.
BermanS (2006) The Primacy of Politics: Social Democracy and the Making of Europe’s Twentieth Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BirchKMykhnenkoV (2010) Introduction: A world turned right way up. In: BirchKMykhnenkoV (eds) The Rise and Fall of Neoliberalism: The Collapse of an Economic Order?, London and New York: Zed Books, pp. 1–20.
11.
BrootenL (2013) The problem with human rights discourse and freedom indices: The case of Burma/Myanmar media. International Journal of Communication7: 681–700.
12.
Brown W (2005) Neo-liberalism and the end of liberal democracy. In: Brown W Edgework Critical Essays on Knowledge and Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 37–59.
13.
BrunettiAWederB (2003) A free press is bad news for corruption. Journal of Public Economics87: 1801–1824.
14.
BurgessJ (2010) Evaluating the Evaluators: Media Freedom Indexes and What They Measure, Washington, DC: Center for International Media Assistance at the National Endowment for Democracy.
15.
CarlssonU (2003) The rise and fall of NWICO: From a vision of international regulation to a reality of multilevel governance. Nordicom Review24(2): 31–67.
16.
ChomskyNHermanES (1988) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass-Media, New York: Pantheon Books.
17.
DahlRA (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, New Haven: Yale University Press.
18.
DahlRA (2003) How Democratic is the American Constitution?, Yale: Yale University Press.
19.
DavisKEKingsburyBMerrySE (2012) Introduction: Global governance by indicators. In: DavisKEFisherAKingsburyB (eds) Global Governance by Indicators: Global Power through Quantification and Rankings, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–28.
20.
De SmaeleH (2006) ‘In the name of democracy’: The paradox of democracy and press freedom in post-communist Russia. In: VoltmerK (ed.) Mass Media and Political Communication in New Democracies, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 35–48.
21.
EspelandWNStevensML (1998) Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology24: 313–343.
22.
FourcadeMHealyK (2007) Moral views of market society. Annual Review of Sociology33: 285–311.
23.
Freedom House (2002) Freedom of the Press: Methodology. Available at: www.freedomhouse.org (accessed 26 May 2013).
24.
Freedom House (2012) Checklist of Methodology Questions 2012. Available at: www.freedomhouse.org (accessed 27 May 2013).
25.
FreilleSHaqueMEKnellerR (2007) A contribution to the empirics of press freedom and corruption. European Journal of Political Economy23(4): 838–862.
26.
GallieWB (1956) Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society56: 167–198.
27.
GerbnerGMowlanaHNordenstrengK (1993) The Global Media Debate: Its Rise, Fall, and Renewal, Norwood: Ablex.
28.
GiannoneD (2010) Political and ideological aspects in the measurement of democracy: The Freedom House case. Democratization17(1): 68–97.
29.
GiovanniniE. European Central Bank (2008) The role of communication in transforming statistics into knowledge. A Strategic Vision for Statistics Challenges for the Next 10 Years. Fourth ECB Conference on Statistics, 24 and 25 April, 2008, Frankfurt am Main: European Central Bank, pp. 151–160.
30.
GramsciA (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks, New York: International Publishers.
31.
GuntherRMughanA (2000) Democracy and the Media: A Comparative Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
HallinDCManciniP (2012) Comparing Media Systems beyond the Western World, New York: Cambridge University Press.
HarveyD (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35.
Hegbloom M (2008) Neoliberal democracy? An investigation of the transformation of democratic discourse in an era of globalization. PhD Thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder, Ann Arbor.
36.
Holtz-BachaC (2011) Freedom of the press: Is a worldwide comparison possible and what is it good for? In: PriceMEAbbottSMorganL (eds) Measures of Press Freedom and Media Contributions to Development: Evaluating the Evaluators, New York: Peter Lang, pp. 129–143.
37.
KabeerN (1999) The conditions and consequences of choice: Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment. Discussion Paper No. 108, Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.
38.
Karlekar DeutschKRadschCC (2012) Adapting concepts of media freedom to a changing media environment: Incorporating new media and citizen journalism into the Freedom of the Press Index. ESSACHESS Journal for Communication Studies5(9): 13–22.
39.
KaufmannD (2005) Human rights and governance: The empirical challenge. In: AlstonPRobinsonM (eds) Human Rights and Development: Towards Mutual Reinforcement, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 352–402.
40.
KlimkiewiczB (2009) Is the clash of rationalities leading nowhere? Media pluralism in European regulatory policies. In: CzepekAHellwigMNowakE (eds) Press Freedom and Pluralism in Europe: Concepts & Conditions, Bristol: Intellect Books, pp. 45–74.
41.
KrippendorffK (2004) Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.
42.
Lakoff G (2010) Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication 4(1): 70--81.
43.
MacBride Commission (1980/2004) Many Voices, One World, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
44.
McChesneyRW (2001) Global media, neoliberalism, and imperialism. Monthly Review52(10): 1–19.
45.
McQuailD (2000) McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory, London: SAGE.
46.
MoscoV (2009) The Political Economy of Communication, London: SAGE.
47.
MunckGL (2006) Monitoreando La Democracia: Profundizando Un Consenso Emergente. Revista de Ciencia Política26(1): 158–168.
48.
MunckGL (2009) Measuring Democracy: A Bridge between Scholarship & Politics, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
49.
MunckGLVerkuilenJ (2002) Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies35(1): 5–34.
50.
MurphyPD (2003) Without ideology? Rethinking hegemony in the age of transnational media. In: ArtzLKamalipourYR (eds) The Globalization of Corporate Media Hegemony, Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 55–77.
51.
NeubauerR (2011) Neoliberalism in the information age, or vice versa? global citizenship, technology, and hegemonic ideology. Triple C9(2): 195–230.
52.
Norris P (2006) The role of the free press in promoting democratization, good governance, and human development. In: UNESCO meeting on World Press Freedom Day: Media, Development, and Poverty Eradication, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1–2 May 2006.
53.
PadovaniC (2008) New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO). In: DonsbachW (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Communication, Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 3214–3219.
54.
PickardV (2007) Neoliberal visions and revisions in global communications policy from NWICO to WSIS. Journal of Communication Inquiry31(2): 118–139.
55.
PorterTM (1995) Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
56.
PriceME (2011) Press freedom measures: An introduction. In: PriceMEAbbottSMorganL (eds) Measures of Press Freedom and Media Contributions to Development: Evaluating the Evaluators, New York: Peter Lang, pp. 1–21.
57.
RoseN (2004) Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58.
SchillerHI (1989) Culture Inc: The Corporate Takeover of Public Expression, New York: Oxford University Press.
59.
ScobleHMWisebergLS (1981) Problems of comparative research on human rights. In: NandaVPScarrittJRShepherdGWJr (eds) Global Human Rights: Public Policies, Comparative Measures, and NGO Strategies, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 147–171.
60.
SiebertFRPetersonTSchrammW (1956) Four Theories of the Press, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
61.
SobelRSDuttaNRoyS (2011) Beyond borders: Is media freedom contagious? In: PriceMEAbbottSMorganL (eds) Measures of Press Freedom and Media Contributions to Development: Evaluating the Evaluators, New York: Peter Lang, pp. 307–320.
62.
StevensMLEspelandWN (2005) Commensuration. In: Kempf-LeonardK (ed.) Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press, pp. 375–378.
63.
Stiglitz JE, Sen A and Fitoussi JP (eds) (2009) Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Available at: www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf (accessed 20 May 2013).
64.
StremlauN (2011) Towards a new approach to evaluation. In: PriceMEAbbottSMorganL (eds) Measures of Press Freedom and Media Contributions to Development: Evaluating the Evaluators, New York: Peter Lang, pp. 191–209.
65.
ThedeN (2001) Human rights and statistics: Some reflections on the no-man’s-land between concept and indicator. Statistical Journal of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe18(2–3): 259–273.
66.
TranHMahmoodRDuYKhrapavitskiA (2011) Linking measures of global press freedom to development and culture: Implications from a comparative analysis. International Journal of Communication5: 170–191.
Van BelleDA (1997) Press freedom and the democratic peace. Journal of Peace Research34(4): 405–414.
70.
VoltmerK (2006) Mass media and political communication in new democracies, London and New York: Routledge.
71.
VoltmerK (2013) The Media in Transitional Democracies, Cambridge: Polity Press.
72.
WeaverD (1977) The press and government restriction: A cross-national study over time. Gazette23: 152–170.
73.
WeberM (1994) Political Writings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
74.
Whitten-WoodringJ (2009) Watchdog or lapdog? Media freedom, regime type, and government respect for human rights?International Studies Quarterly53: 595–625.
75.
ZellerRA (2005) Measurement error, issues, and solutions. In: Kempf-LeonardK (ed.) Encyclopedia of Social Measurement Vol. II, Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press, pp. 665–676.
