Political Divisions:

According to John C. Merrill there are certain well-set discer­nible global patterns in existence. The first pattern is primarily politi­cal or ideological. Elite papers tend toward separation from government or they tend toward integration with government.

While the free elite’ see themselves as independent agents, standing aloof from, and unaffected by, government, the authoritarian elite envision themselves as partners in government, cooperative agents of their government bent on carrying forth the socio-political system of their people.

Economic Diversity:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

A second important pattern among the world’s elite is that of economic diversity. This pattern, of course, is related to the politi­cal context, but actually is quite different. Elite papers throughout the world exemplify a wide range of economic development and prosperity, but their overriding concern with serious news and views and their desire to influence opinion leaders manifests itself quite apart from such differences in economic health.

Geographical Traits:

The third pattern of the elite press is geographical. And this, of course, is closely related to national development. Most of the elite newspapers are published in developed or modern countries although there are a few that represent the developing (modernizing) or transi­tional nations.

Europe and North America are the principal homes of the elite newspapers. This is not surprising since these two con­tinents are the most industrialized, the most technological and most literate of all the continents. As the economic basis become stabilised, and literate and well-educated populations of other continents grow, the evenness of dispersion of the elite press throughout the world should improve significantly.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In India, the problems of the elite papers are much more acute than in the USSR, China or Japan. There are many reasons for this, but the chief is probably the problem of too many languages. At present the major elite papers of India are published in English, understood only by the educated, mainly found in a few of the large cities. And. even within the English reading public, the circulation of the English elite press is segmented.

To the language problem facing the development of the Indian elite press must be added these (generally applicable throughout Southeast Asia): low literacy rate, underdeveloped educational system, scarcity of training facilities and trained journalists, and old and inadequate printing equipment.

While the press of North America is well-developed and the elite papers numerous, the press of Europe (Western Europe) is rather over-developed and the elite papers also numerous. From Scandinavia to Spain, and from Britain to Russia, elite dailies (and weeklies) spread their serious journalism into every corner of the con­tinent and, increasingly, into distant lands. The elite dailies of Europe are probably the most erudite and knowledgeable in the world, providing insights which Quiney Howe (former editor of Atlas) has said are available nowhere else. European papers, says Howe, “speak wi’1 authority”, and it is not only a matter “of Germans reporting on Germany, French on France and British on Britain”, but also “of Germans writing about the French, the French writing about the British, and the British writing about the Germans.”

The Quality Papers of Europe:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

All types of quality papers are to be found in Europe. There are the free elite of most Western Europe-led by the super-serious Neue Zurcher Zeitung of Switzerland, Le Monde of France, the Times and the Guardian of Britain and Frankfurter Allgemeine of West Germany. There are the authoritarian elite such as Pravada and Izvestia of Russia and Borba and Politika of Yugoslavia.

There are the dailies of Scandinavia such as Oslo’s Aftenposten, Copen­hagen’s Berlingske Tidende, and Stockholm’s Dagens Nyheter that combine a rather flashy typographical dress with a heavy diet of serious news and views. There are also such dailies as Die Welt of Hamburg and Corriere della Sera of Milan which are able to combine a “modern” demeanor with a solid seriousness. And, of course, there is the stolid drabness of ultra-seriousness to be found in a very special kind of prestige daily, Observatore Romano of Vatican City.

The European elite press offers the reader a wide selection of packaging and political orientation; there is a paper whose journal­istic style and philosophy-as well as size, layout and typographical tone appeal to any kind of serious newspaper reader.

Journalism Education and Training Differences:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

It is interesting to note that in the areas of the world where daily journalism is most advanced and there are many elite papers, there is also the large number of journalism schools and institutes, and training programmes of one type or another. This concern with or emphasis on journalism education of course, is coupled with a high development of education generally.

In the underdeveloped nations, such as are common in Asia and Africa, the little emphasis on journalistic training which has now begun is still concerned chiefly with the technical aspects of journalism: typesetting, printing, news­print acquisition and the overcoming of basic economic handicaps. On the other hand, in the more advanced nations where the elite is- strongest, these elemental problems are secondary in journalism education, and concentrate on editorial quality; ethical standards and social responsibility come in for more consideration.

This non-technical and non-economic emphasis or approach inevitably results in a higher quality journalism. The seriousness and size of a country’s elite press undoubtedly reflects the nation’s general development and cultural level, and it is reassuring to know that among the thousands of daily papers of the world, there are conscien­tious and intelligent journals dedicated to serious discourse and boun­ded together by invisible cords of pride into a fraternity of prestige and excellence.

Impact of International Communication:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

International communication is defined as the communications process between different countries or nations across frontiers. It includes inter-cultural communication which is the process of the exchange of thoughts and meaning between peoples of different cultures.

Radio broadcasting became an influential instrument for national and international communication since the earlier part of the 20th century. The short-wave radio was discovered for its supranational communication value and radio broadcasting became during the 1930s the most intensive vehicle for message transmission in nearly all parts of the world.

The radio was used extensively by leading political powers. Hitler was particularly fascinated by the various possibilities of this medium. Journalistic and propagandists techni­ques were used by nearly every nation during World War II as psychological weapons. To some extent, the war became a pro­paganda war mainly led by radio broadcasting.

Another important instrument of international communication during and after the war was the film reel which was turned out on a good scale both for information and propaganda.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

International broadcasting grew as the totalitarian countries began to propagandise their neighbours-frequently with the ultimate objective of conquering them-and the democratic countries began international services in response to the dictators’ broadcasts. During World War 11, the propaganda services of the German Reich and the British Broadcasting Corporation competed for acceptance in Europe and throughout the world. Just as World War I stimulated the development of radio, so the electronic advances of World War II contributed to the emergence of television which soon became the dominant electronic medium. Besides radio broadcasting, which had been a real medium “without barriers” for a long time, in the 1950s and especially in the 1960s television became the communication instrument for national and international purposes par excellence.

Across-the-border telecasting operations became quite common, and across-the-Atlantic transmissions were possible after launch­ing the first satellite (Telstar-1) in July 1962. Since that time the term of “Communication in Space Age” became a synonym for this most modern form of communication facility. Doubtless the “Age of Television” or the Space Age later in communication history will be considered a communication revolution because it will have many expected and unexpected influences on how people and nations communicate with each other

Information is circulated internationally in three forms: as raw material, as semi-finished goods and as finished product. Most of the research in international communication deals with the flow of news among countries and the cross-national effects of opinion expression of all kinds. There is, however, considerable element of bias and stereotype in the international context. Sometimes it is referred to as “how nations see each other”.

Hutchin’s Commission:

In 1947 the U. S. Government appointed a Commission on Freedom of the Press headed by Robert Hutchins. In its report the Hutchins Commission defined the responsibility of the pres” in a clear manner. Previously it had been thought that the responsibility was somehow automatically built into a libertarian press system, that a free press in the western democratic sense was responsible per se to its social system. But the Hutchins Commission thought differently.

After seeing a very clear danger in growing restriction on communi­cations outlets and general irresponsibility in many areas of the press, it offered its ominous warning: “If the agencies of mass communica­tion are irresponsible, not even the first amendment will protect their freedom from governmental control, the amendment will be amen­ded”. However, most of the journalists in the U.S. thought that the best policy was to ignore Hutchins’ comments. They felt the whole concept as simply too fuzzy to bother with.

Phillips Davison states:

“A democratic form of government implies freedom of two-way international as well as domestic freedom of information Many of the groups that contend and interact in a democracy require the ideas and information from abroad if they are to form and function, and individuals no less frequently seek informa­tion from other countries to satisfy personal needs. Any person who wishes to take an intelligent interest in the foreign policy of his own nation must have access to foreign news and opinions. If the democratic process is to function, the right of individuals to incoming information must be assured.

“The hospitality of democracies to ideas from abroad means that democratic governments can be influenced indirectly by interna­tional communications that are given attention by important domestic groups. Dictatorships, by way of contrast, seek to exclude some categories of foreign ideas and are far less responsive to pressures from their own population.

Consequently, a government in a totalitarian country, while it may be affected directly by diplo­matic communications and propaganda from abroad, is less likely to be responsive to domestic pressures generated by ideas from out­side the country. Although democracies do, in fact, attempt to influence mass opinion in dictatorships through propaganda, the paucity of upward communication channels in the latter makes it more difficult for affecting their policies in this way.”

Communications from abroad, if they are to have an effect, must find users among the population of the receiving country. Further­more, if these ideas are to be politically influential, the users ordinarily must be organised in some way-in political parties, industrial enter­prises, or groups sharing a public opinion.

In economically developed democracies, the range of interest represented by organised groups is very wide; therefore, a great variety of domestic organisations are in the market for ideas they can use to achieve their purposes. In view of the intense competition for the attention of people in industrialised democracies, however, any communication from abroad that does not fill an important need is likely to be submerged in the sea of competing domestic and international communication.

Another set of implications for international communication arises from the fact that democracies impose few restrictions on messages that leave the country. Anything that is publicly said or done in a democracy may become known abroad. Foreign newsmen are accepted as a matter of course, and are permitted wide latitude in their activities. Critical communications, which are necessary for the functioning of the democratic order, are especially likely to find their way into international channels and to be given wide currency by hostile media.

Foreign Press Councils:

There are more than a dozen press councils around the world, most of them charged with the responsibility of upholding profes­sional standards. They serve as a type of ombudsman for public complaints and also for protecting journalistic freedom when it is unduly curbed.

Sweden :

Sweden founded its council in 1916-the first in the world. Only in November, 1971 did it broaden its original scope by adding two public members on the board and appointing a press ombudsman under the council. It adopted regulations for imposi­tion of symbolic fines on newspapers or journalists found violating the codes. Although there are no set rules for judging press behaviour, the board considers on merit whether the behaviour of a paper has or has not been in keeping with good newspaper practice.

The board is guided not by-rules but what it considers a qualified opinion. If the board’s judgment goes against a news­paper, it can be fined up to 500 Swedish Crowns ($100) the first time and an additional same amount for each time thereafter up to a maximum of $400 in any one year. The money collected by the council by way of fines is used for funding scholarships.

Switzerland :

The second oldest council is Switzerland’s, which came into existence in 1938. These two were purely voluntary organi­zations launched by the press in what we can only term urbane, sophisticated countries.

Other Countries:

Of the others, it evident that the journalists of South Africa, West Germany, and India did not adopt their press councils willingly. South Africa’s press had faced the alternative of “statutory discipline?’. West Germany’s publishers decided the time had come when the Interior Ministry at Bonn announced its own plans for a council.

India’s council, patterned on the British model, is described in that country as “voluntary”-an obvious semantic ploy for an overview statutory board created by the federal parlia­ment. Less is known about the councils in Turkey and South Korea, other than the fact both countries had lay members on the boards as well as newsmen.

There are five other councils. Two are in Italy and the Netherlands. These two have nothing to do with the publishers, confine their activities to the professional standards of journalists. The reverse is true in Denmark and in West Germany’s magazine council. These two apply themselves only to publishers and have nothing to do with the working newsmen.

British Press Council; It grew out of a demand for a formal inquiry into press performance by a royal commission. The demand had been made by the National Union of Journalists and after debate in the House of Commons, a sweeping motion was adopted in 1946 which read:

“That having regard to the increasing public concern at the growth of monopolistic tendencies in the control of the press and with the object of furthering the free expression of opinion through the press and the greatest practicable accuracy in the presentation of news, this House considers that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into the finance, control, Management and ownership of the press.”

This first Royal Commission report was handed to Parliament in June, 1949. Many times the size of the Hutchins report, it went into specific detail about the nation’s newspapers and cited many instances of inaccurate and biased coverage. At one point, the commission termed a Daily Express account of an important speech by U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall a travesty”.

At another, it singled out a headline and noted, “the words in the headline do not occur in the news account; they are an inference masquerading as quotation” There were scores of such point blank citations.

The British Royal Commission differed from the Hutchins report in its recommendation for an oversight agency. It called for a “General Council of the Press consisting of at least twenty-five members representing proprietors, editors, and other journalists, and having lay members amounting to about 20 per cent of the total, including the chairman”.

The goals set forth included safeguarding the freedom of the press and improving methods of recruitment, training and education. The key passage deals with censure. It called for “censuring undesirable types of journalistic conduct, and by all other possible means, to build up a code in accordance with the highest professional standards.

In that connec­tion it should have the right to consider any complaints which it may receive about the conduct of the press or of any person towards the press, to deal with these complaints in whatever manner may seem to be practicable and appropriate and to include in the annual report any action”

The proprietors of the British Press resisted the move. However, the first meeting of the “General Council” was held in 1953 under the orders of the British Parliament. But the General Council could not have any consensus.

This made the House of Commons appoint a second royal commission headed by Lord Shawcross. In 1963 the Shawcross report advocated a new situation for the press council. After approval by the Parliament in 1964, the new council began work under the chairmanship of Lorn Devlin. In due course, this council has come to be regarded as the model for affording the reading public a fair hearing.