Absolutely, said Thomas Jefferson, who added that a free and autonomous press was "essential" for public enlightenment. Voltaire thought "truth shall make you free", but conceded that you had to bee free to realise the truth. From an economical perspective, stated Adam Smith, the "invisible hand" would take care of the market, though not explicitly talking about the press. Jeremy Bentham thought every law was a restriction, and it was the individual who was his own best judge. Laws should therefore be minimised. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, justified free expression on utilitarian principles. These authors believed in free expression because it would lead man closer to truth.

We will see that truth is a highly subjective state of mind, and the value of free expression can therefore not lie in the theoretical or utilitarian production of "truth."Merrill notes that "The central value of free expression is in the free expression, not in any truth it might somehow unearth, although this might be a peripheral "bonus-value. "

A nations press or press system is closely tied to the political system. Freedom of expression was in one way or another integrated in the constitution of all the new nation states of the 18th and 19th centuries. The strongest legislative protection of freedom of speech is perhaps the first amendment of the United States' Bill of Rights. Consecutive Supreme Court cases have evolved and developed the term. Various form of expression are given strong or limited first amendment protection accordingly. Printed publications enjoy "full" first amendment protection, while television, for instance, has "limited" protection.

It should be the principal right of any one member of society to publish or broadcast. This right also benefits society, by having public with an informed opinion. It is important to note here that there must be no objective or goal for press freedom. A free press should exist on its own accord. It should, according to the Supreme Court, only be limited by other speakers right to free speech or listeners right to elude that speech. Copyright law is an example of one speaker being given precedence over another, as it gives an author the right to prohibit usage of that creative product by others. In Egypt, national security would come under this category. Broadcasting rating, advertising and libel laws are all examples of listener's rights over the speaker. Since one can "avert one's eyes" to avoid publications or other written material, the "speaker" of (i.e. the writer or publisher) enjoys full first amendment protection. The broadcasting spectrum is limited (legitimises licensing) and enters private homes regardless of audience (legitimises rating), and is consequently treaded differently.

The Supreme Court stated in FCC v. Pacifica that; "The individual's right to be let alone plainly outweighs the First Amendment rights of the intruder." Any freedom from implies a freedom to something. Freedom is only definable in terms of the obligations, restraints and sacrifices it accepts. The press takes on the form and coloration of the social and political structures within which it operates. It reflects the system of social control whereby the relations of individuals and institutions are adjusted. Adapting from "The true believer" by Eric Hoffer, Merrill states: "There is a tendency to judge a press system by its least worthy units. It is true that bad, inferior and sloppy media will develop. Yet it is also true that the superior media will develop. Yet it is also true that the superior media play a major role in shaping a nations press system as well as the nation itself." Merrill (1984) argues that a press should be absolutely free; responsibility means that someone has to decide what is responsible and this is an infringement over freedom.

Functions of the Press
The press (and media in general) influences society in ways that have puzzled academics for decades.

Theories have ranged from "brainwashing" models to no influence at all. Libertarian theories suggest that you make up your own meaning, while Marxist theories dictate a hidden message.

Different countries have devised different policies depending on how the press is viewed. In Western Europe and the United States the press has been seen as something neutral. A statement is neither wrong nor right under the first amendment, for instance. In much of Eastern Europe, the former communist bloc and the third world, the press has been seen as a motor of change. Publications and other media outlets should carefully be monitored to attain pre-determined goals.

Most government / Press theories are placed on between authoritarianism and libertarianism on a scale. The authoritarian system is, according to Merrill, the one in which the journalistic media have little or no autonomy in the sense of determining their own editorial policy and activities. The libertarian system is the one where the media are editorially autonomous and operate in an open competitive atmosphere. Siebert, Peterson and Schramm's four models of the press have been standard reading among mass communication scholars since it was published in 1956. Nonetheless, the typology of Authoritarian, Communist, Social Responsibility and Libertarian has faced much criticism. First of all, writes Merrill, 1990;

"By having a Social Responsibility theory, implication is given that the remaining three theories are irresponsible theories, and that authoritarian, communist and libertarian press systems cannot be (or are not) responsible to their own societies."

Secondly, writes Altschull, 1995

"Social Responsibility is devoid of meaning. The term is so vague that almost any meaning can be placed on it, and as such it serves the ultimate end of social control that would have horrified Mill and Rousseau." Even without the term "Social Responsibility", the categories do not fit. While communist systems still exist today, there is little to separate these (Cuba, China, North Korea) from authoritarian countries.

Why not, says Altschull (1995), use identifications that are economic in scope, but subject to critical modification by late-century developments? Dividing the media movements into Market, Communitarian and Advancing is not absolute, and allows for exceptions within each group. It takes height for variations within each country, too. For instance in the US, there are people who would like to see a more communitarian press while the country falls into the market category. The model can improve our understanding of how the media works. The model shows that it is not the aims that are different, but the ends. In each of the three different movements, the press is assigned a central role in the social order. The media generally supports the core values of the society in which it operates.

The overall function of the media, claims Altschull, is to educate the people so that they can carry out their own individual roles in society. Information might be the preferred word in the market model - as education can imply propaganda - but information serves to make people learn. However one phrases it, education in the market model serves to educate people in order for them to vote wisely so that the social order will be safeguarded. Chairman of the American Federal Communications Commission, William E. Kennard, underlined this point in a speech in 1999.

"All Americans to be able to use these amazing technologies to better educate their children […] and to be able to learn the skills needed to survive and thrive in the new economy."

The communitarian model is based on Marxist theory. The media are supposed to act collectively with other parts of society to attain a greater group consciousness. Education by the media is done so that the people might behave wisely and thereby safeguarding the social order. Though only a few countries are Marxist today, the former communist countries falls into this category. The difficulties of these countries to adopt to capitalism, the splitting of Czechoslovakia, the reunification of Germany and the ideological struggles of the former Yugoslavia are all examples cited by Altschull to support the idea of East European countries still adhering to Marxist ideologies. Therefore they fit into the communitarian press model.

The advancing model describes third world nations. The press is an explicit instrument of education, either to safeguard the social order - or to change it when necessary. While the function of the media in the Market and the communitarian models mainly serves to preserve the status quo, this third movement has a dynamic character "dedicated to change". Development journalism is still very much the keyword for advancing nations. Former head of Egypt's Radio and Television Union, Amin Bassiouni, confirms this in a recent interview with the Al-Ahram.

"To concentrate on sensationalism […] is not beneficial. Today the media must cover technological achievements being made, we need to broadcast (information about) things like the establishment of a university and higher council for technology." Each movement varies significantly from within. The market countries are diverse, as are the press controls in the advancing countries. These differences are not peculiarly national. It is not more Norwegian, say, to have a market press model than do, say, Singapore. Differences have always existed inside countries as well as between them. Within each particular country, one will find supporters of one or the other model.

Still, says Altschull, while presenting the three movements in national terms may be somewhat of a distortion, such imagery offers a convenient passage to comprehension of the reality of the universe of the press. Despite internal variations, the three models have fundamental differences. In the communitarian and the advancing models, the press has a specific political role. The press in the market countries, however, is to be above politics. The media should present political information impartially and neutrally. Though each one media may have a view, the aggregated effect is supposedly one of pluralism. Pure impartiality though, is impossible. Either you are for something, or you are against. Either you take action - or you don't - depending on your support of the status quo. Altschull goes on to say that even this is deceiving oneself, as "objectivity is a mechanism for ensuring the status quo" .

It permits criticism of individuals but not of the fundamental political, economic or social system. The traditional Marxist perspective holds the press responsible for an unyielding support of the Marxist-Leninist doctrines. To fail in this support is to fail to serve the people. To this day, the market as such is seen as an imperialist venture, and the homogenisation or "Americanisation" of the mass media, be it television or the printed press, is rejected.

The communitarian perspective also holds great variety. Some countries have strict centralisation of the press, while others allow the press considerable leeway. Some of the countries follow a market economy - or at least some sort of adaptation to it - while others have communitarian tendencies. Yet the fundamental view on the press remains the same; that it should be unifying and not divisive. Altschull's model represents an important step in categorising the various press systems around the world. The press within each country varies, but Altschull has based his observations on an economic foundation, from which he develops the categories.

The observation that all press has an educational function is a particular important one, and fits well into how the press seems to be working in Egypt. Of the three models presented, the one of the market represents the trend of globalisation. The public decides on the quality of information. While all the models are based on good intentions, it is a problem for any one party to determine what is "truth". Interests might be mingled, and "unpopular" information - such as corruption or incompetency, might be hidden. It can even be legitimated as national security concerns, as such information presumably will decrease the public's confidence in the government. Restoring confidence is at best a short-term gain.

Controlled information can over time become a "sleeping pillow", from which it takes a riot rather than a front page to wake up from. Also, while the public may be illiterate, they will learn to distrust a biased media. Reality can be generated, but not out of thin air. The advancing press model seems to be dominant in Egypt, in its official legitimisation of press controls.

William A. Rugh writes in The Arab Press that "The mobilisation press does not criticise the basic policies of the national government. The foreign policies are particularly unassailable, but the major lines of domestic policy, too, are never attacked." This may not be for the better. The economy is slowly adapting to a market model, and more state corporations are being privatised. Transparency is crucial in these transactions, but the desire for accountability is spreading to other areas as well.

Criticism in newspapers has become more frequent, to the extent that new press laws were passed in 1996 to prevent it. The revised press law punishes libel with up to two years prison if the victim is a "public official" or the issue is related to "public duties." Altschull's "market" model similes J. Milton's "marketplace of ideas". The belief that in open competition, truth ultimately prevails over falsity. The marketplace of ideas rests, however, on the questionable assumption "that truth is discoverable" It assumes that conflicts of values among people do not disrupt this search for truth. Truth or reality is always dependent upon the perceiver. However, there is a difference between the object and the significance of the object.

Paul Watzlawick, a leading communication psychology scholar, divides "reality" into two categories. The first order reality is the purely physical, objectively discernible properties of things. It is intimately linked with "correct sensory perception". The second order reality is the "attribution of meaning and value to this things and is based on communication".

For instance, in the 1973 war between Egypt and Israel, both sides claimed victory. After Egypt's initial success, Israel mobilised and re-captured Sinai. Following the Camp David peace talks between the two countries, the peninsula was then returned to Egypt. Egypt could claim that "before the war we did not have Sinai - and now we do - so we won the war". Israel could claim that "before the war we did not have peace with Egypt - but now we do - so we won the war". The first part - Israel's recapturing of Sinai - is according to Watzlawick first order reality and not disputed. The second part, what does it all mean, is second order reality and subject for discussion. Since no one has pre-emptive claim on the truth, then, its pursuit requires that all differences of opinion are made available to the public. An independent and free press should therefore be the goal of any nation.

Pluralism There should be no legislative claims to the functions of the media. As soon as the media has to conform to some goal, it is no longer free. Requiring the media to hold one opinion or another obscures the free debate, and thereby the value of the conclusions being reached. How many voices constitute plural and how wide do the opinions need to be? Measuring pluralism by counting the number of media outlets, or looking at the spread of ownership, may not necessarily lead to a greater understanding of the media system however.

It must be the individual who is the unit of analysis. How many sources the individual draw information from, and how many outlets the individual can expose him to. Pluralism is a difficult value to measure, but categorising different types can give insights to the underlying press structure. Merrill suggests looking both at the speaker and the listener when analysing pluralism. The three levels of pluralism he describes refers to the speaker, while the three types of pluralism refers to the listener.

Three levels of pluralism - Message pluralism, where the diversity of messages to which a person is able to expose himself. - Media unit pluralism, where the quantity or ownership of the media is assumes a greater pluralism. This is not necessarily so. - Communicator pluralism, where the number of message-encoder counts as diversity.

Three types of pluralism - System pluralism, the level of information and viewpoints available in the total media system (E.g. in a country) - Community pluralism. How much diversity of information and viewpoints are there at the local or regional level? - Individual pluralism. The "ideal" pluralism level. Pluralism is related to what information gets to the individual. Merrill maintains that the most significant level and type of pluralism is the one focusing upon the individual. It does not really matter how many media outlets there are, unless the individual has an opportunity to receive them. In analysing Message pluralism, then, one must look for the diversity of opinions and information in a certain universe of messages at a particular time. The types should be studied through interviews, and consequent content analysis. What is the individual receiving from the pluralism of messages revolving around him?

Measuring Press Freedom
Ralph L. Lowenstein undertook a study for the Freedom of Information Centre of the School of Journalism a world-wide survey of press freedom in 1966. The Centre started by defining a free and a controlled press:

"A completely free press is one in which newspapers, periodicals, news agencies, books, radio and television have absolute independence and critical ability, except for minimal libel and obscenity laws. The press has no concentrated ownership, marginal economic units or organised self-regulation."

A completely controlled press, on the other hand, was described as follows: "One with no independence or critical ability. Under it, newspapers, periodicals, books, news agencies, radio and television are completely controlled directly and indirectly by government, self-regulatory bodies or concentrated ownership."

Out from these criteria, a 23-point list measuring press freedom was devised . Some measurements, such as constitutional protection of free speech, treatment of foreign correspondents and the flow of foreign publications into a country was not used because they were too difficult to assess. 1003 questionnaires was sent out in 1966-67, of which 571 were returned. There was sufficient information to categorise 91 countries out of 115 with populations greater than 1 million. The Press Independence and Critical Ability (PICA) survey then valued countries on a press freedom / controlled press scale.

Countries like the United Kingdom, Turkey, Israel and Austria were regarded as having a medium degree of press freedom (a "two"). Cameroon, Syria and the United Arab Republic (Egypt) were regarded as having a low degree of press freedom (a "six") The United States was in the highest category of press freedom (a "one") while the Soviet Union and China had the lowest of the seven scores. When the results were sorted according to regions, it was found that:

"The Middle East is the most oppressive region of the world in regard to press freedom"

Both native and foreign "judges" were used to assess the PICA scale. The scores of the native judges were in substantial agreement with the non-native speakers, indicating universal standards of measurement. When the Freedom House reviewed the survey ten years after, it was concluded that press freedom was an "excellent political indicator", and that "seemingly minor controls on the press almost always harbingers a diminution of political freedom."

These findings were repeated in a survey made by Leonard R. Sussman in 1988. In the 1999 Freedom House survey of press freedom, Egypt still ranked among the bottom 15 percent countries when it came to press freedom. The Middle East was still the "most oppressive region", with 86 percent of the countries. Only Israel and Kuwait were regarded as being free medium or partly free, respectively. Of the countries that shared Egypt's group in 1966 - Cameroon, Haiti, Hungary, Senegal and Syria - it was only Syria still sharing the group. It is important to point out that the survey on press freedom did not deal with freedom of expression in particular. Though criticising heads of state is prohibited throughout the region, there is considerably more debate on social and political issues in Egypt than, say Syria, Saudi Arabia and Libya. While Kuwait and Israel "scored" higher on the press freedom scale, they too, have areas barren to freedom of speech.

Ralph Lowenstein, perhaps the first scholar to attempt a global index on press freedom, was attacked by relativists who maintained that he was forcing western ideology and libertarianism upon all nations of the world. John C. Merrill on the other hand, claims that

"No reason exists why freedom of expression can not have a universal pure meaning that can be applied to the press system of any nation at any particular moment."

TOP