thoughts/questions/inspirations from Chouliaraki (2000)

[Linnea Micciulla]

One thing I really liked about the Chouliaraki article was the triple
emphasis on theory, empirical data, and practical solutions.  I've been
thinking quite a bit about the solutions side, where "the potential for
'politicizing' reflexivity... also depends upon the manner in which the
media internally regulate the articulation of multiple discourses, and so
facilitate deliberative practices among audiences." (p. 307) I've been
trying to imagine how that might come to pass. What often passes as
diversity is simply the articulation of different versions of the same
nationalist discourse.  So, in the US system, I can imagine a media outlet
that pledges to give equal time to Democratic and Republican candidates
running for office, but it's much more difficult to imagine any mainstream
media (in the US) agreeing to a regulation that guarantees equal time to,
say, Socialist, Green party, or other non-corporate-sponsored candidates.
In a society where one party can spend millions of dollars to keep another
party off the ballot and this passes without notice, it's very difficult to
conceive of what democratic media would look like.

But this is a simplistic example.  As Chouliaraki demonstrates, it may take
careful linguistic analysis to expose the presuppositions and
'taken-for-granted' positioning of arguments, particularly in nationalist
discourse.  When this discourse is hegemonic, its bias becomes invisible,
since it is perceived as 'common sense.' Is the 'other' point of view really
representing what it claims?  Who determines whether it does?

Not being an expert on media (although I am trying to gain expertise) I'd be
very interested to hear other perspectives on this.  Have other nations had
more success with 'democratizing' their media?  Does anyone know of any
models of 'articulation of multiple discourses' that seem at all promising?