Model 3

According to this model it is the public that sets the political agenda, with the media acting as an amplifier to reach the politicians in parties and the government. Elections also provide the public with another direct channel for forming the political will. The democratically elected government has an effect on events in the real world outside. The repercussions from this are felt by the electorate and taken in. And so the cycle begins again.

(...) Reality, as we have learned from the other two models, is somewhat different. Political parties influence the media using communication-management techniques and professional PR, they dominate national radio, they restrict their gratuity to favorable journalists, they create events to encourage political symbolism and the media is happy to play along. The media forces its agenda upon politics and the people; it expands with shallowness at the expense of factual information and concrete news and in a final move attempts to force politics into submission.

And just how does the citizen fit in? There are, of course, a few aspects that support the assumptions made by the bottom-up model. The commercialization of radio and television - the press has always been dominated by the public sector - means that the media focuses on the market, its customers and the needs of those watching. While some criticize this sort of media for its lack of quality, it does service a demand which is demonstrated by the viewing figures. Jarren assesses the situation thus: ťthe former >class media< which was tied to the state and social organizations gave way to the >mass media< which, once obliged to serve society, is now increasingly giving way to >target-group media< which is audience-focused, flexible and very capable of change. Target-group media attempts to identify certain sections of society or follow the interests of specific social groups.Ť Here it is important not to place too much strain on this audience.

Politics plays no more than a marginal role in the daily lives of most people. Most days are molded by private events and interpersonal communication. In actual fact, those who watch lots of TV tend to be non-political and belong to the more underprivileged sections of society. It has to be asked, then, whether we should look a little more critically at research results signaling an increase in TV consumption. It might well be the case that politicians and communications strategists drastically overestimate the influence of television.

Because a large number of radio stations are community based, the beginnings of democratization can be seen. As far as the print media is concerned, the development of cheap and simple printing has brought about a technological revolution which has enabled civil-action groups, self-help groups and city forums to design and print attractive magazines and to distribute them easily. These techniques have greatly improved the chances for the counter-media movement (...).

We are currently living through a multi-media revolution. Whether or not use of the Internet and other non-hierarchical and non-commercial networks actually results in an electronic grassroots movement remains to be seen; many are already treating this idea with skepticism despite the prevailing euphoria. Nevertheless, new forms of media and communications networks do exist and are offering some sort of challenge to the omnipotence of party-based politicians and large media concerns. And new organizations and new content also exists (...). The success of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) worldwide during the 90s has been quite remarkable. Examples include the Environmental Conference in Rio, the Social Conference in Copenhagen and the Women's Conference in Peking. Indeed, the campaign started by Greenpeace in the summer of 1995 in which it called on the public to boycott Shell as a protest against the sinking of Shell's Brent Spar oilrig in the North Sea proved to be a remarkable success.

Question: Was this really bottom-up communication? Would this success have been possible without wide-spread publication and broadcasting of the issues by the media (whose cameramen were dropped-in by Greenpeace) or, indeed, without the help of established politicians to the left and right of politics who were opportunistic in their support of the cause? If truth be told, those wanting to celebrate this campaign as a victory for people power have been left with an unpleasant taste in their mouths. This was a victory of the media society.