The institutions of news

1. The term ‘mass society’ is both quantitative and qualitative: the size or scale of society is massive, and the constituents of the society are inchoate. Since the term encompasses both quantitative and qualitative aspects, it is ambiguous and lenient, though it is inclusive. It seems that the term ‘mass society’ expresses the feeling and experience of modern men in society full of new, strange and unfamiliar things: strictly speaking, the term is not a concept, but a feeling. I believe it is not that beneficial to seek the value of the term in light of conceptual rigorousness. Whereas ‘mass society’ brings about some kind of bad feeling, another term that depicts society gives much more positive sense: free society. This term is strictly qualitative and, importantly, normative. It seems that this explains why Hutchins Commission adopts the term ‘free society’ instead of ‘mass society’ in giving the five demands of the news media. Since society is understood in terms of ‘norms,’ what gives meanings to the elements of society – citizens, economy, press, etc. – is also norms. For this reason, the meaning of press in ‘free society’ should be sought in following the five norms of the press.(The Requirements)

2. The ideals of ‘free society,’ not mass society, still resonates at community level. (Janowitz) Though society has grown into mass society, it has had room for free society. Janowitz argues: “the growth of large-scale organization has been accompanied by a proliferation of intermediate haphazard-like social arrangements and communication patterns.” (p.116) Those individuals in community are not rootless contrary to the concerns of mass society theorists. Community, according to Janowitz, evolves around individuals, their primary-group contacts. However, the shadow of mass society still haunts community, the ideal unit of ‘free society.’ In many ways, the community at observation is that of “limited liability.”(p.124) In other words, the likelihood of individuals’ being atomized is still in existence.

3. Community press plays a role as “intermediate haphazard-like” communication tools. “The community press […] stands intermediate between the individual and the major institutions of the metropolis.” (Janowitz, p.116) Though the community newspaper “seeks to present appropriate symbols of respectability and morality to those who have such motives,” (p.120) it has created undemocratic standards because of its “parochialism.”(p.122) However, according to Kaniss, local newspapers concentrate on the problems, events, and politics of cities. Here is a contradiction of local press: it is parochial, but its coverages focus on cities. Kaniss explains the contradiction of local press as follows: “The continued focus on the city has been maintained because the city is the only source of symbolism capable of drawing together the fragmented suburban market. However ironic, the city that many suburbanites rarely venture into is often the only thing they have in common. (p.66-67)”

4. If it does not carry ‘germs of mass society,’ suburbanization can be viewed as multiplication of community. However, multiplication of community (i.e., suburbanization) is ‘fragmentation of media markets’ to news institutions. According to Kaniss, institutions of news established cities as a common symbol and cultural hubs as a way to overcome the fragmentation. As seen here, the perspective of news institutions that views cities as a common symbol seems quite odd and ungrounded. It seems that in order for institutions of news to be a backbone of free society, there has to be more norms other than five norms or requirements suggested by Hutchins Commission.