Abstract
Sylvia Harvey's discussion of the different forms of 'content' regulation of broadcasting
in the USA and Britain is an especially useful step towards establishing a typology for the analysis of the relationship between the regulatory practices of sovereign nation-states and ostensibly 'universal' norms such as freedom of communication (Harvey, 1998).
Her analysis seeks to account for the anomalous disparity between recent US and British systems of content regulation for 'fairness' and 'impartiality'. These cases draw her to posit the coexistence of alternative 'capitalist cultures' within an apparently globally triumphant capitalism. These cultures in tum derive from the different - but still active and unpredictable - normative legacies of the 'bourgeois revolutions'. The carefully regulated British system is seen to have maintained an unswerving adherence to content regulation for impartiality. In contrast, the USA's free market system is found to have been more ambivalent because of its vulnerability
to judicial interpretations of the First Amendment commitment to freedom of speech. This distinction is summarized in the article's conclusion:
The two traditions of paternalism and militant individualism both arise out of and help to constitute the different capitalist cultures of Britain and the USA. Their different patterns, models and methods offer examples, and to some extent choices, to those countries currently on the fast track to the creation of democratic states and concerned with the regulation of public communication in the public interest. (Harvey, 1998: 553)
This commentary briefly discusses and critically elaborates some implications of this perspective. It then takes up Harvey's suggestion of wider exemplary relevance by applying these implications to another case. However, this case is one which Harvey probably did not have in mind in the internationalizing reference above, the recent judicial establishment in Australia of an implied constitutional freedom of political communication.
in the USA and Britain is an especially useful step towards establishing a typology for the analysis of the relationship between the regulatory practices of sovereign nation-states and ostensibly 'universal' norms such as freedom of communication (Harvey, 1998).
Her analysis seeks to account for the anomalous disparity between recent US and British systems of content regulation for 'fairness' and 'impartiality'. These cases draw her to posit the coexistence of alternative 'capitalist cultures' within an apparently globally triumphant capitalism. These cultures in tum derive from the different - but still active and unpredictable - normative legacies of the 'bourgeois revolutions'. The carefully regulated British system is seen to have maintained an unswerving adherence to content regulation for impartiality. In contrast, the USA's free market system is found to have been more ambivalent because of its vulnerability
to judicial interpretations of the First Amendment commitment to freedom of speech. This distinction is summarized in the article's conclusion:
The two traditions of paternalism and militant individualism both arise out of and help to constitute the different capitalist cultures of Britain and the USA. Their different patterns, models and methods offer examples, and to some extent choices, to those countries currently on the fast track to the creation of democratic states and concerned with the regulation of public communication in the public interest. (Harvey, 1998: 553)
This commentary briefly discusses and critically elaborates some implications of this perspective. It then takes up Harvey's suggestion of wider exemplary relevance by applying these implications to another case. However, this case is one which Harvey probably did not have in mind in the internationalizing reference above, the recent judicial establishment in Australia of an implied constitutional freedom of political communication.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 385-396 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | Media, Culture and Society |
| Volume | 23 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - May 2001 |
| Externally published | Yes |