The Press' Social and Political Role in Siebert, Peterson, and Schramm’s Four Theories of the Press

Siebert, Peterson, and Schramm’s “Four Theories of the Press” argue that “the press always takes on the form and coloration of the social and political structures within which it operates” (p. 1). The book supports this argument by discussing authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility, and Soviet-totalitarian theories of the press.

The authoritarian theory of the press developed in 16th and 17th century England. England lived under a monarchy and the people were never to question the monarchy’s right to rule. Truth and wisdom were reserved for the few divinely appointed authorities. Under the authoritarian state, all people and privately owned operations were to serve the state and the truth as dictated by the wisdom of the monarchy. The authoritarian theory was also influenced by the Roman Catholic Church, which did not allow dissent or true independent thought from its parishioners. Mass media mirrored these societal rules. Privately owned industries were controlled by the state through a system of patents and licenses. The press was also controlled through a patent and license system, preventing it from having full freedom to question the monarchy’s right to rule, though minor dissent about independent issues was allowed. Ultimately, the press’ job was to support the state (the monarchy) without questioning the state’s right to rule, in the same manner that a citizen’s job was to support the state by working in the fields without questioning the state’s right to rule.

Libertarian theory rose from the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment resulted in the belief that man was rational and able to think for himself. Society’s focus shifted to fulfilling the potential of the individual person instead of the state...

... middle of paper ...

... and as such, its job was to support the goals of the Party. The purpose of everything in Soviet Russia was to build up socialist society, and therefore the primary job of the media was the same. Outside events did not matter as much as the message from the Party and the Party’s ultimate goals. Therefore, like much of society behind the Iron Curtain, the press was tightly controlled and focused on the will of the Party to the detriment of education about the outside world.

Siebert, Peterson, and Schramm argued that the press takes on the form of the society in which it exists. They support their argument by tracing the origins of authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility, and Soviet Communist theory. Each theory’s historical background shows that the state of the press mirrored the society that it served, supporting the original premise of the book.