Don't patronize me: media-by and media-for minorities

Abstract

The proposed paradigm aims at differentiating between two prototypes of ethnic minority media – media-for and media-by minorities – according to a series of twelve criteria clustered into three major categories. The first category comprises four criteria addressing medium initiative and design, i.e. the initiative behind the medium establishment, the nature of its ownership and the identity of its personnel and management. The second offers five criteria for evaluating medium functioning, i.e. the medium's agenda, its attitude towards the majority versus the country of origin, professional reference group and the minority's access to the medium and representation therein. The third category consists of three types of medium control – political, economic and public. As shown, the distinction between the two prototypes has numerous theoretical and practical implications concerning the minority media's performance in mediating between the minority and the majority, as well as their differential ability to guarantee the minority self-expression and empowerment.

Keywords:

• Minority media
• media-by
• media-for
• ethnic minorities
• immigrants
• Israel

Acknowledgements

The preparation of this article was partially supported by the Hubert Burda Center for Innovative Communications. Special gratitude is due to the two anonymous readers for their constructive comments and the insights we have included in the text.

Notes

1. Although it is rather difficult to trace the origins of the media-by and -for terminology, Elihu Katz was probably the first who suggested this distinction for analysing minority representation in the media (Gross 1998). In a personal correspondence (11 January 2009), Katz explained that the distinction was inspired by Abraham Lincoln's ‘government of the people, by the people and for the people’.

2. Another media prototype identified with ethnic minorities includes so-called ‘diasporic media’, which are imported from the country of origin, such as books, video and audio recordings, satellite television channels and websites originating in the homeland. These media should be discussed separately, if only because they lack agendas relevant to the present context.

3. The institutional approach refers to the mass media as one of society's numerous institutions. Thus, the communication institution comprises many organizations, each with a series of roles, norms and orientations that may affect its relations with the broader environment.

4. The media originating in the Palestinian Authority are not comparable in the present context as they essentially adopt the characteristics of the ‘diasporic media’ for the Arab citizens of Israel.

5. The rhetoric of coverage of the Gilad Schalit Affair may well demonstrate the substantive difference between the Arabic media by and for. On 25 June 2006, Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit fell into the hands of Hamas fighters and was brought to the Gaza Strip. Since then, mediation efforts have continued for release of the Israeli soldier in exchange for release of Palestinian fighters imprisoned in Israel. While the Israeli broadcast media for the Arab minority adopt the official position of the Israel government and refer to Schalit as a kidnapped soldier, the media-by newspapers in Arabic call him a prisoner of war.