Why Ecuador does not fit into the framework of media systems

 By Bernarda Vasquez

----------

To understand communication processes around the world, Hallin and Mancini developed a study where they deduced and conceptualized three ideal models of relations between media and politics: the liberal model, the democratic corporatist model and the polarized pluralist model. This conceptual framework was created from the analysis of similarities and differences in the structure of the media systems of 18 Western democracies, which is a very small sample to be applied globally, however, it can be used as a basis to discuss the case of Ecuador. 

Since the independence of Ecuador in 1830 and the emergence of the newspaper Quiteño Libre, the country has gone through a Liberal Revolution, military dictatorships and different party governments, and until now, there has been a constant struggle for the political power to recognize rights and freedoms. In particular, during authoritarian governments there has been great tension with the press, seeking to silence and discredit it, but never to the extent of the Communication Law that passed on 2013.

The beginning of the Ecuadorian media was formed by the elite of landowners, enlightened, politicians and militaries. This allowed a high level of professionalism, as these were the most prepared professionals of the time. Media content showed a low parallelism with politics and acted like a watchdog by questioning the government and spreading contrasting points of view from society. To counter, later state media were founded, however private companies dominated the industry. As such, Ecuadorian media system could be characterized as liberal, because like other countries in Latin America, media development copied the USA’s private business model and inspired the conceptions of competition and free market.

The Communication Law of 2013, proposed by former president Rafael Correa, is a key point that marks a before and after in the Ecuadorian Media. Also known as “gag law”, since it regulates content and applies sanctions to journalists, so the press accuses it of violating freedom of expression, a constitutional right. This led to the creation of more state media and controversies with private media. There is therefore a parallel and also contrary relationship with the political sphere. Additionally, even though the proclaimed goal of the new law was the democratization of the media and opening up to different voices, there was greater state intervention, control and silencing of its criticisms. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to fit the Ecuadorian media system in one of the 3 models, but it shares some of the characteristics of the democratic corporatist model.

With the following presidents of the country, reforms were made to the law, which seeks to conform to international standards and the relationship of the state with the press has improved. Things have not returned as they were before, there is more equilibrium between private and state media, the role of surveillance is done to question the current government, but not so much the elites or institutions. At the same time, the media are not able to sustain themselves only by the market and advertising, so they require state funds. As a last point, although Ecuadorian journalism is mostly based on political and economical issues, we cannot talk about political parallelism, since it is not based on party ideologies, but depends more on political figures of the moment. 

As a result, it can be concluded that currently the media system of Ecuador does not fit in any of the 3 models of Hallin and Mancini. In my opinion, this categorization needs more nuances to describe the realities of countries such as Ecuador and others in Latin America, where a 4th model defined as “Regulated Liberal system” could be included.