A key objective of this project assumes that “Media-State parallelism” significantly contribute to variations in political discourse toward the 2024 U.S presidential election.  This concept has been explored throughout history from various perspectives under different terms that describe the alignment of media discourse with social and political control in a given society. Despite these variations, the focus is often on parallelism, particularly in terms of the media’s relationship with sources of power that determines political discourse and ideological orientations of media coverage such as the government, political parties, the market, the audience, and other political bodies, which influences the degree of media freedom, independence, professionalism and overall purposes and functions.  

Studies on such concept originated  by Siebert et al. (1956)  who posed the question of why does press actually serve different purposes in different countries? They argue that the press functions differently depending on the underlying system of governance and control. The concept was later examined by Seymour-Ure, (Seymour-Ure, 1974) as well as Blumler and Gurevitch (Blumler and Gurevitch, 1975). However, “political parallelism” gained widespread recognition after Hallin and Mancini considered it as one of the four central critical categories in their seminal work, Comparing Media Systems (Hallin and Mancini, 2004). Today, Hallin and Mancini’s three models of media systems serve as a key reference for numerous comparative studies on journalism and political communication. 

This project focuses on a single dimension, “political parallelism “which assesses the extent to which political advocacy is considered an integral part of journalism’s mission and discourse across different states. However, we have refined the concept to focus solely on “state parallelism,” as the term “political” incorporates opposition parties and various other political actors, which would complicate the classification process. Given the objective of this project-where the state is considered the primary actor in international relations-it is more logical to measure media alignment or “parallelism” with the state itself, rather than with the broader range of competing or cooperative political entities within each participating country.

Aligned with the project’s objective, this concept is exclusively examined through a political lens, aiming to explain variations in political discourse based on the differing alignments of the newspapers under study with source of power and control, primarily the state. In this context, it is worth mentioning to recognize that this concept originates from and is largely applicable to Western contexts. As a result, its relevance to non-Western media systems may be partial or limited (De Albuquerque, 2018; Jones and Hadland, 2024; Herrero et al., 2017). State parallelism as used here builds on a diverse literature exploring how it influences political discourse surrounding an event that gathered significant international media coverage, which is the U.S presidential election. In doing so, it provides a unique opportunity to critically examine the concept’s applicability within and beyond the Western orbit. 

While the thirty-three participating states’ diverse international relations with the U.S. are expected to shape distinct political discourses–the central focus of this project–variations in newspaper-state parallelism among participating states introduce an additional factor that further diversifies these discourses. This diversification expands the study’s scope, enhances our understanding of the complex interplay among the examined variables, and ultimately facilitates the development of new theories at the intersection of international relations, international communication, media systems and political economy. 

Each research team assigned a state is required to produce an 800–900 word report on “media-state parallelism” concluding with he identification of a single level of parallelism based on the four-point scale provided below. Three levels of analysis could be used to write the report: 1) Macro-level analysis of the media landscape, its freedom and independence, journalists’ safety and culture of impunity 2) Mezo-level analysis of news media ownership, editorial policies, and 3) Micro-level analysis of journalists’ including journalism practices, autonomy and their perception of political pressures and influences. 

The selection of the most two influential newspapers should be based on their level of alignment with the state.  The research team needs to consider various indicators to measure “media state parallelism”: The proposed indicators to measure “media- state parallelism” are: 1) ideological orientation, 2) editorial policy statement, 3) actual journalism practices, 4) political advocacy, 5) media ownership, 6) media freedom and independence, 7) journalists’ perception of autonomy, and 8) journalists’ perception of influences.   

Media-State Parallelism Scale

Iincludes the following options: 

1. 1. High parallelism, where the newspaper’s political discourse serves as the official voice of the participating state, advocating government policies and defending its foreign policy. 
   2. Low parallelism, where the newspaper’s political discourse is mixed, balanced or showing less alliance to the government in comparison to the opposition parties or other political voices in the society. 
   3. Independent, where the newspaper’s political discourse provides a platform for diverse voices, ensuring equal opportunities for expressing news and opinions. It adheres to a professional editorial policy and an independent code of ethics, with minimal or no interference from the government, advertisers, or political parties. Journalists also have the autonomy to choose their stories and determine their editorial angles.
   4. Counter – parallelism, here, the newspaper’s political discourse does not align with the state’s position, instead reflecting the ideology and perspectives of other political institutions, such as opposition parties or related bodies. In doing so, it challenges the official voice of the state.

As scholars and experts, you are the only ones qualified to write the required report, classifying the level of alignment between the newspaper(s) you have selected and the state. It is imperative that you review relevant literature and consult some experienced scholars and journalists before finalizing the report. The report has to be completed before the pilot study begins. There is no doubt, in some states; newspapers may not fit neatly into the clear-cut alternatives of state parallelism. For instance, there may be no official state newspaper, no newspaper affiliated with a political opposition party, or no entirely independent newspaper.  In other words, the two extremes of parallelism (high parallelism vs counter- parallelism) may not exist, particularly in states that prohibit the public expression of opposing voices. In such cases, it is important to carefully select newspapers that are not politically, ideologically or professionally identical. This is to ensure a minimum level of diversity in their political discourses towards the 2024 U.S. presidential election.  

Importance of the Report:

This report, ranging from 700 to 800 words, aims to identify one of the key independent variables in the study, predicting that media-state parallelism shapes political discourse toward the 2024 U.S. presidential election. It will be uploaded to the project’s website and will serve as a central component of the methodology, literature review, and discussion of findings in forthcoming publications. Finally, the Principal Investigator is responsible for ensuring the report is accepted by both the “Advisory Board” and the “Revision Committee” before the pilot study begins, allowing data analysis specialists to rely on the appropriate type of parallelism.

Evaluation Criteria: 

Submitted reports will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

1. 1. Relevance to media-state parallelism: The report should be concise, well written, grounded in reliable and recent sources, and directly relevant to the variable under study.
   2. Clarity and structure: The report should be structured into two concise sections. The first section should offer a brief overview of the media landscape in the participating state, highlighting key aspects such as press freedom, independence, censorship, ownership types, and the diversity of news and perspectives. The second section should examine the “media-state parallelism phenomenon” in the participating state.  
   3. Conclusion: The report should conclude by naming the selected newspapers, providing a clear justification for why they best represent the two different ideological, political, or professional orientations. Alternatively, if both newspapers align with the participating state, the report should discuss the varying degrees of alignment. Additionally, if the newspapers are not aligned with the state, the report should discuss the varying degrees of non-alignment. 

The conclusion should clearly specify the two selected newspapers’ positions on the four-point scale mentioned above (high parallelism, low parallelism, independent, and counter-parallelism), aiming to determine their levels of state alignment. This classification should accurately reflect reality or come as close as possible to it. Once determined, the selected option on the scale remains fixed throughout the analysis period, regardless of the nature of the content examined.

1. 1. Recognition of the report authors: The authors’ names, job titles, institutional affiliations, emails should be listed in order based on the amount of effort and intellectual contribution.

Evaluation Process

1. 1. The report should be sent to the “Founder and Lead Principal Investigator” via email at [email protected],  [email protected] who will then forward it to the “Revision Committee” and the Advisory Board for revision.
   2. The review reports will be shared with the “Principal Investigator” and the co-author(s) for revision.
   3. The revised report will undergo another round of revisions if necessary and will be uploaded to the project’s website once accepted.

This report must be submitted as a Word attachment, including full personal details and the date of submission. While it is reviewed by the “Revision Committee” and the project’s advisory board, it remains the sole responsibility of its author(s) as an authenticated document on media-state parallelism in the participating state.

—

Refrences

Blumler JG and Gurevitch M (1975) Towards a comparative framework for political communication research:Issues and strategies for research. In: Chaffee SH (ed) Political communication. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.

De Albuquerque A (2018) Political parallelism. Oxford research encyclopedia of communication.

Hallin D and Mancini P (2004) Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Herrero LC, Humprecht E, Engesser S, et al. (2017) Rethinking hallin and mancini beyond the west: An analysis of media systems in central and eastern europe. International Journal of Communication 11: 27.

Jones B and Hadland A (2024) South african media and politics: Is the three models approach still valid after two decades? Media and Communication 12.

Seymour-Ure C (1974) The political impact of mass media. London: Constable.

Siebert FS, Peterson T and Wilbur S (1956) Four theories of the press: The authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility’ and soviet communist concepts of what the press should be and do. Chicago/London: University of Illinois Press.