I was recently asked why hospitality matters. Whether diversity was not enough in itself. That is, if we have a media system that is diverse, where we have different outlets that, while not individually, but together cover a broad array of ideologies, perspectives and viewpoints, isn’t that sufficient? Why would we need every news organizations and journalists to be open to multiple perspectives if the totality of the media system itself is diverse and encompasses MSNBC, FOX, Michelle Malkin, Daily KOS etc?
A great question, and one I see essentially underpinning the difference between hospitality and diversity. I understand hospitality as a responsibility that has at its heart hierarchies in communication power. Some are more powerful and command more attention than others. But while we all have to some extent a responsibility to hospitality, an obligation to listen, those with more power have an even bigger responsibility to carry on their shoulders.
Benhabib argues that journalism at its best does this: “it extends your vision of the world by making you see the world through the eyes of the others.” Towards this goal, we need journalism that embraces hospitality, not just diversity.
The two concepts, hospitality and diversity are related, but not quite the same. A crucial difference is that hospitality requires, demands a “home”. Hospitality is based on a host who serves a guest, who is visiting. The host, recognizing he is at home, and as such is holding power, temporarily reverts the power relationship and serves the guest. Hospitality is based on a hierarchical relationship between two actors. You have to be hospitable to someone. Diversity, in contrast, can exist without a counterpart. A media system can be diverse, but that doesn’t automatically mean it’s hospitable.
Take a hypothetical media system that consists of three outlets: one Left, one Right, one Center. From a democratic point of view, is that a desirable media system? Using diversity as a yard stick, it’s pretty decent. Measuring with hospitality, however, a media system where the three outlets never encompass each other’s views is inadequate. In Benhabib’s words, it doesn’t extends our vision of the world by making us see the world through the eyes of the others.
You might still not be convinced. Surely the good citizen can simply visit each outlet and get different perspectives that way, right? No. There are empirical as well as normative arguments why this would not work.
The empirical argument is based on a long line of research that shows that citizens have a hard time living up to the informed citizen ideal. It is unrealistic to expect every citizen to follow the news everyday and read several newspapers. The internet only makes this problem worse by exploding the number of potential outlets. Not to mention that from a global point of view, you theoretically can access the news sites of the world, but really, besides the time, do you have the necessary language skills or the cultural context to understand all the news from the world?
The normative argument then. This one is a bit more complex. But let’s say citizens have the time, the interest, the discipline, the required languages and cultural knowledge to read a wide diverse array of news outlets everyday. Wouldn’t that be perfect for democracy? Depends on what kind of democracy you prefer. There are huge debates about the pros and cons of liberal democracy versus deliberative democracy. In short, whereas liberal democracy sees the primary role of the media to provide information to its citizens, deliberative democracy judges the media on its ability to foster discussion and conversation.
Information versus conversation – which one do you prefer? Liberal democracy, a model of democracy that emphasizes information, is content with a diverse media system and probably does not require a hospitable one. In contrast, deliberative democracy that favors conversation demands more than a diverse information system. Mere information, however diverse, is necessary but not sufficient for a good conversation. That requires hospitality.
Does that mean I prefer deliberative democracy over liberal democracy? Probably. But one can disagree and argue that liberal democracy is more efficient, more pragmatic. It requires less of citizens who have neither the time nor expertise to make complex decisions. But from a pragmatic point of view, it would make more sense to strive for hospitality rather than just diversity. That is to say, by demanding more from the journalistic institution, we lessen the load of the citizen who is already overburdened. Unless you think journalism is not intended for citizens but only the elite, one could make a case for hospitality even when you favor liberal democracy.
