It Is Hardly More Then a Platitude to Say That the Press Has Always Played an Important

Media and Politics (8160512) / 1 Overview and Themes

(The mass media have) become overwhelmingly the dominant medium of the late twentieth century: the paramount place where elections are conducted and where fictions are disseminated. How (they are) run, by whom and in what interests, is arguably a more important issue for any modern society than control over major industries, the law or finance.

Geoff Mulgan - Politics in an Antipolitical Age

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW  Briefly explain the term fourth estate.  What does watchdog role mean?  What is public sphere? What is needed for a functioning democracy?  Briefly explain the dimensions of a functioning political public sphere.  Why political actors submit to media codes?  What are the institutions of pluralist democracy?  Briefly explain the basic models of democracy.

The press in its various forms has played an important role in the political process for centuries. First the printing press, then radio, then television facilitated (made easy) the communication necessary for democracy to be realized. This role is, after all, a primary reason freedom of press has been thought a necessary safeguard in democratic society. 1

But never before has the press been as critical to the political process as it is today, and never before has its importance been so widely and publicly recognized. With the inception (beginning) of new electronic networks the possibility for media influence on the way in which we govern ourselves has greatly increased. 2 Each election in democratic countries renders (makes) these truths more self-evident.

The Mass Media as Fourth Estate

The mass media are often attacked by left-wing critics. From within the broadly Marxist vein (aspect) of critical theory they are criticized for reproducing the dominant bourgeois culture. From within the “political economy” vein of research, they are attacked for representing the interests of those who own them. Chomsky's “propaganda model” is an example of this “political economy” vein.

However, from the perspective of those researchers who see the media as situated within the model of a pluralist liberal democracy, the mass media are often seen as fulfilling the vitally important role of fourth estate, the guardians of democracy, and defenders of the public interest.

1 This power role of media in Western democracies is a primordial (old) one. It goes back at least to Johannes Gutenberg (1400-1468), who invented movable type printing (1440) in Europe.

The use of movable type was a marked improvement on the handwritten manuscript, which was the existing method of book production in Europe. In addition, this development of European printing technology is considered a key factor in European Renaissance.

As Gutenberg’s printing technology spread rapidly throughout Europe, the mass- produced written word began emerging as a player in the power structure. But it could not be categorized as part of one or another of the three estates.

Medieval English and French monarch societies were highly structured into classes of people called estates. The first estate was the clergy. The second was nobility. The third was the common people called as Third Estate.

In time, particularly after the publication of newspapers in very early 17th century, the press came to be called the fourth estate both in its open capacity of support and in its implicit (unspoken) ability to structure political issues.

Carlyle’s Definition of the Fourth Estate

Where the term “fourth estate” came from isn’t clear. It is frequently attributed to Thomas Carlyle, a nineteenth-century Scottish essayist and historian, though he himself seems to have attributed it to Edmund Burke, who served for many years in the British House of Commons as a member of the Whig Party *.

Carlyle in On Heroes and Hero Worship (1841) wrote Edmund Burke used this term in the late-1700s.

“Pointing to the reporters’ gallery of the Parliament, Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important than they all. It is not a figure of speech, or a witty saying; it is a literal fact. ... Printing, which comes necessarily out of Writing, I say often, is equivalent to Democracy: invent Writing, Democracy is inevitable. .... Whoever can speak, speaking now to the whole nation, becomes a power, a branch of government, with inalienable weight in law-making, in all acts of authority. It matters not what rank he has, what revenues or garnitures: the requisite thing is that he have a tongue which others will listen to; this and nothing more is requisite.” 3 (Carlyle (1905) pp.349-350)

This was not Carlyle's first use of the term. If, indeed, Burke did make the statement Carlyle attributes to him, Burke's remark may have been in the back of Carlyle's mind when he wrote in his French Revolution (1873), "A Fourth Estate, of Able Editors, springs up."

Carlyle here was describing the newly found (established) power of the man of letters, and, by extension, the newspaper reporter. In his account, it seems that the press is a new fourth estate added to the three existing estates (as they were conceived of at the time) running the country: priesthood, aristocracy and commons.

2 First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The fourth estate concept underwent an adaptation (revision) when the United States was created. The Constitution of the new U.S. Republic, drafted in 1787, set up a balanced form of government with three powers – the executive, the legislative and the judicial.

The U.S. Republic’s founders implied a role for the press in the new governance structure when they declared in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that the government should not interfere with the press.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. The amendment, penned by James Madison, boiled down the eloquence (expressiveness) of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and earlier libertarian thinkers during the American colonial experience to a mere 45 words:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment prohibits (make illegal) the federal legislature from making laws;

1. that establish a state religion or prefer a certain religion (the "Establishment Clause"), 2. prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), 3. infringe (violate) the freedom of speech, 4. infringe the freedom of the press, 5. limit the right to assemble peaceably (freedom to associate with, or organize any groups, gatherings, clubs, or organizations that one wishes), 6. limit the right to petition (freedom of individuals, or sometimes groups and corporations to request to a superior authority, i.e. their government for a correction or repair of some form of injustice without fear of punishment for the same) the government for a redress of grievances (a formal statement of complaint, generally against an authority figure).

Although the First Amendment only explicitly (openly, clearly) prohibits the named rights from being abridged (reduced, condensed) by laws made by Congress, the courts have interpreted it as applying more broadly. As the first sentence in the body of the Constitution reserves all law-making ("legislative") authority to Congress, the courts have held that the First Amendment's terms also extend to the executive and judicial branches.

Additionally, in the 20th century the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process clause of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment "incorporates” (to form into a legal corporation) the limitations of the First Amendment to also restrict the states.

Robert McChesney, a professor of media studies and one of the foremost critics of American mass media, comments; “Their (the U.S. Republic’s founders) legacy (heritage)

3 here is very rich. They understood that setting up a diverse, well funded media system with a broad range of viewpoints was the essence of building of the oxygen for democracy. And it took conscious (mindful) policies.” 4

This led to the press being called the fourth branch of government in the U.S.

Its job was to monitor the other branches as an external check on behalf of the people. As one joke put it, “the founders saw the role of the press as keeping tabs (checks) on the rascals (dishonest people) in power to keep the honest”. 5

The press, however, was not part of the governing structure.

Today, in the United States, they call the media the fifth branch of government. After the Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and the federal bureaucracy, no institution has an impact on the American government as large as the media.

French Revolution

Today, modern commentators seem to interpret the term fourth estate as meaning the fourth 'power' which checks and counterbalances (compensates) the three state 'powers' of executive, legislature and judiciary.

French Revolution from 1789 to 1799, which changed France from a monarchy to a republic, established a constitutional government based on the separation of the powers - the executive, the legislative and the judicial.

Incidentally, the mass media are often seen as fulfilling the vitally important role of fourth estate, the guardians of democracy, and defenders of the public interest.

From this perspective, the famous nineteenth-century French novelist and playwright Honore de Balzac (1799-1850), in 1840 proclaimed, “In France the press is a fourth power of State”. 6

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a Russian novelist, dramatist and historian who was exiled from the Soviet Union in 1974 and then returned to Russia in 1994, noted, “It (the press) has surpassed (exceeded, went beyond) in power the executive, legislative and judiciary.” 7

Liberal Democracy and Fourth Estate

Throughout years, the mass media have become the most powerful force in Western democracies.

In liberal democracies, power is in principle divided between three powers: The executive power, the legislative power, and judiciary power. This is a system of checks and balances. It works to ensure that none of three powers becomes too strong.

Again according to liberal approach, the society is a system which has lots of parts to work in a harmony. This harmony is inevitable because all institutions and structures consisting of the society serve a common good.

4 For this harmony, for reaching the most perfect common good, pluralism is necessary. In that point, media is an inevitable arena for pluralism for the liberal pluralist theory.

By means of this duty, media can be seen as a guarantor of freedom of speech which is one of the main conditions of the mentioned theory. Hence, media does not only provide pluralism but also brings necessary criticism into the society which aims to reach the best and common resolutions.

Consequently, media constitutes “fourth estate” watching wrong doings of the other three powers. Thus, the term “fourth estate” is used today to refer to the mass media as a powerful watchdog in liberal democracy, revealing (enlightening) abuses of state authority and defending the democratic rights of citizens.

Watchdog role

The term fourth estate remains for all journalistic activity today.

The media in the western world and their realm (sphere) of media-culture within democratic countries can be looked upon as a system that used to play two roles:

1. Informing the public so that a common conversation can take place; 2. Being the adversarial (opposing) “fourth estate” checking political power with objective and balanced information. 8

This impact of the press as a skeptical and critical monitor of the other government branches on behalf of the people is called the watchdog role of the press. For this role, mass media have to value if at all possible its traditional high standards for accuracy, sourcing and objectivity.

At this point, the news media is to report on the other estates, ideally with roots in none and a commitment only to truth.

To play this role effectively, the mass media of the democratic world enjoy great freedom under the constitutions since the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Uncertainty in Media’s Role

The freedom of the media to inform the public and to criticize institutions of society and governmental actions, which is essential for a democratic and just society, must be used with responsibility and discretion (commonsense, carefulness).

Freedom of the media carries a special responsibility for accurate and truthful reporting. Sensational reporting that degrades the human person or dignity must at all times be avoided.

However, the increased importance of the press in the political process brings out an ambiguity (uncertainty, doubt) in its role.

5 Traditionally, the press has been conceived (imagined, considered)) as an observer - ideally, a neutral observer – of the political scene. On this view, the press is part of the political process but it is also not part; it stands outside.

However, the press today – the mass media in particular – is one of the primary actors on the political scene, capable of making or breaking political careers and issues. The seeming undeniablility of the idea that the media are agents in the political process and not simply observers of it provides one important reason for rethinking the traditional prerogatives (privileges, rights) and responsibilities of the press. 9 This gives reason and in a sense justification for the regulation (ruling) of the press in contemporary democracies.

On the other hand, media members are not elected by the people, and their motives are often driven by profit. The mass media are profit-centered business. This leads to growing financial and business pressures on traditional media job which is particularly troublesome for its neutral observer role. Tabloid sensationalism is a clear example of this difficulty.

Tabloid Sensationalism

Tabloid sensationalism is a result of a number of related causes, chief among them being the transition from of a responsible press in a market economy to a frivolous (irresponsible, light-minded) press in the mass consumer market of post-modern culture.

In this new culture, there are four main criteria for stories.

1. First, the story must have a high impact on the lives of viewers. Violence, conflict, disaster and scandal are always area of interest. 2. Secondly, the story must be familiar to the viewers. 3. Third, it must be an event or issue close to the viewers in proximity (nearness) or interest. 4. Finally, the story must be timely and novel (new, fresh).

The most important of these criteria are proximity, timeliness and scandal/conflict. 11 This type of news making has a significant impact (influence) on the approach (attitude, the method used in dealing with or accomplishing) of media towards political process.

With tabloid sensationalism, images have replaced ideas in the social discourse (dialogue), celebrities (superstars, pop idols) have replaced authorities as the central figures, in part due to the expanded derision (ridicule, insult) of authority by the media.

Celebrity Journalism

The media have too much attitude (position) and a know-it-all (egghead, bighead, clever person) sensibility instead of reporting facts and devoting themselves to exhaustive (comprehensive, in-depth) research.

This trend is accelerated by celebrity journalism, in which the glib (fluent) and the provocative are rewarded with TV appearances and big lecture fees.

6 Media rush to judgment about people, trends and events. They are pushed into dynamic by the velocity (speed) of the news cycle, in which breaking stories are covered instantaneously (immediately) by television. They misunderstand the public need by pushing ourselves to find “insight scoops” that are unjustified and premature instead of providing basic information and letting people make their own decisions in evaluating it.

Journalistic analysis is valuable and necessary in today’s complex world, but some media are pushing it to a troublesome new level.

Overcrowded Media Market

This erosion of a responsible press is also a result of the commercial imperative (necessities, essentials) of an overcrowded media market.

In early 17th century, the first newspapers published irregularly, sometimes bi-weekly, sometimes monthly, because they published only when there was news. Now, with CNN-type 24-hour news coverage, news must be reported even when there is not any.

And, because the number of media outlets has grown so large, it is thought to be sensational to break out (running out) of the pack (crowd), to be no noticed, and to compete. Competition drives sensationalism as media becomes the core (center) business of post- modern societies. 10 The extreme competitiveness of news organizations, say some critics, affects political discussion, as journalists often polarize conversation between two viewpoints in order to create or embellish (decorate, beautify) a story.

Democracy without Citizens

Without that old traditional balance in the function of the media, one effect is that the citizenry becomes de-politicized and disinterested in political life.

“ To become sophisticated citizens”, Professor Robert Entman from Northwestern University argues, high-quality, independent political journalism is needed. Yet, to stay in business while producing such journalism, news organizations would need an audience of sophisticated citizens. 12 Media want readers, viewers and want to sell papers and programs. Because the majority of media audience are not those sophiscated citizens, market of curiosities (interests) may not be the same as public interest.

Entman sheds fascinating light on how media-fed demagogy robs (deprives, removes) citizens of essential information. He compares, for example, coverage of the failed hostage rescue in 1980, which subjected U.S. President Carter to a barrage (salvo) of criticism; with coverage of the 1983 bombing that killed 241 Marines in Lebanon, an incident in which President Reagan largely escaped blame.

He shows how various factors unrelated to the reality of the events themselves - the apparent popularity of Reagan and unpopularity of Carter, differences in the way the Presidents publicly framed the incidents, the potent symbols skillfully manipulated by Reagan's but not by Carter's news managers - produced two very different kinds of reportage.

7 As Entman shows, there is no easy way out of this dilemma. which has encouraged the decay of democratic citizenship as well as the media's continuing failure to live up to their own highest ideals.

Negative and Biased Media

There is a general feeling that the media are too negative and biased (prejudiced). Some examples are as follows:  Journalists internationally suppress, distort, or ignore stories which conflict with their political values.  They put a premium (give priority) on finding out what’s wrong, but don’t often tell the full story about what government does that is right.  The media hold government accountable for its worst errors--such as scandals and foreign misadventures--only after it's too late to prevent them.

Some argues that this discrimination (unfairness) tends to be against politicians in general. Though, the negativity of media also applies to coverage of other major institutions, such as religion, education, the economy and business.

Traditionally media is expected to be watch dogs who bark when something is wrong. Instead in time they have become attack dogs “who go for your leg and try for more.”

State of journalism and politics

Some observers have commented that the very format of the media fundamentally affects the operation of modern politics. Entman argues that the media system virtually compels (forces) politicians to practice demagoguery.

Journalists recognize that politicians frequently manipulate the media using a variety of techniques. More often than not (typically), editorials concerning media’s interactions with the political world tend to portray the media as the unwitting (unaware) tool of self interested manipulative politicians.

Perhaps the most frequently used - and most recognized – tool in the politician’s media box is that of the leak (to make secret information known). The practice of unofficial, anonymous (unnamed) provision (terms) of information to the press is highly popular due to its powerful effects and the little chance for repercussions (effects, outcomes) on the originator.

Politicians and officials are leaking secrets to advance their cases, color public opinion… and put pressure on other potential witnesses. 13 Despite the characteristic lack of verification, leaks often receive extensive media coverage and can dramatically affect political actions.

While the media are influencing the politicians, politicians are playing the media. Such is the state of journalism and politics today.

Politicians and Journalists

8 Two questions will be asked during this course:

1. What do politicians expect from journalists? 2. What do journalists expect from politicians?

But here, beforehand, a third question will be asked: What can the public expect from both?

Both the politicians and journalists should be servants of the public. It is this service that justifies the special privileges they enjoy - e.g. the obligation of the government and the administration to secure the media’s access to information.

Occasionally (from time to time), there might be an extremely adversarial relationship between politics and the press, such as in the United States after Watergate and Vietnam. At the same time in some parts of the world, media are perceived as obedient lap-dogs of political power.

But, in general the problem is, on the contrary, too close a relationship.

In many parts of the world, politicians and journalists are living and working together very closely, making independent reporting difficult. The press usually knows much more than it reports. Information is spread in background circles with the understanding that it cannot be used. Or it is leaked to media friendly to either the government or to the opposition.

The real problem then, is not confrontation (conflict) but collusion (agreement).

Both must be avoided. In order to serve the public well, politicians and journalists must communicate professionally. They should keep a certain distance, allowing the press to report independently and without bias. Democracy has neither room for political favoritism nor for a partisan press.

For politicians, it is disturbing to notice that the media are led by commercialism, by the need to be sensational or by a journalist’s desire for political influence or even power instead of a desire to serve the public by informing.

From the political perspective, what is missing is “good news” in the media, a clear advocacy (support) of public affairs by journalists, a lack of transparent rules of ethics within the trade (regarding fair reporting, respect of privacy, matters of taste and style, etc.).

Also lacking is a clear standard for fair reporting and for professional criticism.

Independence for media is essential, self-restraint and responsible behavior adds to self-respect and to credibility.

REFERENCES

9 1. Edited by Judith Lichtenberg, Democracy and the mass media, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) p.1 2. Lichtenberg, p. 1 3. John Vivian, Media of Mass Communication, (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999), pp. 445-446 4. www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediahistory.html 5. Vivian, p. 446 6. Vivian, p. 446 7. Vivian, p. 446 8. Report on the Conclusions and Recommendations by a high-level Expert Group on MEDIA and POLITICS, Chaired by Andries van Agt, 24 March 1997, Vienna, Austria 9. Lichtenberg, p. 1 10. Report on the Conclusions and Recommendations by a high-level Expert Group on MEDIA and POLITICS 11. Doris A. Graber, Mass Media and American Politics, Congressional Quarterly Inc., (Washington, D.C., 1984) p. 79 12. Robert M. Entman, Democracy Without Citizens, (USA: Oxford University Press, 1990) 13. John Stacks, "The Art of the Leak" Time, Feb. 16, 1998, v. 151 n 6, p.54

NOTES * The Whigs (with the Tories) are often described as one of two political parties in England and later the United Kingdom from the late 17th to the mid-19th centuries. Eventually the Whigs would evolve into the Liberal Party (while the Tories became the Conservative Party).