Why is Media an Important Academic Discipline - Article Example

Why is media an important academic discipline? Media studies have been maligned by some who consider the discipline to be more of an elective class rather than imperative to general education as are the ‘core’ subjects such as math, history and language. However, the importance of media studies cannot be understated. Accurate, ethical journalism is essential to cultural growth, political awareness and therefore the economic stability of nations and the world. Understanding this concept drives individuals within the media and those who teach it. The specific role of the media in society is often debated but what is not argued is that access to information is essential to the health of a democratic society. Newspapers, radio, television and the internet allow citizens the opportunity to make informed choices and serves as part of the checks and balances of a society, a ‘fourth branch of government.’ The media is necessary as its existence ensures that those elected to public office are held accountable. The media also serves to entertain and the line drawn between news reporters’ efforts to amuse and sources of entertainment attempting to inform is crossed continuously. Media acts as the link between people’s personal lives to events outside what they encounter in their everyday routine. Because of this connection, it serves as an important vehicle in the understanding of how society functions and strengthens the public’s involvement in those decisions that affect their standard of living. The media reflects and reports and, as some speculate, shapes collective societal thought, thus an understanding of these venues of information is vital to the understanding of our civilization itself. This discussion will address the impacting political role the mass media has within a democracy. Therefore, media studies should be considered on the same level of importance as other core subjects. The role of the media is critical to the preservation of freedom itself. An effective media outlet must have editorial independence and serve a diversity of public interests uncontrolled by government or ideological influence. An adversarial relationship sometimes exists between mass media and the government regarding the public’s right to know balanced against matters of national security (Center for Democracy and Governance, 1999). Credible media outlets enable citizens to have access to information that they need to make informed decisions and perpetuates a working democracy. The role of the media is critical to the preservation of freedom itself. An effective media outlet must have editorial independence and serve a diversity of public interests uncontrolled by government or ideological influence. Obviously, mass media does indeed influence opinion as it is the genesis of the information by which opinion is formed. To what degree depends on the variables considered as the effects of mass communication are many and diverse and may be short or long-term, obvious or concealed, intense or ineffectual. They may derive from any number of aspects of the communication content. “They may be considered as psychological or political or economic or sociological. They may operate upon opinions, values, information levels, skills, taste, or overt behavior” (Heibert, 2001). According to Don Rojas (2002), “News organizations help shape the perceptions of millions and, through these influences, even determine the destiny of our people. The media can either tell our stories accurately or misrepresent our experiences.” An adversarial relationship sometimes exists between mass media and the government regarding the public’s right to know balanced against matters of national security (Center for Democracy and Governance, 1999). Elected officials many times forget that the same democratic mechanism that allowed their rise to power is designed to monitor their progress. Politicians rely on mass media to communicate their message as do sports organizations, televangelists and situation comedies because of the social impact it generates due to its popularity. But what are the effects of this social impact? The mass media is a persuasive socializing instrument influencing how people learn about our world and interact with one another. By necessity, the public bases most of its knowledge on news accounts, not personal experiences. Citizens are reliant on the media for what they know and how they relate philosophically to political issues. Personal options and opinions are constrained by historical or cultural social forces but every subject is open to re-examination through various media interpretations. From this perspective, the media’s significance is evident. People view themselves and their place in society through perceptions based on mass media exposure. All citizens are heavily exposed to mass media, its role and responsibilities have been discussed but how is this enormous amount of ready information really affecting society? Does mass media promote public actions or does it simply report actions of others to the public? Does it influence opinions or reflect society’s thoughts, and feelings? Obviously, mass media does indeed influence opinion as it is the genesis of the information by which opinion is formed. To what degree depends on the variables considered as the effects of mass communication are many and diverse and may be short or long-term, obvious or concealed, intense or ineffectual. They may derive from any number of aspects of the communication content. “They may be considered as psychological or political or economic or sociological. They may operate upon opinions, values, information levels, skills, taste, or overt behaviour” (Heibert, 2001). Citizens of all nations have the seemingly innate tendency to flock to a cause, need or concern once they are made aware of it. The mass media is, of course, from where this information is likely to originate. If the media reported everyday on their local representative in government, how and why they voted on each issue and questioned them on topics of public concern, the ripple effect would resonate through from the citizenry through to the politicians. It would be the topic of conversation instead of say, celebrity gossip. If every night, a person turned on the television and saw the plight of the shut-in elderly, the situation would improve. Volunteers, money and facilities would flow in. Even if those desiring only media exposure for themselves gave something to the cause, the gesture would still benefit the cause. Media studies teach the doctrine of journalistic ethics which is greatly needed in times such as these because the media has demonstrated willingness for complicacy in governmental activities regardless of the true nature of the situation. One need to look no further than the Iraq war for an example. Prior to the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, United Nations chief weapons inspector in Iraq, Hans Blix, had reported his team had not found even one piece of evidence confirming that the country possessed either biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. Hussein Kamel, a high level official in Saddam Hussein’s government who defected in 1995, publicly stated that while Iraq did, at one time, possess minimal stockpiles of ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ this was no longer the case, no such weapons existed in Iraq in 2003.  Journalistic ethics require that those with the most expertise on a subject should be consulted as a matter of course when investigating a topic. This is especially imperative when those views are to counterbalance the opinion of national leaders preparing to invade a sovereign country in opposition to world law and public support. Neither the BBC nor American news organizations gave opposition views equal time in the months leading up to the Iraq war. Both were essentially the mouthpiece of Tony Blair and George Bush. Journalists and media outlets on both sides of the Atlantic attempted to evoke a sense of patriotism in their respective nations by regurgitating governmental propaganda and by omitting factual information if it conflicted with the government.  “The British and American Governments quashed the story by telling a barefaced lie – both Governments denied that Kamel had said in 1995 that Iraq no longer possessed ‘weapons of mass destruction’” (Barry, 2003). Media bias is evident in much of its reporting but is never more obvious than during wartime. Journalists and news organisations do not wish to be perceived as unpatriotic; therefore being objective is to support the government and the troops it is sending into harm’s way. They rightly fear that much of the public, especially in the over-exuberant U.S., will perceive covering opposition viewpoints as showing blatant and unnecessary biases against the country itself. The media simply replicate the state’s sanitised rhetoric and rely on the state sanctioned spokespersons as sources of information. For a democracy to function as designed, even and especially in times of war, the media must remain an independent entity instead of functioning only as the government’s messenger. The media is an imperative aspect of a healthy democratic system. It is not intended to “function in the manner of the propaganda system of a totalitarian state.” Rather, they are permitted in a democratic society, indeed encouraged to instigate “spirited debate, criticism, and dissent.” In the real world, however, the media is encouraged to dissent “as long as these remain faithfully within the system of presuppositions and principles that constitute an elite consensus, a system so powerful as to be internalised largely without awareness” (Chomsky, 1989: 302). The information provided by sources is generally verified and opposition arguments sought when reporting about much lesser relevant issues than war but ironically, it is during wartime that ethical journalistic standards are the most likely to be substituted for complicity. In a democracy, public opinion drives the decisions of the lawmakers but when the media consistently reveal only the government’s position regarding an issue, the public cannot form a dissenting opinion. In other words, the cart is often pulling the horse. “Coverage of policy issues is often overwhelmed by presentation of political conflict as a game of posturing, campaign ploys and manoeuvres” (McQuail, 1995). The government is telling the public what its opinion should be and the media facilitates this desecration of the democratic system. The media is vitally important in a liberal democracy. It is also fueled by the necessity to produce revenue. Producers of media venues often are compelled to showcase stories that are sensational rather than substantive in an effort to garner ratings which boost advertising rates. Even the most admirable attempts by a socially concerned media to illuminate both sides of the story can fall short as there are usually more than two sides to a story. As to the question of whether what the media projects to the public has an effect on what we think and discuss, what is not publicized reveals an aspect of the media’s political and social role that is and probably always will be lacking. Citizens of all nations have the seemingly innate tendency to flock to a cause, need or concern once they are made aware of it. The mass media is, of course, from where this information is likely to originate. If the media reported everyday on their local representative in government, how and why they voted on each issue and questioned them on topics of public concern, the ripple effect would resonate through from the citizenry through to the politicians. It would be the topic of conversation instead of say, celebrity gossip. If every night, a person turned on the television and saw the plight of the shut-in elderly, the situation would improve. Volunteers, money and facilities would flow in. Even if those desiring only media exposure for themselves gave something to the cause; the gesture would still benefit the cause. The media can be as large a political force for change as it wishes to be. This age of highly technologically produced mass communication has made it possible for us to gain access to far more information than ever before in the history of mankind. The powerful influence and far-reaching access of mass media and its evolving effects on society is a subject of vital debate as the level of freedom the media experiences dictates the level of freedom of the country. Information is crucial to a complex and advanced civilization. We are an information-hungry society that feeds on an ever-increasing amount of facts to maintain and increase the standard of living. Information has always been and is increasingly becoming a commodity that the public are willing to pay increasing amounts for. As society experiences ever increasing amounts of leisure time, it depends on mass media to provide much of its information and entertainment. If not for an ethical, unencumbered media society as we know it would cease to exist therefore those that intend to represent the public through the media should be well-schooled regarding how and why this medium is essential in the context of a democratic society. References Barry, John. (3 March, 2003). “The Defector’s Secrets.” Newsweek Magazine. Available 22 July 2007 from Center for Democracy and Governance. (5 June, 1999). “The Role of Media in Democracy: A Strategic Approach.” Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support and Research. Washington D.C.: US Agency for International Development. Available 22 July 2007 from Chomsky, Noam. (June 1989). Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies. South End Press. Heibert, Ray Eldon. (2001). “The Growing Power of Mass Media.” Southern Connecticut State University Journalism Department [online]. Available 19 July, 2007 from McQuail, D. (1995). “New Roles for New Times?” Media Studies Journal. Vol. 9, N. 3, pp. 11-19. Rojas, Don. “Keeping diversity in the media.” (July 2002). Essence. July 19, 2007 Read More