Free and Independent Press on Democracy - Coursework Example

Free and Independent Press on Democracy Introduction A free and independent press is the cornerstone of every accountable democracy, without information, people cannot make competent decisions on how to govern themselves through the leaders they elect. Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the United States, reportedly said that if he ever had to choose between a government with no newspapers or newspapers and no government he would pick the latter. He was a firm believer in the public’s right to information and that of the press to act as the watchdog for them. Indeed, free flow of information is critical to the functioning of the United States, which is the most powerful democracy in the world today (Little, 2009). Information technology has significantly broadened the role of the press as well as its scope, mandate, and reach. Breaking news stories from halfway across the globe are relayed to the international audience live giving the press a critical role in realizing the dream of a global village. Understandably, this has made the fourth estate immensely powerful and as a result, it has constantly been in conflict with the authorities. However, governments sometimes see the media as playing a subversive role, which they do at times, creating a culture of competition between the two institutions although in most cases they work collaboratively. It is the contention of this paper that the press plays a central role in providing the public with information that allows them to make informed decisions and choices in a democratic state. A functional and independent media serves the course of democracy in numerous ways, for one, elections can only be fair if the citizens know everything there is to know about their leaders (Little, 2009). In addition, in some countries, it is impossible for the leaders to connect with all the citizens and for them to present their agenda; they must use the media to expose the people to them. For example, given the size of a country like the US, the presidential candidates cannot expect to visit every town and street. However, through the media in the form of new reports, social media and newspaper article both online and physical, nearly everyone can form an informed opinion about their leaders. People want to know how their leaders have acted in the past and what intentions they have for the future of their country, through town hall style debates broadcast live on the media, they can have access to such information. The independence of the media allows them to highlight both negative and positive things about candidates without fear, of intimidation or reprisals should the particular candidate win. Similarly, the press ensures integrity because they can put politicians in a position where they have to provide vital information to the public. For example, during a press conference, the journalists ask any question they wish and most of these are published to ensure transparency and assist in the vetting process. However, despite their independence, there exit limitations that vary from country to country; this dictate how much freedom of expression even the media has to prevent it from abusing its immense powers (Bollinger, 2009). No party, including the media, is allowed to perpetuate hate speech or incite others to commit a crime through the media and there are legal frameworks through which the media is monitored to prevent such incidence. In most developed democracies such as the UK, the press can however comment on any issue including wrongdoings by politicians and the government. In fact, it is stories about wrongdoings by the state, its agents or politicians that appear to make the headlines for the longest time possible (Jellinek, 2013). Stories especially touching on misuse of government funds of abuse of office by MP and other politicians are highly sought after. The extent of these freedoms is something one takes for granted until they consider the situation in countries where there is no democracy or there exists a pseudo-democracy. For example, in China, which is ruled by the communist party, the freedom of the press very limited and the government has even gone a step further by heavily censoring the internet (Jellinek, 2013). Access to social media sites is highly restricted and controversial topics are often taken off Google and other search engines by government filters. This is engendered by the Ironic fact that one of the most iconic images of the struggle for freedom, the Tiananmen Square Tank Man, has been suppressed and most young Chinese have never even heard of its existence (Leib & He, 2006). Pro-democracy activist have replayed this image in thousands of video clips; Michael Jackson had it in his “Man in Mirror” video and Bon Jovi used them in the “We Weren’t Born to follow”. It appears that on some issues, the world knows more about China than the citizens of China themselves. In his book, Hua, (2012) remarks that after the event in the square, it appeared to vanish entirely from the Chinese media and was almost never mentioned again. While he says this is disturbing, he points out that it is not surprising given that the primary new agency in China is state controlled. It cannot run a story without first getting approval from the government. Consequently, there is a minor criticism of the government that can take place in the Chinese mainstream media. For this and other obvious reasons, there cannot be the slightest semblance of democracy in China since people tend to believe what the government tells them rather than what an objective media would. Any election in China is on citizens using carefully controlled pieces of information that have tailor made to influence their thinking. To a significant extent, the reason it is so easy for governments to manipulate their people is that they already control the information so many citizens may not be aware they are being manipulated. The primary source of information for the public is the press and when it is not independent, the people will remain ignorant; ignorant people are always soft targets for manipulations and in many cases, when the press is not free, that is exactly what happens. In the recent past, headlines have shown that the power of the press should never be taken for granted. The US government was discovered to have illegally obtained phone records of a journalist for Fox news and ruled that James Risen a New York Times reporter should disclose his confidential sources. However, the uproar with which the news was met by proved that the public values the confidentiality and independence of the press. Despite being the most powerful democracy in the world, if the US, free press cannot protect its sources, this democracy will ultimately suffer (Edgecliffe-Johnson, 2013); however, the press got a shot in the arm when the senate voted to approve the free flow of information act. Having a diverse and autonomous media is the key for facilitation of responsible and accountable government. Given the extensive media landscape, the press remains the key conduit for public assessment of the actions of the state and institutions that have directly or indirectly affect public affairs. Pro-democracy and free press commentators hold that it is only in a society where the press is free and allowed to monitor that real democracy can be realized. One of the key political issues that underpin the role of media in the social political landscape is transparency, as long as there is no transparency corruption in public institutions is bound to thrive (Thompson, 2013). While in some cases governments oppose the efforts of the media to investigate into its affairs, the truth is and open press that can carry out independent investigative journalism should be seen as partner by any transparent states (Baker, Bennett & Entman, 2002). Without criticism, the government cannot be held accountable for its action and inaction and this is only possible if the press is operating under its own mandate. In many cases, national broadcasters are used by the government to perpetuate propaganda among the citizenry and keep them in the dark about the ill actions of the government. However, in a transparent democracy, the state should have an objective relationship with the press irrespective of funding. For example, in the UK, the main broadcaster is the BCC, which is partly owned by the government (Thompson, 2006). However, in most cases it has proven a reliable source and does not appear side with the state. Indeed, it often criticizes with just as much alacrity as private media. To show how effective an independent press is for the sake of the country, Nobel Prize Laurent Amartya Sen says that in the recent history, there has never been a substantial famine in any country they has a democratic free press. Any society that has access to public documents and has insight into the decision-making process will be well informed and able to demand that the government takes to account their actions. The lesson from the US democracy and press culture can be applied primarily to emerging democracies that are still trying to recover and get their bearing after decades of autocratic rule. While the US does not always present the best model, its framework is often quite useful and serves as a generic fit. For instance, in the discourse about media independence financial independence also needs to be taken to account. The American model, which relies considerably on adverts, is looked upon with suspicion by many former or currently communist states. However, objectivity can be achieved if they were to build walls between the business function of news and the functional informational purpose. Mandhane (2013) contends that new democracies tend to spawn a crop of anti-dialogical journalists that are so used to government oppressive one-party rule that they confuse their role with that of the opposition. In the end, they may end up perpetually criticizing the government, which he sees as trading one affiliation for another. While not seeking to imply that the US version of democracy of free press is the best there is, it serves as a relatively efficient blueprint for any country that would wish to adopt both democracy and free media, which are inseparable. While there is no doubt that, the free and independent press is necessary to act as a watchdog to government, there emerges the question of who will watch over the media. Understandably, the press does come off as mean spirited especially when it is engaged against the government; however, there need to be ways through which they can be prevented from misusing their power. In the US, this is done through a variety of ways; there are ombudsmen who are in-house critics whose role is to listen to complaints and publish their judgment. On the other hand, there can be citizen’s council, which listen to and pass judgment against the press when they are out of line. While they have no legal mandate, their views are often widely accepted and respected. The most popular and efficient formal means of regulating the press in the US has however been the liberal suit. This allows for citizens who feel they have been negatively portrayed by the press to sue it for considerable sums, this way the press has more motivation to stick to the truth. However, this law will rarely apply to celebrities who the courts deem to have notoriety because they are public figures. Conclusion It is worth noting that in many democratic constitutions, there is no specific requirement for the press to be responsible or accountable. These demands are made of the executive, judiciary and legislative branches of government but not for the media. This engenders the assumption that the people in a free market economy and democracy regulate the press, and the press is expected to self-regulate. In conclusion, there is little doubt about the fact that as long as a nation has a free press, they have a means of monitoring their government, which is ultimately the point of democracy. References Baker, C. E., Bennett, W. L., & Entman, R. M., 2002. Media, markets, and democracy . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bollinger, L. C., 2009. Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open: A Free Press for a New Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edgecliffe-Johnson, A. 2013. New Yorker reveals Aaron Swartz-inspired system to protect sources. Financial Times, [Online] 15 May. Available at: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/390e684a-bd7d-11e2-890a-00144feab7de.html [accessed 22 2014] Hua, Y., 2012. China in ten words. New York. Random House LLC. Jellinek , D., 2013. The meaning of free media in a democracy. Journalism, [Online] 9 July. Available at: https://www.journalism.co.uk/news-commentary/-complex-links-between-free-press-and-functioning-democracy-/s6/a553464/[accessed 22 2014] Mandhane, R., 2013. Role of Media in Democracy. Legal Desire, [Online] 16 Sept. Available at: http://legaldesire.com/role-of-media-in-democracy-2/ [accessed 22 2014]. Leib, E., & He, B., 2006. The search for deliberative democracy in China. New York. Palgrave Macmillan. Little, C., 2009. Democracy Depends on a Free Press. Miami Herald, [Online] 16 Sept. Available at: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/speak-up/article1955056.html [accessed 22 2014]. Thompson, J.B., 2013. Political scandal: Power and visability in the media age. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Thompson, C., 2006. Google’s China problem (and China’s Google problem).The New York Times, [Online] 23 April. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/magazine/23google.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 [accessed 22 2014]. Read More