Why Source/Media Relations are Considered Central to Understanding of the Role of the Media - Essay Example

Media Relations The specific role of the media in society is often debated but what is not arguable is that access to reliable information is essential to the health of a democratic society. The accuracy of this information is dependent on journalistic integrity which varies by individual or particular news organisation and by the credibility of the sources offering this information. Both factors are intertwined and are the subject of this discussion which will further address the media’s role within a democracy and explain how and why the media is influenced by outside dynamics in relation to domestic politics and international affairs. The commonly used term ‘media’ encompasses numerous institutions and individuals that differ in method and purpose. In general usage, the term has been considered to define groups who make up the communications profession in both the entertainment and news industries. Newspapers, radio, television and the internet allow citizens the opportunity to make informed choices and serve as part of the checks and balances of a society, a ‘the Fourth Estate of government,’ so to speak, a phrase coined in the U.S. The media is necessary as its existence ensures that those elected to public office are held accountable. The media also serves to entertain the general public 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. 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). Politicians rely on the 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 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 behavior” (Heibert, 2001). Elected officials many times forget that the same democratic mechanism that allows their rise to power is designed to monitor their progress. The favorite governmental approach to controlling the media is to prevent access to journalists. For example, the Bush administration in the U.S. is not allowing the media to report in its casualties of war in Iraq. Throughout history, countries have honoured soldiers killed in action when the bodies arrived back home. The flag-draped coffins inspire patriotism and rally support for the conflict. The October 21, 2003 edition of the Washington Post reported on a directive handed down by the US government stating, “There will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein Germany airbase or Dover Delaware base, to include interim stops” (Milbank, 2003). The media has also 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, again, 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 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 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’s responsibility in a democracy is to challenge the government’s motives and reasoning but this is seldom occurs during war “because the publicity system tempts leaders to make strong claims in striking and unqualified terms, big gaps may emerge between people’s expectations and their experience of results” (McQuail, 1995). As evidenced by the Iraq war, the media only directs criticism of government policies during wartime when the conflict begins to invoke criticism from government officials who are denouncing it primarily due to the political advantages gained by opposing it. Until politicians begin decrying the strategies and outcomes of the war, any media criticism of the conflict is negligible. Even when it does exist, it is still contained within a pro-war context. During wartime the media usually functions, in effect, as an extension of the government instead of as a watchdog of it. The premise for the invasion of Iraq, that it had concealed weapons of mass destruction, was loudly trumpeted by the media prior to the invasion of Iraq war. This claim has since been proven false but the evidence was apparent well before the invasion, evidence that was ignored by an intimidated media that employed critical analysis only after the majority of politicians did the same. The question is why? Why did the media abandon its role as the transmitter of truth which the foundations of a democracy are so intently reliant? The answer to this question can be found by; you guessed it, following the money trail. Fundamental economics reasoning provides the explanation for the media being “drawn into a symbiotic relationship with powerful sources of information” with a “reciprocity of interest.” For the media to subsist it requires “a steady, reliable flow of raw material of news (to satisfy) daily news demands, imperative news schedules that they must meet” (Chomsky, 1989: 18). The media needs sources that are considered the most credible when investigating governmental actions therefore politicians, as representatives of the people’s government, are considered the preeminent source. If this ‘symbiotic relationship’ between a journalist or media organisation and its sources is broken, there is no story and without stories, the journalist or organisation will fail. Therefore, an adversarial relationship is not in the best interest of the media nor for democracy. The media cannot be shut-off from it sources but must, at least on occasion, uncover inconvenient truths however uncomfortable a situation it may create for the politician. This is a difficult balance to attain. An example, outside of the most obvious, the war in Iraq, would be during a political campaign. The responsibility of the media is to inform the public regarding the candidate’s stance on policy but exclusive, personal interviews are allocated to journalists who are viewed by the candidate as non-confrontational and non-threatening. Because of this, the media, again, becomes the unwitting instrument of its source. The unfortunate economic truth is that the journalist who gets the story keeps their job while the one with integrity, who won’t compromise their ethics by pandering to the politician but does not get the story does not receive a paycheck for long, at least in this profession. Another financial reality is that media organisations “cannot afford to have reporters and cameras at all locations and so economics dictates that they concentrate their resources where significant news often occurs” (Chomsky, 1989: 18). This does not always provide time or resources for investigation into less sensationalistic investigations. Financial constraints of media organisations dictates that they focus their limited resources in places such as scheduled and carefully orchestrated news conferences. The media also utilises corporations and trade groups to provide stories because they are considered credible sources due to their prestige and status. The government and corporations alike exert much time and effort to accommodate the media so as to sustain their status as primary sources. They supply journalists with amenities at press conferences, provide advance information including pre-edited, professional press releases ready for print, offer pre-arranged photo opportunities and generally cooperate in any way they can. In other words, “the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidise the mass media, and gain special access by their contribution to reducing the media’s costs of acquiring the raw materials of, and producing, news” (Chomsky, 1989: 22). Those in power initiate then use their personal associations with the media as well as rewards and expressed or implied threats to coerce and influence journalists. “The media may feel obligated to carry extremely dubious stories and mute criticism in order not to offend sources and disturb a close relationship. It is very difficult to call authorities on whom one depends for daily news liars, even if they tell whoppers” (Chomsky, 1989: 22). Potential sources outside the prevailing bureaucratic realm (or opinion) may not be contacted because of the increased resources needed to find them and establish their reliability and because the traditional sources “may be offended and may even threaten the media with using them” (Chomsky, 1989: 22). In other words, if journalists regularly critisise, ask embarrassing questions or otherwise refuse to cooperate with the very accommodating government or corporations, they may be threatened with losing access with critical sources. Sources that are outside the ‘loop’ of the media-government-corporate association often experience difficulty having their opinion heard by the public due to the aforementioned reasons, especially if it is dissimilar. When their concerns are reported in the media, it is always balanced with a response from traditional sources that are eager to counter in an effort to assure ‘impartiality’. The reverse is seldom the case. An additional hindrance to opposition opinion is that special interest groups do not possess the finances or influence as do politicians therefore are forced to employ tactics to gain the media’s attention which often make them seem less than credible. The media focuses on the tactics alone, such as protest marches, but seldom engage opposition spokespersons in meaningful dialogue. The sensationalistic angle usually prevails which perpetuates the perception that government sources possess an inherently higher degree of credibility than opposition groups. 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. The reality of the relationship between the government and the media is not one of true independence as is necessary in a well-functioning democracy. This actual relationship reflects a dictatorial government more so than one that represents a democracy. 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). 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. 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. “Less and less of the political communications diet serves the citizen role” (McQuail, 1995). The media can be as large a political force for change as it wishes to be. Most Western societies have built a solid foundation for the truly free press. 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 information is power then people should question if society is receiving the information it needs to effect change in their opinions and in society. Media that is controlled by anything other than the motivation to gather and distribute accurate and prevalent information must be questioned. The debate regarding the ideals and responsibilities regarding the role of the media in our society must encompass discussion that ensures that the information we receive meets society’s needs and not the purposes of those that have selfish interests. This powerful source must shape opinion based on the truth and not ulterior motives of government, business or individuals. Only in this way can mass media play a positive role in a democratic society. References Barry, John. (3 March, 2003). “The Defector’s Secrets.” Newsweek Magazine. Available 9 June 2007 from Center for Democracy and Governance. (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 9 June 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. Available 10 June 2007 from McQuail, D. (1995). “New Roles for New Times?” Media Studies Journal. Vol. 9, N. 3, pp. 11-19. Milbank, Dana. (21 October 2003). “Curtains Ordered for Media Coverage of Returning Coffins.” Washington Post, A23. Available 9 June 2007 from Read More