Freedom of the Press: Television or Democracy - Article Example

Freedom of the Press The modem media truly has had a transformative effect on American society. Television and the internet have changed the ways inwhich American gather news, learn about the world and relate to one another. In addition to general entertainment and recreation, television has politicized the general public and made them much more knowledgeable about the world at large. Accordingly, the nightly news is broadcast into the homes of millions of Americans through stations such as the Cable News Network (CNN), Fox and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Ignorance of international affairs and the world around is not longer the norm. Millions of Americans watched the Berlin Wall crumble in 1989 and even more stood transfixed at their screens that fateful September 11th morning in 2001. The internet has shrunk social space and contributed to a complete transformation of the ways in which people relate to one another. Whether through Skype, MSN, Twitter or Facebook, the internet represents arguably the most sustained advance in the realm of instant communication and is an important component of the modern media in the 21st century. Since we have established that the modern media has transformed the ways in which people communicate, why is the freedom of the press important? Do democracies rely on the freedom of the press and if so, how does this freedom promote democratic governance? Seeking to address these questions and many more with respect to the importance of the freedom of the press, the following will explore the relationship between the media and democracy. Following this we turn to a discussion of the role of media as a political actor and explore the theories of Hebrew University historian Gadi Wolfsfeld on the media political process model. We then turn to a frank exploration of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy and will explore the ramifications of this event. Arguing that a strong media is essential in a modern functioning democracy, this essay will contend that various outlets of the media play an important role in maintaining the democratic nature of our society. In addition however we will also show that an unrestrained media is dangerous and checks and balances are essential for the functioning of a strong media in a democratic society. We now turn to an overview of the relationship between the media and democracy. The Relationship between Media and Democracy The modern media – which included newspapers, radio, television and now the internet - is ubiquitous in American society. Televisions and computers are found in nearly home in this country and many homes have more than one. Although televisions appeared in American households for the first time more than seventy years ago, they are now a staple of almost all American houses. According to the Atlantic Monthly magazine, Americans watch television four hours and 30 minutes a day—90 minutes more than the world average.” According to a study in this month’s Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, the habit starts at birth: 40% of three-month-olds are regular TV viewers, and 90% of two-year-olds watch an average of 90 minutes a day (Beaty 2007). The internet is a relatively more recent phenomenon but computers are now almost as universal as televisions. While the near universality of television in the American experience is obvious, one often forgets the important relationship between television and democracy. Accordingly, liberal democracy is characterized by free and fair elections, universal suffrage and an open society in which political power is transferred through peaceful means. The media plays an important, and often neglected, role in the promotion of a free and fair society. In closed societies such as the former Soviet Union, Cuba or North Korea, restrictions are placed on the media as a means through which information is controlled. Cuba has one national newspaper which is essentially an organ for the government and handful of television stations which toe the party line. Access to information and a divergence of opinion is essential in a modern, functioning democracy. Television, along with other forms of media such as the newspaper, radio and the internet, provides this access to a plurality of opinions and a diversity of ideas. This is what democracy is all about. Unlike other systems of government such as authoritarianism or a totalitarian state, democracy relies on a plurality of opinions and diverse perspective. It functions at its best when diverse opinions collide. Because television remains the most potent medium through which ideas are debated in here in America and around the world in the twenty-first century, the role that it plays in stimulating democracy should not be overshadowed. In addition to keeping our leaders in check, television also has precipitated the spread of American values and beliefs throughout the world. It can be said that American culture has been globalized. Today, a Big Mac is as ubiquitous in Birmingham as it is in Beijing. Yes, you can supersize your fries in Montana, Montreal or even Moscow as the Cold War has melted and American cultural supremacy has made in-roads around the globe. In fact, one can reasonably argue that the phenomenon that we call globalization is in fact Americanization, the worldwide spread of American values, norms and systems of belief (economic, social and political). If it true that American culture has not been globalized, what explains the Americanization of the world? The media has played an important role in promoting American beliefs and values throughout the world. Liberal democracy is a cherished value of the United States which is integral to what makes American unique. While liberal democracy is not unique to the United States, America is undeniably the most well-known example of democratic governance on the planet. The recent election of President Barack Obama, the first African-American President in the history of the United States was a landmark event which inspired millions of people around the world. Accordingly, American exceptionalism is beamed through the television sets of literally millions of people around the globe each and every day. As such, television has played an important role in the worldwide spread of American ideals and values. As we shall see however, the media is not simply a passive bystander but an important political actor in its own right. We now turn to an exploration the work of Hebrew University historian Gadi Wolfsfeld. The Media as Political Actor Seeking to address the conflictual nature of Middle Eastern politics and the ways in which politics are communicated to the wider world, Hebrew University historian Gadi Wolfsfeld proposes a new model of political communication he calls “the political contest model” (Wolfsfeld 3). Essentially, this model views the media as an independent actor seeking political power and control and explores the political forces which shape, as well are shaped by, the media. His model, which forms the basis of his stream of consciousness throughout the book, rests on five main principles which must elaborated upon in order to situate this analysis. The first principle is that the news media is more influenced by the political process itself than vice-versa. This is a controversial argument which asserts that the news media is subconsciously influenced by the overall political culture and influences and while the media does shape political events, the political process does more to shape the media. While the news media does shape political agendas and magnify political success and failure, the political culture of a given society exerts a certain intangible power over the organs of the media which cannot necessarily be quantified. Wow. That is a big assertion to make. The second major argument underpinning Wolsfeld’s analysis is that news media is constrained or unconstrained by the level of government control over political conflict. Thus, the media in a closed dictatorship such as Syria exerts a very different role that that of the media in a pluralistic democratic regime as is found in Israel. Wolsfeld’s third argument is that the roles of the news media change and vary over time and as circumstances change; the fourth argument is based on the premise that media competition must be framed in terms of two dueling antagonists and can only be explored by understanding both the cultural and structural dimensions of a given society. Finally, the theoretical component of Wolsfeld’s Media and Political Conflict concludes with the firm belief that while political authorities can exert tremendous influence over the organs of the media, media coverage can be effectively utilized by political challengers to exert political influence and usurp authority. The case of Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iranian Revolution in 1979 provides an excellent example of this pillar since he was able to effectively counter the Shah’s political authority through an active appeal to the media and the Iranian masses. An exploration of the five main pillars of Wolsfeld’s theory must be understood in order to comprehend his analysis, since his political contest model forms the entire theoretical basis of the book. Media and Political Conflict is an eye-opening analysis of the political processes and the inclinations of the media in promoting as well as reporting conflict. The author has provided the reader with extensive information and a new scholarly paradigm to ponder. Everyone who reads this book will have a new lens through which to view the media and the political roles that it plays (Wolfsfeld 3-55). Jyllands-Posten Cartoon Controversy The infamous Muhammad cartoons controversy of 2005 has made people think about the ramifications of media which incites and the role that an unfettered media can play in stroking fear and inter-ethnic conflict in the 21st century. In order to understand the issues surrounding the infamous Muhammad cartoons a little background information is necessary. The Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy stems from a series of editorial cartoons which depicts the Islamic prophet Muhammad in an unsavory manner and a generally unflattering light. Seeking to provoke and perhaps even incite, the editors of the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten argued that they wanted to contribute to the debate surrounding criticism of Islam and the role that self-censorship plays in the functioning of a modern democracy. The result of the publication of these cartoons included violence, mass protest and the deaths of more than 100 people. The ramification truly were global and they included the firebombing of the Danish Embassies in three Muslim countries, namely in Iran, Lebanon and Syria. Described by many as racist cartoons which depicted Prophet Muhammad in an unsavory light, the ramifications of this event were vast and far outweighed the perceived gain for the Jyllands-Posten newspaper or for the wider Danish public. The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad controversy reminds us that unfettered freedom for the media is not necessarily a good thing for a democracy and that certain restrictions must be placed on the organs of the media. We now turn to an exploration of censorship and the role of utilitarianism in explaining what sort of restrictions should be placed on the media (BBC 2009). Why Censorship? Should restrictions be placed on the media like television? If so, is media censorship necessary? Censorship is generally referred to as the suppression of speech and is thought of as something which is negative. If there is a social desire to limit shield a segment of society, i.e. children, from violence on television then perhaps censorship is in the greater good for society. Accordingly, while democracies rely on the dissemination of information to function as it should there are a variety of reasons as to why certain types of speech should be censored. For example, in many countries of the Western world speech which is hateful or which incites against a specific group of individuals is prohibited. There is a prohibition against hate speech in all of its forms, whether it is against blacks, whites, gays, straights, men or women. The suppression of hateful speech is seen as a necessary social good. In this respect, hate pamphlets such as those produced by organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan would fall under this prohibition if they target specific minority groups. What the Jyllands-Posten newspaper cartoon hate speech? That question is open for interpretation. What is known however is that a greater good for society would have been achieved by not publishing the infamous Muhammad cartoons, than by publishing them. While the media remains an important component of democracy, we have shown that an unfettered media is unhealthy in a modern context. Concluding Remarks The modern media plays an important role in the dissemination of information and is an essential component of the modern functioning of a democracy. The media keeps our political actors in check and makes the public informed of the issues of the day. The modern media has transformed the ways in which people communicate, and the freedom of the press important because it carries messages but is also a political actor onto itself. Democracies rely on the freedom of the press and this freedom in turn promotes democratic governance. Gadi Wolfsfeld has shown us that the media can be a political actor itself. As opposed to being a passive organ which disseminates information from one party to another, the media is a political actor unto itself and an important facet of modern democracies. Our frank exploration of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy showed us that an unfettered an unrestrained is not healthy for democracy nor for society. After the publication of the controversial Muhammad cartoons the ramifications for Jyllands-Posten and the wider Danish community were global. Protests broke out across the globe and more than 100 people were killed in the violence which ensued. This made people start to think about restrictions of the media. What sort of restraints should be placed on the media in a 21st century democracy? Speech which is hateful or which incites is not good for society. While the media is essential in the functioning of a democracy, certain restrictions must be placed on it so that it does not unnecessarily offend or incite. works cited Beaty, Jack. “Television or Democracy”. The Atlantic Monthly. May 31, 2007. Last Accessed October 17, 2009 “Muslim cartoon row timeline”. BBC. February 19, 2006. Last Accessed October 18, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4688602.stm Wolfsfeld, Gadi. Media and Political Conflict: News from the Middle East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Read More