How Should the Media Work - Essay Example

Media Argument The commonly used term ‘media’ is used to refer to a variety of s and individuals that differ in method and purpose. Essentially, the term is understood as referring to groups who work in the entertainment and/or news industries. Newspapers, radio, television and the internet serve as something of a ‘fourth arm of government’ by giving citizens the chance to make informed choices. The media is necessary because it holds people in responsible positions accountable for their actions. However, the media is also expected to entertain the general public. This means that the line drawn between news reporters’ efforts to amuse and sources of entertainment attempting to inform is blurred. Media acts as the link between people’s personal lives to events outside of their everyday sphere. It is 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. Unfortunately, today’s media is focused more upon reflecting their most recent supporters than they are dedicated to the truth. The media has demonstrated willingness to act in complicity with 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, the United Nations chief weapons inspector in Iraq, Hans Blix, reported to the organization that his team had not found a single piece of evidence that would confirm the country possessed 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 (Barry, 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. “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). Both nations’ media outlets became essentially the mouthpieces of Tony Blair and George Bush. Journalists and media outlets on both sides of the Atlantic attempted to promote a sense of patriotism in their respective nations by focusing on governmental talking points and by omitting factual information or reasoned debate if it conflicted with the government.  This less-than-truth is not always the willful decision of the media, though. They must necessarily work within the boundaries set for them by law and national security. The favorite governmental approach to controlling the media is to prevent access to journalists. For example, the Bush administration in the U.S. did not allow the media to report casualties of the war in Iraq. This was an unprecedented action because countries have honoured soldiers killed in action when the bodies arrived back home throughout history. The flag-draped coffins have a tendency to inspire patriotism and rally support for the conflict, something the Bush administration needed. The reason behind the silence was finally revealed on October 21, 2003 when that day’s edition of the Washington Post reported on a directive handed down by the US government. This directive stated, “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). One of the justifications given for this directive was to prevent the media from sensationalizing these events, but the deeper reason was to reduce the public awareness of U.S. losses. 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. “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. 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. Works Cited Barry, John. “The Defector’s Secrets.” Newsweek Magazine. (March 3, 2003). April 26, 2010 McQuail, D. “New Roles for New Times?” Media Studies Journal. Vol. 9, N. 3, (1995), pp. 11-19. Milbank, Dana. “Curtains Ordered for Media Coverage of Returning Coffins.” Washington Post, (October 21, 2003), A23. Read More