Mass Media: Does It Give Us the Truth - Essay Example

Mass media: Does it give us the truth? The commonly used term ‘mass media’ can be used to refer to numerous institutions and individuals all of which differ in method and purpose. In a general sense though, the term is used to define those institutions and individuals who comprise the communications profession in both the entertainment and news industries. There are numerous theories and opinions as to what the specific role of the media in society should be but what is agreed is that public access to accurate information is essential to the health of a democratic society. Newspapers, radio, television and the internet provide citizens with the opportunity to make informed choices. Because of this unique position, the media can be considered something of a ‘fourth branch of government’ as an informed citizenry is part of the checks and balances of a society. In many ways, society depends upon the media to hold our elected officials accountable. However, society also expects to be entertained creating some difficulty in ascertaining whether the media is capable of delivering the truth. Media acts as the link between people’s personal lives to events outside what they encounter in their everyday routine so truth is important, but can truth be defined in such black and white terms? It seems clear that while professional journalists do everything they can to deliver a truthful and verifiable report, truth is often more subjective than one might be tempted to believe. Television is a truly democratic mass medium that spreads information uniformly without regard to wealth, position or education and has clearly broadened our political dialogue. Its abilities as a mass communicator are rivaled only by the internet which has not yet caught up to the television in every home concept. The average community in the developed world now receives more than 30 channels of television with many areas receiving literally hundreds of choices at the click of a button. This diversity of programming presents perspectives regarding every conceivable characteristic of society. The viewing public has the chance to view Parliament in session and thus take a more active interest in the decisions that will have some bearing on their lives at home. Other channels or an internet search will enable them to become more informed about the issues under debate and this better-informed citizen can then make wiser decisions during the next election cycle. With all of these potential social conduits, there are now greater opportunities for political leaders to ensure their policies and ideologies are well-known. At the same time, reporters now have consummate access to government documents and databases, public and private libraries, and archives of newspapers and other publications. It is considered their job to ensure that what the politicians are saying is factually accurate. “Over the next 10 years, as a new political generation comes on-line, the Internet will probably surpass television as the main mode of communication. And with the Internet will come an even greater ability for the public to talk back” (Ansolabehere, 2006). With this trust comes great responsibility. 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. To protect its ability to fully serve the public interest, the media outlet must always remain uncontrolled by government or ideological influence as adversarial relationships frequently develop and media is considered the place for fair and balanced public discovery of the truth (Center for Democracy and Governance 1999 p. 5). Sources of information must feel they will be treated fairly if they come to the press before they will trust the press with their story. A journalist that wants their story to be believed uses at least two named sources in a story. Many journalists view their job as a duty to inform the public regarding unscrupulous dealings by those who wield power over the public. Using just one source or using sources that are not well-known or well-credentialed is becoming a more common practice, but it shouldn’t be in an age when reaching opposing or corroborating opinion is a single email away. Without these named sources, journalists seek other corroborating data to help them prove or disprove the story they’re being told. This type of investigative journalism, with its strong adherence to facts and to named and authentic sources, is essential to the operation of a just society and for this society to have trust in its news outlets. However, there are times when these sources cannot be named. This is because potential sources in sensitive government or business positions would not be willing or able to reveal their information without the assurance that their identity remains confidential for their own protection. Used by a trusted news source that has a proven track record of conveying the truth of an issue to the public, the conscientious use of anonymous sources may be necessary when the significance of the information requires public support. There are several cases in history where this was the case as the only means of gaining access to the information required to prove or disprove the anonymous source’s information. One infamous case of the need to protect the name of a source during a media investigation occurred in 1972. In this year, Washington Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward exposed what became known as Watergate by agreeing to protect the identity of their anonymous source who they termed Deep-throat. Respected journalists working with a respected news media outlet encouraged many to believe that these reporters had reason to trust their unnamed source. As the information became verified or investigation was blocked, the reporters gained reputation and credibility even though they still had not revealed the name of their source. In fact, their steadfast refusal to name their source added to the public’s belief that these men were trustworthy. They lived up to their journalistic responsibility by exposing unlawful conduct committed by government officials including President Nixon. As a result of the pressure of this scandal, Nixon resigned from office in 1973. This one anonymous source brought down the most powerful man in the world and catapulted Woodward and Bernstein to rock-star status (Willing, 2006). The use of anonymous sources became popular during this time because of Watergate enabling many other reporters to use the same technique to try to flush out corruption in other arenas. Although the practice is not used often, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was broken by the actions of an anonymous soldier, it is still a valuable tool in the media arsenal that only remains valuable as long as the media outlet retains a reputation for objectivity and truthfulness. As this type of case reveals, the people must often depend upon the media to keep them safe from corruption, greed and governmental oppression. If not the press, then who would keep an eye on government officials? Who else has the power to reach the official’s true support base on a scale large enough to have an effect? While the motivations of journalists vary, newspapers and other forms of media serve to offer a peek behind the curtain of corporate and governmental activities. This service would be severely hampered if ‘whistleblowers’ had no guarantee of anonymity. Corporate officials such as those of BALCO and Enron would ultimately be less accountable to the public if not for the protection guarantee of the anonymous source (Rogers, 2005). As might be imagined, this protection has been severely tried in the United States where the Supreme Court ruled, in the non-coincidental year of 1972, that the United States Constitution protects the right of a reporter to conceal confidential sources. According to Justice William O. Douglas, “A reporter is no better than his source of information. If he can be summoned to testify in secret before a grand jury, his sources will dry up and the attempted exposure, the effort to enlighten the public, will be ended” (Paulson, 2006). There is a cost for freedom of the press and speech including the ability for journalists to keep confidentialities. While there is a true need for this tool to be available to the responsible journalist in honoring his or her commitment to bringing the truth to the public, there is a dark side to the anonymous source. Anonymous sources, if not used responsibly, can destroy the credibility of the journalist and the media source, a commodity neither can survive without. An example of a publication that has lost credibility due to faulty anonymous information is the French newspaper LEst Republicain. This newspaper published a story, along with a large accompanying headline, proclaiming that Osama Bin Laden, leader of the Al Queda terrorist movement, was dead. The source they used in pronouncing this information was kept anonymous and no corroborating information was yet available. The newspaper later proclaimed that the source they used was a common source of information and ‘a usually credible source.’ As long as a month passed and still no information had been released to either confirm or deny that the story was true. In a twist of irony, a French government official offered the statement, “We have no response to the question of whether bin Laden is dead or alive” on the condition his identity wasn’t revealed as he was not authorized to make a statement (“French Want Probe”, 2006). Also relying on a confidential source, Time Magazine reported that Bin Laden “has become seriously ill and may have already died from a water-borne illness” (“Rumors Swirl”, 2006). When a named, credible source, Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi ambassador to the United States was asked about the issue, he said, “Don’t believe everything you hear on the news. Osama Bin Laden is alive and well.” Not long after this, confirmation was finally received by the rest of the world that Osama bin Laden was indeed still alive and the hunt for terrorists resumed. As this story demonstrates, the use or overuse of anonymous sources leads to lazy habits including erroneous reporting. It also allows unscrupulous newspapers to run a new scandal on the front page every day without being overly concerned about their accuracy. More important than correct facts is getting the story out first. A dedicated journalist craves credibility but is often forced to risk losing it by anonymous sources irresponsibly as the only means of keeping his or her job by getting the story published first – getting the scoop on the others. More educated readers today rightfully consider unnamed sources with skepticism. How does the reader know that this ‘anonymous source’ is not a figment of the author’s imagination used because they needed more copy in the story? (Coronel, 2005). 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 about the world on news accounts rather than 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. “Media defines our interaction with other people on a daily basis as a diversion, as sources of conflict, or as a unifying force. It is part of our routine relations with family and friends. Media has an impact on society not only through the content of the message but also through the process” (“Mass Media”, 2006). When the media outlet becomes corrupted by government ownership or a single ideological perspective, it is no longer able to disseminate the truth and the social network becomes distorted. As media channels become more and more dependent upon the commercial interests of the station to remain in business, these ideologies become more difficult to avoid. Distortion doesn’t just occur in the media outlet, though. There are numerous examples of how the media is manipulated into a false belief of truth in a number of ways. The favorite presidential approach to controlling the media in the United States is to prevent access to journalists. Frustrated by the coverage of the Watergate scandal, President Nixon ordered his staff to ban reporters from many highly respected publications, an order his staff disregarded. During the 2004 campaign, a reporter assigned to cover Vice President Cheney was habitually barred from the press plane. The George W. Bush administration maintained a well acknowledged secretive and evasive stance towards the media. “Over the past several years, the Bush administration has learned that it can engage the press in an adversarial way, and the public wont mind. It’s yet another step in managed news,” said Tom Hollihan, journalism expert at USC’s Annenberg School (Chaddock 2005). The Seattle Post-Intelligencer criticized President Clinton in 1999 for asking Congress to declare war on Iraq. The FBI, on the President’s orders, moved to close the newspaper down explaining it was a danger to U.S. security (Baldasty 2000). A federal judge ruled that Gov. Robert Ehrlich (R) can bar state employees from talking to two reporters for the Baltimore Sun, a move described by Sun editors as ‘scary.’ (Chaddock 2005). Rather than risk telling an untruth, many of these entities simply won’t say anything at all. In this age of highly technologically produced mass communication, it has become 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 for which the public is willing to pay increasing amounts to access. As society experiences ever increasing amounts of leisure time, it depends on the media to provide much of its information and entertainment. If information is power then people should question whether 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 media play a positive role in society and fulfill its responsibility. Works Cited Ansolabehere, Stephen. “The Role of the Media.” Illinois State University. (2006). 2 May, 2010 Baldasty, Gerald. “What is the Role of Media in the United States?” University of Washington. (4 January 2000). 2 May, 2010 Center for Democracy and Governance. “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, (June 1999). 2 May 2010 Chaddock, Gail Russell. “Bush Administration Blurs Media Boundary.” The Christian Science Monitor. (17 February 2005). 2 May 2010 Coronel, Sheila. “Unnamed Sources.” Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. (8 May 2005). 2 May 2010 “French Want Probe into Bin Laden Leak.” CBS News. (23 September 2006). 2 May 2010 “Mass Media and Society: A Sociological Perspective on Media.” n.d. Arizona State University. (2006). 2 May 2010 Paulson, Ken. “Use Unnamed Sources Rarely, but Protect Them.” USA Today. (7 July 2006). 2 May 2010 Rogers, Dick. “The Use and Misuse of Unnamed Sources.” San Francisco Chronicle. (24 July 2005). 2 May 2010 “Rumors Swirl About Bin Laden’s Health.” CBS News. (23 September 2006). 2 May 2010 Willing, Richard. “Journalists See Troubling Court Trend.” USA Today. (13 September 2006). 2 May 2010 Read More