Does the Australian Press Enhance or Undermine Australian Democracy - Coursework Example

Name Institution Course Tutor Date Does the Australian press enhance or undermine Australian democracy? Introduction The role played the by Press in keeping the public informed on current affairs is indisputable especially in countries guided by democratic principles. The press plays a central role in democratization as it serves as an information link between the government and the people. The press is expected to foresee the respect for truth and public’s right to information. Generally, the Australian media and particularly the Press is a significant component of Australian democracy because the freedom of press is a core criteria used for evaluation of the democracy of a country. A research conducted and reported in the Press Freedom Index (2011-2012) ranks Australia at position thirty out of one hundred and seventy nine countries in regards to freedom of press. However, Sawer, Abjorensen & Larkin claim that despite the fact that Australia has always been considered a pioneering democracy, evidence from research proves otherwise. Media plays a major role in democratic accountability and it is an indispensable mechanism of democratic functioning in any society. Thus, any mechanism of government monitoring and regulation of the media can adversely influence democratic freedoms in the state. Lack of press freedom is as synonymous as saying there is lack of democracy. In this argumentative analysis, it is argued that democratic freedom of press in under suppression in Australia. Various claims have resulted that the democratic freedom of press is under suppression in Australia. First, democratization of media partly depends upon how democracy is understood as there are some critical differences in understandings of democracy, the public sphere, and media citizenship. Niall & Mickler (2006, p. 172) notes that the cultural life of Australia is presented through the media as dominated by the extremists, Marxists, and left wing ideologies. Information provided by the press is infiltrated by the conservatives who attempt to impose their interests on the public institutions, cultural practices, and other institutions. Niall & Mickler (2006, p. 172) assert that the media is basically dominated by the ideas of the conservative media commentators who mainly support their interests. Democracy through media is or is not achieved through the ability to either make transparent or secret, or enhance clarity or opacity of an issue (Nash 2012). The way that different audiences are told or not that their interests are at a compromise may be mobilized into a reaction. Social groups may or may not be included in the targeted audiences in the construction of audiences that have major relevance to decision-making processes, and to determine how to conduct the social and political life. Nash (2012) argues that freedom is dynamic and depends on the constant formulation and affirmation of one’s rights and responsibilities to take a social space in modes that precludes its diminution and encroachment. Freedom of press is important in enhancing democracy as media reporting and its representation are an exercise of power. However, there are many ways in which government pressure in Australia has limited the freedom of expression by press. Nash (2012) addresses the press freedom issue from the focus of legal protections, accountability, freedom of information, and legal constraints. An important observation is that Australia lacks a legal instrument –constitutional or Bill of Rights-to influence its citizens’ freedoms. Such instruments have been used either to limit or provide for freedom of speech examples including New Zealand and the United States respectively. Thus, the lack of instruments to define freedom for citizens in Australia hinders the continual process of freedom maintenance. Maintenance of freedom appears to be a contest between those asserting independency in action and those who wish to constrain it. Examples of issues pertaining to constraint of freedom as discussed by Nash (2012) include failure to gain bipartisan support for the Bill of Rights introduced by the Australian Labour Party. Those opposing the bill from the conservative side oppose the bill based on the populist argument that empowers an unelected group or activist judiciary at the expense of an elected legislature. On the other hand, proponents believe separation of powers is important in establishment of checks and balances to the government power. Also freedom of information (FOI) legislation exists in all states, territories and at national levels, which confers the rights access to government documents for citizens and the media. However, this has been criticized for delays, omissions, and costs involved, and in some cases, political interference (Nash 2011). Nash (2012) asserts that the freedom of the press in Australia is weaker than in other liberal democracies where the commercial pressure on the press is high. The Australian parliaments seem to have a much broader power to hinder freedom of expression and the press than legislatures in other liberal democracies. MacDonald (2011) also highlights the issue of government pressure on media. Negative effects of the regulation of the press are highlighted through the editor-in-chief of the West Australian (Bob Cronin) who questions the attainability of freedom for a democratic country like Australia, in which everyone is entitled to receive and give views and, or opinions on how the running of the state should be conducted. Instead, Australia has been described as the ‘guided democracy’ in which the rulers of the day have control and power to regulate what the people “hear, say, write, or read”. It appears that the government wants greater control over the media industry so that it could regulate criticism (MacDonald 2011). This may be the case because compared to other democratic countries; government ownership of media outlets is very high in Australia. It is obvious that if the government is sponsoring the media house, the latter is unlikely to air accurate information concerning issues in the government especially if they are acts that can be condoned by the public. Moreover, the media may be guided to announce seemingly good acts that have been conducted by the government even if this is not the case. Simply put, ownership and government regulatory legislations on press deny the public the right to information characterized by honesty, fairness, independence and respect for the said rights. Liberal democracy it seems may constitute the ‘end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the “final form of human government” and as such constituted the “end history”. Sawer, Abjorensen, Larkin (2009) argue that despite the fact that Australia is considered among the pioneering democracy, the country has fallen behind in the regulation of private money in elections and in controlling the use of government of parliamentary resources just for partisan benefit. Sawer et al (2009) note that accountability and transparency in press is compromised because of executive dominance of parliaments and relatively weak FOI regimes. It is claimed that there is neither an open government nor an unfettered news media. There lacks legal protection of the freedom of the press and there are certain commercial pressures and weak protection of journalists. Some of these factors are consistent with findings of Nash (2011). All these factors significantly contribute in the undermining of freedom of the press in Australia. It is a clear demonstration that government regulation of press is incompatible with democracy. Democracy should guarantee free will in communication and sharing of information, but this is not the case when the government insists on owning the newspapers in Australia. Democracy can better be served through minimizing constraints placed on publication of information. Instead, opportunities for deliberation of information should be maximized (Nash 2004). The press should also act to protect the sources of its information from retribution. Otherwise, its capacity to conduct research and report on matters even against the will of the government and other powerful institutions will be weakened. The press is weakened in such a way that it has to confine some information implicating the government despite the availability of evidence. Stewart (2011) reports the notion that regulation of media by the government is “bad for democracy” as stated by Mike Smith-former editor of the Age and also former Press Council member. These sentiments were agreed upon by one of the country’s leading ethicists-Simon Longstaff who views government regulation of press as a disapproval of ethical standards of journalists because it poses a threat to press freedom. Issues in press ethics continue to manifest from various activists. Stewart (2011) notes that just a day after Greens leader Bob Brown requested for greater regulation of newspapers as part of a proposed multi-faceted inquiry into media, ownership, regulation, and ethics, Attorney General McClelland rules out new laws to regulate the media. Simon the ethicist and who has served for quite a long time in the press believe that it is a disaster waiting to happen if the government attempted to regulate the newspapers. There may be increasing pressure for press regulation, and supporters for this motion may even benefit from public support. However, Smith warns that if the industry fails at self-regulation, it is doomed for failure. The government needs to be cautious about steps it makes to establish a formal mechanism to regulate the media. The media plays an important role in democratic accountability and if the media’s own behavior is being monitored by the government which the media again is monitoring, it may lead to severe conflicts (Stewart, 2011). It is often better for press organizations to operate from an ethical point of view. This can be done through establishing a set of values and principles that an institution owns rather than those imposed by a government body. To increase media responsibility and value, the media should establish a distinct framework of basic values and principles and mechanisms through which these values can be maintained. A better way also involves establishing some sort of independent ethics committee to help report on the extent to which each media outlet adheres to the set standards (Stewart 2012). Such a process is appropriate as it can enable a high level of transparency process, and a fully independent regulatory body will benefit both newspapers and electronic media. Such a framework can also help to restore democratic accountability if it well-funded and given powers to investigate corruption or misconduct. The Australian Press Council lacks sufficient resources and power to exert a remarkable influence on ethical behavior (Stewart 2011). Overall, it is seen that the Australian Press does not enhance democracy because of regulatory legislations placed by the government to limit press freedom. The Limitation of press freedom indicates that there will be lack of transparency in activities undertaken by officials in the government. The people who are the real leaders in a democratic society are also denied their right and freedom to information which can help them make informed choices, or decisions regarding how the social and political life of the state is conducted. Conclusion Freedom of press is a measure of the democracy of a country. As a principle, freedom of press supports the establishment of transparency in accountability hence it is an institutionalized extension of rights to freedom and expression in any democratic state. There are certain difficulties for the freedom of press in Australia and this is connected to the fact that there is a high concentration of media ownership in comparison with other western countries. A wide base of research confirms that the Australian democracy is hindered as a result of suppression of the Australian press by the government. Media houses have often been used to stage the views of particular groups to the public and hence leading to suppression of the right to information that is objective. The solution does not lie within using government regulatory structures but by establishing an independent press body to oversee the activities of the other institutions ensuring observance of set values and ethical standards. Transparency in the press institutions will help to reinstate democratic values through providing accurate information to the intended audience. Australia should maximize the opportunities for deliberation in order to let its press to enhance its democratic values. List of References: A Press Freedom Index 2011 - 2012". Reporters Without Borders. Retrieved 30,May, 2012. MacDonald, K. 2011. Free press ‘needed for democracy’, The West Australian. Retrieved May 31, 2012 from http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/12254427/press-regulation-irreconcilable-with-democracy/ Nash, C. 2012. Freedom of the Press in Australia. The Annual Report Card on Press Freedom in Australia. Niall,L., & Mickler, S. 2006. The War on Democracy: Conservative Opinion in the Australian Press, University of Western Australia Press, p.172 Sawer, M., Abjorensen, N., Larkin, P. 2009. Australia: the state of democracy. The Federation Press Stewart, C. 2011, July 16. Media regulation is ‘bad for democracy’ The Australian.com. Accessed online May 30, 2012 from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/media-regulation-is-bad-for-democracy/story-e6frg6nf-1226095574985 Read More