Media Positive Role in Society - Essay Example

The Political Role of Mass Media in Liberal Democracies The commonly used term ‘mass 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. The specific role of the media in society is often debated but what is not argued is that access to information is essential to the health of a liberal democratic society. Newspapers, radio, television and the internet allow citizens the opportunity to make informed choices and serves as part of the checks and balances of a society, a ‘fourth branch of government.’ Mass media is necessary as its existence ensures that those elected to public office are held accountable. The media also serves to entertain 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. This discussion will address the impacting political role the mass media has within a liberal democracy and explains how and why the media acts as a positive force in Canada’s democracy. The average Canadian watches 14.3 hours of television per week while surfing the web for 12.7 hours and spends 11 hours listening to the radio. Adolescents allocate 14.7 hours per week to internet use in addition to 12 hours each in front of the television and radio. Youth also read the newspaper 2.5 hours per week on average.1 From these statistics, it must be safe to assume that Canadians view the media as a trusted source of information that protects democracy by ensuring a transparent nature that exposes the powers that be to public scrutiny. The media can also, by these statistics, presumed to be a trusted friend, opening a world of enlightenment to the comfort of our living rooms. This is not the case according studies conducted by the Pew Research Center. Canadians have mixed views regarding the influence of the media on the country and its ability to solve problems. Only about half of the Canadian population has a positive opinion of the media. This is a higher confidence level than in the United States where only 31 percent believe the news media is a positive force in their lives. “In fact, nearly six in 10 Americans believe the news media actually get in the way of solving problems.”2 If the media is to have any meaningful role in liberal democracy, its ultimate goal should be to develop a range of diverse mediums and voices that are credible and to create and strengthen a sector that promotes such outlets. Credible outlets enable citizens to have access to information that they need to make informed decisions and perpetuates a working democracy. 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. The growing diversity of programming presents perspectives regarding every conceivable characteristic of Canadian society. There are now greater opportunities for political leaders to more readily publicize their policies and ideologies. The evolution of technology has given the concept of democracy added authenticity. The Internet can only facilitate more efficient political communications. The Internet has revolutionized Canadian journalism and has already changed public discourse in the Canada. Reporters now have consummate access to government documents and databases, public and private libraries, and archives of newspapers and other publications. “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 provide an even greater ability for the public to talk back.”3 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.4 Elected officials many times forget that the same democratic mechanism that allowed their rise to power is designed to monitor their progress. The favorite presidential approach to controlling the media is to prevent access to journalists. Canada must look no further than its southern border to view the media’s role in a conservative democracy. 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.”5 This media ban coincided with the US invasion of Iraq, an invasion the Canadian government vocally denounced. Canadian troops are not serving in the Iraq war but this example of a conservative leaning democracy illustrates the media’s more positive influence on Canadian democracy and answers why it is more publicly trusted than are its American colleagues. Canadian soldiers are dying though not in Iraq and a comparison can be drawn between the media ban prohibiting the filming of caskets coming off military planes in the US, to Canada’s media coverage of Canadian soldiers killed on peacekeeping missions in Afghanistan. Conception Harbour, Newfoundland native Corporal Jamie Murphy, while on a peacekeeping mission, was killed by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan on January 27, 2004. The Canadian media would not consider not covering this tragic event as his remains were returned to Canadian soil. The media exposure was extensive on a national and local level. News of his death and life was broadcast in newspapers, television, radio, the internet and various university media conduits. Surely, the people of the two countries react in similar fashions to the return of those who have fallen in war. It’s inconceivable that the citizens of the U.S. have less respect for their soldiers than do Canadians but the difference between the media’s coverage of Murphy’s homecoming as opposed to the U.S. lack of coverage exemplifies the difference between ideologies regarding democracy in the two countries. In the evening newscast Canada Now, Glenn Deir interviewed Jamie Murphy’s family for CBC Television.6 Partway through the emotional interview, a tearful father, Norman Murphy has to excuse himself. Murphy’s sisters and mother recall him as a loving, wonderful young man to the television camera. During the interview, they raise questions as to whether or not Canadian troops should be located in Afghanistan. “They shouldnt be over there. I always said they shouldn’t be over there,” his mother, Alice Murphy told Deir. His sister, Norma Murphy asks, “What’s the sense of it? As long as they’re over there they’re going to be dying. He won’t be the last one.” The question ‘what is the sense of it,’ was heavily debated in the media and thus throughout the public and political realm. The mass media plays an integral role for Canadian democracy not because it can answer this question, but because it makes the debate possible. The Bush administration had motive for instilling a media ban on U.S. military bases. Flag-draped coffins tempt questions, examinations of philosophy and political debate. The current Bush administration has 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 won’t mind. It’s yet another step in managed news,” said Tom Hollihan, journalism expert at USC’s Annenberg School.7 Debates are essential in a liberal democracy but dangerous to conservative politicians. If the media in the United States was truly free, the American public may have long since decided, as many are beginning to now, that the US should not be involved in Iraq in the same way that Canadians may decide that their fellow countrymen should not be in Afghanistan. In the US, adversarial relations with the media aren’t limited to elected officials or have a relation to politics. Reporters from a local TV station in Washington State had uncovered information indicating that nearly 30 percent of US commercial planes are highly unsafe under certain conditions and three recent plane crashes may have been related to this particular problem. A group of US airlines received a judgment in court to halt the broadcast of this report. In a television episode of Ally McBeal, Ally decides to get an abortion. Some anti-abortion groups sought a court injunction to halt televising of the show.8 The US media is constantly fighting on many fronts to ensure the rights guaranteed by their Constitution are preserved. The media is vitally important in a liberal democracy. It is also fueled by the necessity to produce revenue. An assertion that the media is objective, even the Canadian media, is difficult to establish with any certainty. 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. 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. 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. The Canadian media, as has been shown, is a liberated entity compared to the ‘land of the free’ but even it is subject to monetary pressures and tempted to air a sensationalistic story in place of one that is important yet bland. 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. Politicians rely on mass 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 mass 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.”9 The media can be as large a political force for change as it wishes to be. Canada has 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 liberated society. Endnotes 1 “Young Canadians Spend More Time on the Internet Than TV: Study.” CBC News. 15 August 2005; available from http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2005/08/15/Young_Canadians_spend_more_time_on_internet_than_TV20050815.html; Internet; accessed 21 March 2006. 2 Canadian Media Research Consortium (CMRC). “Report Card on Canadian News Media.” 2003, 28; available from http://www.smrcccrm.ca/english/reportcard2004/28.html; Internet; accessed 21 March 2006. 3 Ansolabehere, Stephen. “The Role of the Media.” Illinois State University [online]; available from http://lilt.ilstu.edu/rrpope/rrpopepwd/articles/role_media.html; Internet; accessed 21 March 2006. 4 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, 5. Available from http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/publications/pdfs/pnace630.pdf; Internet; accessed 21 March 2006. 5 Milbank, Dana. “Curtains Ordered for Media Coverage of Returning Coffins.” Washington Post. [online]; 21 October 2003, A23; available from http://www.friends.ca/files/PDF/DCA/Devereaux.pdf; Internet; accessed 21 March 2006. 6 “Family Wants Canada Out of Kabul.” CBC News. 27 January 2004; available from http://www.cbc.ca/nl/story/nf_murphy_20030127.html; Internet; accessed 21 March 2006. 7 Chaddock, Gail Russell. “Bush Administration Blurs Media Boundary.” The Christian Science Monitor. 17 February, 2005; available from http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0217/p01s01-uspo.html; Internet; accessed 21 March 2006. 8 Baldasty, Gerald. “What is the Role of Media in the United States?” University of Washington. 4 January, 2000; available from http://faculty.washington.edu/baldasty/january4.htm; accessed 21 March 2006. 9 Heibert, Ray Eldon. “The Growing Power of Mass Media.” Southern Connecticut State University Journalism Department [online]; 2001. available from http://www.southernct.edu/~seymour/cases/heibert.htm; accessed 21 March 2006. References Ansolabehere, Stephen. “The Role of the Media.” Illinois State University [online]; available from http://lilt.ilstu.edu/rrpope/rrpopepwd/articles/role_media.html; Internet; accessed 21 March 2006. Baldasty, Gerald. “What is the Role of Media in the United States?” University of Washington. 4 January, 2000; available from http://faculty.washington.edu/baldasty/january4.htm; accessed 21 March 2006. Canadian Media Research Consortium (CMRC). “Report Card on Canadian News Media.” 2003, 28; available from http://www.smrcccrm.ca/english/reportcard2004/28.html; Internet; accessed 21 March 2006. 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. available from http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/publications/pdfs/pnace630.pdf; Internet; accessed 21 March 2006. Chaddock, Gail Russell. “Bush Administration Blurs Media Boundary.” The Christian Science Monitor. 17 February, 2005; available from http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0217/p01s01-uspo.html; Internet; accessed 21 March 2006. “Family Wants Canada Out of Kabul.” CBC News. 27 January 2004; available from http://www.cbc.ca/nl/story/nf_murphy_20030127.html; Internet; accessed 21 March 2006. Heibert, Ray Eldon. “The Growing Power of Mass Media.” Southern Connecticut State University Journalism Department [online]; 2001. available from http://www.southernct.edu/~seymour/cases/heibert.htm; accessed 21 March 2006. Milbank, Dana. “Curtains Ordered for Media Coverage of Returning Coffins.” Washington Post. [online]; 21 October 2003, A23; available from http://www.friends.ca/files/PDF/DCA/Devereaux.pdf; Internet; accessed 21 March 2006. “Young Canadians Spend More Time on the Internet Than TV: Study.” CBC News. 15 August 2005; available from http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2005/08/15/Young_Canadians_spend_more_time_on_internet_than_TV20050815.html; Internet; accessed 21 March 2006. Read More