“Democracy….effectively argued, needs the media to report the news, without ‘fear or favor.’ Citizens need to know what the government is doing, the press needs the freedom to tell them… Only a news organization that bravely reports what it knows, rather than what it is told is acceptable to say, can act as a check on government” (Boler, 20).
It not only states what democracy is, but also why news media is so important in a democratic society. Democracy also means there is freedom for the people to choose, it not only lets us to choose what government cabinet we want, but also whatever we want. So in a sound news market, the appearance of multiple news media is necessary, and it also means there is a balance-and-check in news-media outlets. One news outlet can immediately correct other news outlet if there is any mistake or bias coming from one news outlet. Multiple media outlets can create inter-monitoring effect. So audiences will not get the distorted news. This is why we need multiple news outlets in this market. And perhaps, this is the central point-freedom- of what democracy is.
Democracy means “for the people, of the people, by the people”, so it also involves a sound justice system to protect people. And this system should also protect the journalists from reporting the truth. Otherwise, it is hard to encourage the press to monitor the government. Perhaps this is why the founders set the first amendment to protect the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. And perhaps why Thomas Jefferson said he would choose the newspaper rather than government.
In the US, the journalists have a relatively free environment to report the truth, and this is what they should treasure the most. In some countries, a lot of people need to burden accusations because of reporting the truth. They still bravely report the truth even though they know what political consequences they will acquire. So the journalists in the US, they have no excuse not to act as a “watchdog” on government.
Tags: journalists, media, news
November 17, 2010 at 11:00 am |
This is a very interesting topic. At SMU I co-executive produced a two-hour election special back in 2008. We had one of our reporters just focused on the bias that was appearing in the media on the different networks that night. I don’t think that ideally we should need this although with all of the different cable stations, etc. leaning one way or another, we felt like it was important to clarify some statements made by the bigger news organizations.
November 21, 2010 at 8:12 pm |
our class has caused me to reconsider my relationship with media. i now feel a responsibility to actively participate. the comment you made about our ability to report truth without consequence is something i think americans take for granted. i think we have become skeptical and jaded as a result of the incredible media access technology has brought. maybe we’re over-stimulated or not interested. regardless, as you pointed out in your entry, democracy means “for the people, of the people, by the people. i think it’s time that we use our connection to the media to take an active role in democracy.
November 23, 2010 at 1:38 am |
Excellent point Samuel. In some other countries journalists can be executed for reporting the truth. You would think in a country like America where there is no fear in reporting the truth, media would do it more often. However, once the news media figured out they could generate revenue by using rhetoric instead of fact, the money won out….but I’m sure you already know that.
November 26, 2010 at 10:44 am |
You make a really good point about the news media in the US having no excuse. I never would’ve thought about it that way. In some countries journalist risk their lives to present to truth, in the US, there’s no real risk. Again, a really excellent point.
November 28, 2010 at 1:41 pm |
Great post, Samuel. The thinking you’ve done on this topic in preparation for your final project really shows through here.
December 1, 2010 at 4:34 pm |
Great post, Samuel. It’s true that American journalists should have no excuse for not reporting the truth as they don’t face imminent risk to their lives just for doing their jobs. To play devil’s advocate for a second, could a possible justification be the avoidance of professional extinction. Meaning, if it is sensationalism and and bias that sells then journalists would be doing themselves a disservice by attempting to sell a product that nobody wants to buy. Again, that’s hardly a comparison to fear of political persecution. I just mean to point at our collective responsibility as consumers of media to demand unbiased informed reporting. Very thought provoking post. I too am disappointed in how often our media infrastructure tends to take up the cause of one or another entity rather than just presenting the unvarnished facts.
December 1, 2010 at 7:27 pm |
The first thing that came to mind when I read this was the recent event in Burma, where Aung San Suu Kyi, a longtime advocate for democracy and high-profile watchdog of the nation’s militaristic government, was finally freed from her house arrest. Suu Kyi isn’t exactly a traditional watchdog; in fact, she was pretty much born (i.e. forced) into the role given her father’s political career. Because she was put in the spotlight, the government was able to make an easy example out of her. And yet, lo and behold, she was freed, supposedly without any more restrictions. So now she is out, ready to continue where she left off before she was imprisoned in her own home. So if someone in Suu Kyi’s position is still willing to serve as a watchdog for a government that threatens her very existence, then surely the journalists of the free world can take the time to focus on what their own governments are doing.