Role of
Journalism
The role and status of journalism, along with that of the
mass media, has undergone profound changes over the last two decades with the
advent of digital technology and publication of news on the Internet. This has
created a shift in the consumption of print media channels, as people
increasingly consume news through e-readers, smart-phones, and other electronic
devices, challenging news organizations to fully monetize their digital wing,
as well as improvise on the context in which they publish news in print.
Notably, in the present media landscape, newsrooms have
reduced their staff and coverage as traditional media channels, such as
television, grapple with declining audiences. For instance, between 2007 and
2012, CNN edited its story packages into nearly half of their original time
length.
This compactness in coverage has been linked to broad
audience attrition, as a large majority of respondents in recent studies show
changing preferences in news consumption. The digital era has also ushered in a
new kind of journalism in which ordinary citizens play a greater role in the
process of news making, with the rise of citizen
journalism being possible through
the Internet. Using video camera equipped smart-phones, active citizens are now
enabled to record footage of news events and upload them onto channels
like YouTube, which is
often discovered and used by mainstream news media outlets. Meanwhile, easy
access to news from a variety of online sources, like blogs and
other social media, has resulted in readers being able to pick from a wider
choice of official and unofficial sources, instead of only from the
agenda-driven traditional media organizations.
In
the 1920s, as modern journalism was just taking form, writer Walter
Lippmann and American philosopher John Dewey debated over the role of
journalism in a democracy. Their differing
philosophies still characterize a debate about the role of journalism in
society and the nation-state.
Lippmann understood that
journalism's role at the time was to act as a mediator or translator between the public and policy making elites.
The journalist became the middleman. When elites spoke, journalists listened
and recorded the information, distilled it, and passed it on to the public for
their consumption. His reasoning behind this was that the public was not in a
position to deconstruct the growing and complex flurry of information present
in modern society, and so an intermediary was needed to filter news for the
masses. Lippmann put it this way: The public is not smart enough to understand
complicated, political issues.
Furthermore,
the public was too consumed with their daily lives to care about complex public
policy. Therefore the public needed someone to interpret the decisions or
concerns of the elite to make the information plain and simple.
Lippmann
believed that the public would affect the decision-making of the elite with
their vote. In the meantime, the elite (i.e. politicians, policy makers,
bureaucrats, scientists, etc.) would keep the business of power running. In
Lippmann's world, the journalist's role was to inform the public of what the
elites were doing. It was also to act as a watchdog over the elites, as the
public had the final say with their votes. Effectively that kept the public at
the bottom of the power chain, catching the flow of information that is handed
down from experts/elites.
Lippmann's
elitism has had consequences that he came to deplore. An apostle of historicism
and scientism, Lippmann did not merely hold that democratic government was a
problematic exercise, but regarded all political communities, of whatever
stripe, as needing guidance from a transcendent partisanship for accurate
information and dispassionate judgment. In "Liberty and the News"
(1919) and "Public Opinion" (1921) Lippmann expressed the hope that
liberty could be redefined to take account of the scientific and historical
perspective and that public opinion could be managed by a system of
intelligence in and out of government. Thus the liberty of the journalist was
to be dedicated to gathering verifiable facts while commentators like himself
would place the news in the broader perspective. Lippmann deplored the
influence of powerful newspaper publishers and preferred the judgments of the
"patient and fearless men of science." In so doing, he did not merely
denigrate the opinion of the majority but also of those who had influence or
power as well. In a republican form of government, the representatives are
chosen by the people and share with them adherence to the fundamental
principles and political institutions of the polity. Lippmann's quarrel was
with those very principles and institutions, for they are the product of the
pre-scientific and pre-historical viewpoint and what for him was a groundless
natural rights political philosophy.
But
Lippmann turned against what he called the "collectivism" of the
Progressive movement he encouraged with its de-emphasis on the foundations of
American politics and government and ultimately wrote a work, "The Public
Philosophy" (1955), which came very close to a return to the principles of
the American founders.
Dewey,
on the other hand, believed the public was not only capable of understanding
the issues created or responded to by the elite it was in the public forum that
decisions should be made after discussion and debate. When issues were
thoroughly vetted, then the best ideas would bubble to the surface. Dewey
believed journalists should do more than simply pass on information. He
believed they should weigh the consequences of the policies being enacted. Over
time, his idea has been implemented in various degrees, and is more commonly
known as "community
journalism".
This
concept of community journalism is at the centre of new
developments in journalism. In this new paradigm, journalists are able to
engage citizens and the experts/elites in the proposition and generation of
content. It's important to note that while there is an assumption of equality,
Dewey still celebrates expertise. Dewey believes the shared knowledge of many
is far superior to a single individual's knowledge. Experts and scholars are
welcome in Dewey's framework, but there is not the hierarchical structure
present in Lippmann's understanding of journalism and society. According to
Dewey, conversation, debate, and dialogue lie at the heart of a democracy.
While
Lippmann's journalistic philosophy might be more acceptable to government
leaders, Dewey's approach is a better description of how many journalists see
their role in society, and, in turn, how much of society expects journalists to
function. Americans, for example, may criticize some of the excesses committed
by journalists, but they tend to expect journalists to serve as watchdogs on
government, businesses and actors, enabling people to make informed decisions
on the issues of the time.
No comments:
Post a Comment