Journalism as a crusade.

It is a widely acknowledged fact that Journalism today is being suffocated although there is a lot of debate as to what degree this suffocation is occurring. To answer the question as to whether Journalism should be a trade or a crusade it is essential for us to answer some other questions. What was the motive and reason Journalism was started for in the first place? In time what sort of role has it come to play in our way of life? What are the consequences to our way of life if it ceases to serve the function it was set out to in the first place? Today it seems like a dangerous change in the ethics of Journalism is easily gaining acceptance. Editors seem to think it is completely ethical and acceptable to give readers what they want rather than informing them of what they need to be aware off. Hallin (1996, p. 254) in his chapter ‘Commercialism and professionalism in the American news media’ discusses extensively whether this attitude would lead to an age of multiple voices and thereby more democracy or a decline of public life. Hallin (1996, p. 247) makes a study of these recent changes explaining them through two different schools of thought, the readership theory and the stockholder theory. The readership theory quite benevolently claims that given the decline in newspaper readership the Journalists must give the ‘customers’ what they want, at least to integrate social interest into the public once again, if nothing else. The stockholders theory states that with the present norm of selling stocks and ‘public’ ownership, Journalism should be treated like any other business. This change in ethics has devastating effects on Journalism and thereby its purpose in society as Belsey and Chadwick (1998, p. 10) in their chapter ‘Ethics and politics of the media’ point out that “‘Do not lie’ is not equivalent to ‘Tell the truth’. Lying as everyone knows from daily-life situations, can be avoided by silence, vagueness or changing the subject, which suggests that not lying is an insufficient ethical principle, in both daily life and Journalism. A newspaper might just keep quiet about facts which could produce embarrassment for a cause it supports.”

Therefore coming to the above questions there is very little debate that Journalism was set up to enable democracy. Journalism is commonly referred to as the fourth estate of democracy equating it to as much a part of the democratic process as the Executive, the Judiciary, or the Legislative. The function it serves is that of a watchdog. Frost (2000, p. 24) points out that the most important role of the media is to facilitate political discussion and to keep the public informed, as a democratic society that votes needs to be well informed. Frost explains that in most of the western world people are too lazy, busy, cynical and preoccupied for political debate but that should not be a reason not to continue to strive for the ideal and this can only be facilitated by the press. Frost (2000, p. 27) concludes that “when we talk about a free media we are not necessarily talking about the media’s right to publish anything they like, but that people, including journalists, should have the right to spread information and ideas which can be justified morally in order to support the public’s right to know. In other words, information published in the public interest, not merely information to sate the public’s curiosity or desire to be entertained. This means that any pressure brought to bear on a person and his or her right to hold and disseminate ideas and information (whether from government agencies, proprietors, threats or bribes from outside agencies, including advertisers’ pressure) damages the citizen’s ability to have access to as wide a range of views on a subject as he or she desires.” Unfortunately these ideals have been heavily compromised on various levels for example when it comes to hiring journalists it is the organization that does so. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p. 264) found that while some employers preferred individuals with Journalism majors, other employers preferred majors in liberal arts and more specifically in American studies. They also observed that in the present system, the role journalists see themselves in, had a major impact on the content they produce. If they see their role as disseminating information or adversaries to the powerful it will express itself in the content they produce. Therefore if this role is determined by the owners and the organisation, then it is the owners and the organisation that has a large influence on the content. Another fundamental aspect that conflicts with the voters’ right to know in a democracy is that the laws set up in many democracies do not allow journalists to do their job and restricts them from being watchdogs. Belsey and Chadwick (1998, p. 6) note that the media in Britain are heavily restricted by criminal laws of official secrets, obscenity, blasphemy, and sedition. They are also restricted on reporting on things like Irish terrorist groups and their alleged supporters by the civil laws of libel and the breach of confidence. They also mention the judge-made law of contempt of court. Belsey and Chadwick (1998, p. 6) also mention that apart from just these laws that restrict and suffocate Journalism there is a general attitude and culture in the judiciary to be unsympathetic to the idea of a free press and the democratic principle of freedom of information, and are quite committed to trying to gag the media using prior restraints of interlocutory injunctions. This is a legal move virtually impossible in the United States. This sort of environment makes it hard for journalists to ascertain what is ethical and what is unethical and often this phenomenon is used as an instrument to make the powerful more powerful and the weak, weaker. As Belsey and Chadwick (1998, p. 9) points out the journalist’s conflict with honesty, noting that a journalist must certainly be honest in their activities whether it be reporting or investigating, but sometimes it is essential that the journalist go undercover, especially when it comes to something like public corruption which can only be investigated under cover with the journalist pretending to be someone else making a corrupt deal. The same applies when there is a war and the journalist discovers something that could potentially harm the war effort. Another aspect where an ethical conflict arises that Belsey and Chadwick (1998, p. 9) point out to is privacy, a journalist may genuinely have the highest regard for an individual’s right to privacy and yet claim that certain information about a politician does not merit this right. Yet another aspect Belsey and Chadwick (1998, p. 9) talk about is the broadcasting ban on terrorism posing the questions, “Even if some aspects of the ban can be defended, is it fair or in the interests of democracy to extend it to archive material of genuine historical and political interest? Or is it reasonable to prevent the broadcasting of the actual speaking voice of an alleged terrorist supporter while allowing him or her to be shown on film with an actor reading synchronised words? It is not difficult to think that wherever the line should be drawn it should not be drawn here. But the general problem remains, both in this and many other cases. Moreover, however much effort is put into drawing clear lines in a code of conduct, it is the individual journalist who will come face to face with very difficult dilemmas, and have to make moral choices. No code can anticipate every situation.” Another prominent way in which a voter’s right to information is being heavily compromised in the present mechanics of Journalism is in regard to time and deadlines given to journalists. The way the time factor has manifested itself in the present system is critical. Journalists today are faced with harsher deadlines than ever before with little time to get a story. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p. 262) informs us that as journalists are racing against time they begin to favour readily available sources like corporations. This would lead to a culture of favouring certain types of sources over a period of time. Davies (2008, p. 69) sheds light on this explaining that these days the sole imperative for journalists is not getting an accurate insight into a story but rather to file their stories in as immediately as they possibly can simply because the present situation demands that. Therefore they spend very little time on a story and much more little or no time on checking the accuracy of the information or the legitimacy of the source, and it is in exactly this kind of situation that rapid repackaging takes place. Davies (2008, p. 64) reiterates that ascertaining the truth is one of the primary functions of Journalism arguing that the object of Journalism itself is truth and central to this objective is the responsibility of checking and therefore by taking time away we are indeed taking truth away as well. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, pp. 268-269) notes that sources with political and economic power have tremendous potential to influence news in a system where journalists bank on readily available sources. These sources usually hire regular staff for the sole purpose of getting information to the media quickly. Thus the media is dominated by these ‘official’ sources that influence and involve themselves in issues rather than events. Journalists are expected to provide the same amount of news day in and day out even if it is a slow news day this creates an increasing dependence on public relations practitioners and journalists get conditioned and revert to accepting their news rather than come up with enterprising stories. This has a dire effect on democracy as it is not only undemocratic that the economic and political elite dictate the news and views in the media but more dangerously the weak has no voice and may begin to feel that their views are socially unacceptable. News, issues and events that are in line with media routines have a much greater chance of being covered than those that are not in line with such routines. Therefore the reality is that news that is not in the reporters beat, or events and issues where there is no good footage available will go unreported (Shoemaker and Reese 1996, p. 265). Thus the principle of equality that is so essential for democracy is missing. On the contrary it has the potential to develop into a system that accommodates tyranny of a certain sect of society. The effect of this on democracy would be devastating. Shoemaker and Reese (1996) examines the extent to which minorities are underrepresented not only in the media but also in a democracy, concluding that the more a minority has acclimated itself or an individual from a minority has acculturated himself/herself to the ways of the majority, the better his/her prospects and socio-economic level is. An example they illustrate to give us an insight is the fact that there are more television characters with high status jobs than there are with low status jobs. They also note that in an elite medium there are less or no workers similar to its general population, concluding that the more the media criticizes the government, the more the government tries to control the media (Shoemaker and Reese 1996).

Thus for democracy to function it is essential that its fourth estate the press and more importantly a free press serves the purpose it is meant to serve. It is for this reason that laws cannot have bearing on it rather vice versa, it must be able to provide a reasonable inventory as to whether the law of the land is being implemented in the spirit it was written in. Belsey and Chadwick (1998, p. 6) mention that the need for media freedom has been recognised in various conventions and charters of the human rights and also in the First Amendment to the constitution of the United states of America. Belsey and Chadwick (1998, pp. 8-9) explains that unlike other professionals like health-care professionals, who due to malpractice can cause a lot more serious harm, journalists’ invading privacy is not as harmful, although there are exceptions. But given the nature of Journalism, journalists cannot be penalised for malpractice. More importantly given that laws often conflict with ethics and journalists trying to do their job and the fact that the press is such a vital part of a democratic society, journalists can do without having to be fearful of repercussions. Belsey and Chadwick (1998, p. 9) exclaim that the idea that a journalist must have a license to practice journalism and be faced with the possibility that his/her licence will be removed for violating a code of conduct is most definitely too draconian. More importantly it is an anti-democratic solution to the problem of media malpractice and would enable democracy being undermined even more than it would have been by the malpractice.

Given that it is anti-democratic to have laws that restrict and bind the ‘free press’, especially at the level it exists at present and given that in the dynamics and mechanics of a democracy it is essential to have a free press, there can only be one solution. It is the journalists who need to be ethical. Belsey and Chadwick (1998, p. 5) points out that the issue of quality is still inescapable. Quality journalism that does not rob the public of their right to knowledge, facilitating political discussion is as important to democracy as a press that is not bound by the law of the land. “A free and vigorous press and other organs of mass media and mass communications are agreed to be among the essential ingredients of a healthy democracy. (We include the word ‘vigorous’ because it is clear that freedom is not sufficient: a press could be free yet timid or torpid.)” (Belsey and Chadwick 1998, p. 6). They also debate whether the law can act as a mechanism of quality control or whether it should be the ethical code or the moral responsibility of journalists, concluding that regardless of the law having control over the press or not Journalists are still required to be ethical. They point out that in the present system with the law restricting the press the media are still capable of offending without straying beyond the law in ways like inaccuracy, lies, distortions, bias, propaganda, favouritism, sensationalism, trivialisation, lapses of taste, vulgarity, sleaze, sexism, racism, homophobia, personal attacks, smears, character assassination, cheque-book journalism, deception, betrayal of confidences and invasions of privacy. They further acknowledge that in the United States where the law is less restrictive, ethical debate between both the practitioners of Journalism and theoreticians is widespread, lively and widely accepted as the norm (Belsey and Chadwick 1998, pp. 6-8). Frost (2000, pp. 28-29) draws the contrast between France and Sweden pointing out that “in France, the law covers a wide range of issues that are dealt with by other countries in their press codes of ethical conduct. It is no surprise therefore that France, with its tough constitution and laws, has a limited code of journalistic conduct whilst Sweden, which has practically no legislation in the area of ethical media activity, has a strong code and regulatory media council that is taken very seriously by practitioners.” Thus imposing laws on the media makes the media less ethical whereas the lesser laws are imposed on the media the stronger code of ethics is followed and given that it is in a democracies interest to have a free press it is definitely the only way. The media is then governed by its code that enables it to stand up against the powerful and stand up for the weak, rather than being dictated to, and used as an instrument by the political and economic elite.

In truth any government or regime that does not allow the press to operate freely cannot be called a democracy. As Frost (2000, p. 25) rightly points out that any political system that does not allow the participation of all its citizens or for that matter a political system that does not require the participation of all its citizens through the ballot box would not require a free media. A free media in such a system would potentially be a voice of dissent that is likely to cause disruption in the society more than anything else, as it is unlikely that it would be of any use to the citizens themselves unless they are seeking to introduce democracy by trying to change the government. In this sense it is not accurate to call a government that does not allow a free press to facilitate participation from all citizens a democracy. Left only to the participation of the political and economic elite it will only make the rich, richer and the powerful, more powerful and this will happen at the expense of the poor and the weak that would continue to plummet into an even direr situation. This is most definitely contrary to the principles of democracy. Davies (2008, p. 73) points out that in the present circumstance news produced can be reliable and effective to its readers only if the outside providers of news are giving an effective and reliable account. The consequences will change the nature of Journalism itself and have considerable impact on what democracy will be described as. As far as the question as to whether Journalism should be a trade or a crusade and should journalists have a moral responsibility to take a stand for the weak and oppressed against the powerful, it is evident that if they do not do so we have to redefine what democracy is and democracy would cease to mean and be what it has been.

REFERENCE LIST

Bell, M (1995), In Harm’s Way, Hamish Hamilton, London.

Belsey, A & Chadwick, R (1998), Ethical Issues In Journalism And The Media, Routledge, London.

Bernstein, C & Woodward, B (1974), All The President’s Men, Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, New York.

Curran, J & Gurevitch, M (1996), Mass Media and Society, Arnold, London.

Davies, N (2008), Flat Earth News: An Award-winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda, Chatto & Windus, London.

Frost, C (2000), Media Ethics And Self-Regulation, Longman, London.

McNair, B (1998), The sociology of Journalism, Arnold, London.

Palast, G (2003), The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, Robinson, London.

Shoemaker, P & Reese, S (1996), Mediating the Message: Theories of Influence on

Mass Media Content, Longman, New York.

Spark, D (2003), Investigative Reporting, Focal Press, Oxford.

Sunstein, C (2001), ‘Exposure To Other View Points is Vital to Democracy’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Viewed 27 October 2008, .