What Has the Media Done to Our Democracy?

If you live in a democracy you may be counting				deference". I, for one, agree that deference is not
your lucky stars. No dictatorship for you. Of				appropriate. I do however, feel that disrespect of
course, what goes hand-in-hand with a democratic				politicians is wrong. What they have forgotten is
society is a free press as it was known - a free				that politicians were elected by us The People. By
media in modern speak.				showing a lack of respect to our politicians, the
For the purposes of this article, I will split the				unelected journos, editors and producers are
media into two categories: partisan and				showing disrespect to us, The People. The sad
non-partisan. By partisan, I am not just referring				thing is that a free media that is not interfered
to a political party but any party, or pressure				with by government is surely an essential element
group, that has an axe to grind. Usually partisan				in a democracy. The arrogance and downright
media is biased either to the left or to the right of				rudeness shown by some broadcasters is
politics. Some outlets claim to be in the middle but				undermining this notion and bringing free media
reserve the right to take a view on specific				into disrespect.
issues. Some others exist to promote - or decry				Any rumblings against this trend are never aired -
- a specific issue or limited basket of issues.				for obvious reasons - the broadcasters simply
In most countries, partisan media tends to be				ignore it. Politicians dare not complain for fear of
print and internet. Non-partisan media tends to be				being virtually boycotted by the media, or worse,
broadcast media. I know there are plenty of				being pilloried. It may be too late already. Those
exceptions (e.g. many local radio stations in the				that interview politicians usually earn more than
U.S., Russia etc), but I am taking liberties with a				their interviewees. Isn't that symbolic of the shift
sweeping generalization.				in power in our society? In the UK, political parties
With media that is partisan we usually are aware				are gradually merging into a liberal, left-of-centre
from which angle they are coming from. We				lump, herded like sheep by the largely liberal
would probably not choose to consume this media				minded BBC.
if we were not sympathetic with the thrust of				I am not suggesting that the BBC is institutionally
the given publication. With partisan media you				biased nor that there is a great conspiracy. It's
generally are aware that you are receiving				simply that it attracts liberal-minded people just as
information where the emphasis is weighted a				the majority of those in the arts tend to be on
certain way.				the left and industrialists on the right. That's the
What is of greater concern is media that is				way it is. By the same token, the media have
supposedly unbiased. Usually, as stated, this is				strong links with the entertainment industry.
broadcast media and often this impartial,				Surely, the mirror image of the damage done to
non-partisan output is stipulated by law. In theory				politics is the generous promotion and subsidies
we should be able to count on these outlets as a				given to the arts, including commercial cinema.
safe haven for straightforward and accurate				How many other commercial enterprises are
information. Broadcast media in western countries				subsidized in this way? Could a ball-bearings
is generally free of government interference as				manufacturer plug his product on the BBC in the
long as what they broadcast is decent, truthful				way that a film or theatre producer can promote
and, of course, is impartial. But is there any such				his? Imagine the uproar on the media if
thing as unbiased reporting of news? How can this				government subsidies to the arts were taken
be measured? A crude method used by some				away. Also, though, imagine the uproar from the
broadcasters is to count complaints from the left				same media if my political representative asked
and from the right. If the two balance then that's				for a pay rise!
all right then. Trouble is, most complainers do not				The mad thing about this is that the BBC itself
declare which part of the political spectrum they				often muses about the lack of respect for
are complaining from, so this complaint-counting				politicians and the low turnout in elections. What
exercise is in itself subject to valued judgements				nerve!
and therefore bias.				Lately there has been a great deal of anti U.S.
In the UK the BBC has about half the share of				sentiment coming out of the BBC. This was at
total broadcasting. It is one of those organizations				one time confined to Justin Webb, their U.S.
that is charged with providing unbiased news and				Correspondent who attempted on more than one
information. The problem with the BBC, as with				occasion to belittle Americans. While he has
other similar organizations around the world is				recently been far more reasonable and more
they decide what news to broadcast and in what				rounded in his coverage, the rest of the BBC's
order or priority; they decide who to interview				anti U.S. output seems to be gathering pace.
and they ask the questions. Don't get me wrong -				Surely a broadcaster which is supposed to be
I wouldn't want it any other way. To have a				impartial should at least stick to a few ground
media outlet controlled by government, for				rules:
example, would be potentially disastrous. But the				1. Cut out the speculation: stop trying to predict
ability to set the news agenda gives large				the news. Just report facts
broadcasters a great deal of power.				2. Don't analyze the news. Just report facts
The old adage is never truer: with power comes				3. Don't pass judgements. Just report facts
responsibility. Those broadcasters who decide to				4. Don't load questions with biased judgements
run these news stories are, by definition,				5. Try to make questions shorter, so that the
censoring those news stories. Many a well planned				interviewees can be heard
press release and news conference has been				6. Remember that you are part of a democracy
scuppered by the red pen (or delete key) of a				and do not run the country. We have our own
news editor. Many a politician with a story to tell				politicians to do that.
has been diverted into a completely different				Those that study recent history will know of the
subject by the interviewer whose editor is intent				important and sometimes heroic part that the
on an ambush. A journalist once said that a good				media, including broadcast media, has played
journalist is someone who gets a politician to say				around the world, especially when combating
something they didn't want to say (or words to				reactionary regimes and aiding fledgling
that effect). What arrogance! And this is another				democracies. Bombed transmitters, locked-up and
sport of journalists. Journos talking about other				murdered journalists, smashed printing presses: all
journos. Perhaps they will eat each other and we				these inexcusable acts are a testament to the
can start again. They have a curious way of				importance and power of the media. It will be
confusing their own output with public opinion. An				tragic if too much power turns our society into a
interviewer earnestly feels that he is representing				dictatorship - dictated by the media itself, leaving
the public when he puts his questions. Did he				our politicians - and therefore us - as bystanders.
conduct a poll? How does he know what				Perhaps we should wind the clock back a little. No
questions we want him to put?				to deference, but yes to respect. No to
The BBC, as well as being obsessed with class (a				pontificating and yes to straight news reporting.
quaint notion about having upper, middle and lower				Back to a bygone age such as that featured at
strands of people) has often hailed the "end of				bygonetv.