On the Media (Part 2): Information's Role in a Democracy

{The second of case studies concerning the media and democracy. The first was published on February 18, 2017.}

Enshrined in the First Amendment is a key instrument towards maintaining democracy: the free press (Bennett, 2007, p. 4). The free press ideally functions as a watchdog or as Cook (1998) terms a “fourth branch” of government, able to provide critical information on serious issues, as well as the policy activities of government to provide accountability on behalf of the citizens (Bennett, 2007, p. 4; Cook, p.2). Recently, forces have arisen within the sociopolitical and economic systems that challenge the media’s ability to remain an objective, independent force necessary for the functioning of democracy. Specifically, the consolidation of media companies into media conglomerates in which political news becomes part of a profiteering enterprise in concurrence with increasing informational biases in reporting threaten democratic problem-solving on serious issues (Bennett, 2007, p. 22, 40; Daws, 2009, p. 148). Thus, I will make the argument for the following question as central in guiding our study of political journalism in the context of these political and profit-influenced informational biases: What can be done to facilitate increased analytical depth and informational diversity in the news citizens consume in making important political decisions?

First, if we understand political journalism to be an institution or “fourth branch” that facilitates the continued free-flowing diversity of ideas necessary to a democratic society, this question becomes more relevant (Cook, 1998, p. 2-4). In turn, the question necessitates a closer examination of the mediated political journalistic system in order to evaluate its performance on this critical duty the press has (Bennett, 2007, p.4-5, 67). Stepping back to look at the political journalism system as a whole, the audience (i.e. citizens) indirectly receive news stories transmitted to them by journalists via multiple channels, via “assimilation in to existing cultural categories” or narrative patterns in order for these stories to connect with news consumers (Bennett, 2007, p. 40-41; Schudson, 2007, p. 253-254). These narrative forms reveal an inherent bias in the media that warrants closer examination for its impacts on the ability for citizens to critically evaluate information (Bennett, 2007, p. 41, 49, 61). If government derives its power from its citizens, citizens have a civic imperative to be well informed on issues from multiple perspectives in order to make the best decisions possible and be active participants in their government’s political processes (Bennett, 2007, p. 4-5). Furthermore, it becomes necessary to understand these informational biases and pre-determined news formulae as products of a shift to a profiteering news industry as quintessential to our understanding on how political journalism facilitates citizens’ comprehension of critical issues that affect our democratic system of government (Bennett, 2007, p. 22, 40, 49, 67; Cook, 1998, p.2-4; Schudson, p. 254-255). So far, our study of political journalism can be guided along more effectively via our evaluation of the media’s performance in relation to its critical democratic information dissemination function (Bennett, 2007, p. 2, 4).

Now, let us turn to an examination of how the central question of the media’s responsibility to disseminate in-depth coverage of issues important to our country’s democratic functioning from the lens of informational biases present in political news reporting. These four information biases hinted at above, known as personalization, dramatization, fragmentation, and authority-disorder bias provide an essential platform for our study of political journalism, as they show the evolution of media (in extension, political journalism) to more packaged, encapsulated, and isolated storytelling narratives that threaten the informational depth necessary for citizens’ understanding of their democracy (Bennett, 2007, p. 49; Schudson, 2007, p. 253). Moreover, the news media’s tendency to artificially induce or emphasize the dramatic, human-interests side of the story is not inherently problematic until we understand that political journalism is not using this device in order to connect people with in-depth analyses of the issues at hand (Bennett, 2007, p. 41). Moreover, because of these informational biases, people are presented with a barrage of events that seem unconnected instead of as part of the larger picture, making the world seem more chaotic and thus inviting citizens to forgo problem solving on serious issues because they seem inevitable (Bennett, 2007, p. 41, 61). However, the provision of in-depth analyses of the processes behind events would serve to de-mystify these seemingly unstoppable forces driving events (Bennett, 2007, p. 41, 61).

Continuing on our analysis of the importance of the central question of media information quality in relation to democratic functioning, because these informational biases influenced by the increased commercialization of journalism in general, the issue of democratic participation is critical. Recalling that the media is supposed to serve a critical function as the “fourth estate”, analogous to a fourth branch of government, as well as going further by incorporating an additional assumption supported by Cook (1998) that media serves as an “unelected intermediary institution,” the informational quality media provides becomes very much salient (Cook, 1998, p. 2, 4). Furthermore, to understand the media as an intermediary between the three branches of government and the people and study it from the standpoint that media is thus accountable in the quality of information it provides allows for a beneficially closer and structured study of the nuances and factors that come into play in regards to the interdependent elements of the political journalism model (Cook, 1998, p. 2-4). In other words, media as the informal “fourth branch” of our government provides an overarching model or context in which we can establish our study of political journalism via the various informational biases at play in everyday reporting that distort or leave out other events happening in the world (Bennett p. 59-61; Cook, 1998, p. 2-3).

Consequentially, we come back to the central question regarding how to facilitate increased informational quality and diversity in the media as essential to our understanding of media’s crucial role in democracy as an intermediary (Cook, 1998, p. 2-3). While there is considerable debate concerning media “reform,” including whether or not in trying to alleviate these informational quality issues brought about by various informational biases in the media would actually lead to governmental censorship of the news (and perhaps stifle the very news diversity that free market competition brings about), the central question I have presented provides a platform for exploration of these very critical issues affecting our democracy (“Narrative and the Human Condition” lecture, 2/1/16). Ultimately, if one can find an overarching model or central question from which to understand the media even as it is embedded in various societal institutions and forces in our democratic society, one’s study of political journalism takes on a scholarly significance or advances overall understanding of the media’s place and responsibility towards democratic functioning (Cook, 1998, p. 2-4).

In essence, media plays an enormous role in the functioning of our democracy today (Bennett, 2007, p. 4-5). Furthering our understanding of those news products (including their imperfections and the factors playing into how the media has incorporated these imperfections into everyday journalistic practices) in today’s mainstream media and how citizens’ understanding of the world can be better facilitated provides a clear and methodical way to understand the interrelationship between journalism and politics (Cook, 1998, p. 2-4). To conclude, the central question that I have posited in this analysis provides the scholarly framework needed to help stimulate further study of these informational biases in media in the context of its simultaneous function as the intermediary between citizens and the separate branches of government, despite the scholastically challenging prospect of media being connected to various forces at work in our country today (Cook, 1998, p. 2-4; Schudson, 2007, p. 254-255).


Works Cited:

Bennett, W. L. & Graber, D.A. (2007). News: The Politics of Illusion (6th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.

Cook, T. E. (1998). Governing With the News: The News Media as a Political Institution (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Daws, L. B. (2009). Media Monopoly: Understanding Vertical and Horizontal Integration. Communication Teacher, 23(4), 148-152. Retrieved January 27, 2016, from http://libweb.uwlax.edu:2157/doi/pdf/10.1080/17404620903218783.

Schudson, M. (2007). The Anarchy of Events and the Anxiety of Story Telling. Political Communication, 24(3), 253-257. Retrieved January 27, 2016, from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584600701471534.