MONITORIAL ROLE OF THE MEDIA IN PROMOTING DEMOCRACY
Agu, Ikenna E.
BSU/SS/COM/PHD/16/7340
COM 902: Media Rights and Responsibilities
Department of Mass Communication
Benue State University, Makurdi
Abstract
The paper focused on the monitoring role of the media in promoting democracy. It dwells more on how media monitoring role impacts positively in the development of democracy and the society in general. Conceptual clarification treated in details media and democracy, and monitorial role of the media. In the literature review, related issues like attacking the ideological order and Public debate and citizen journalism were analyzed. Social responsibility theory of the press was used to underline this paper. In the discussion, it was pointed out that ownership of the media; revenue problem and the involvement of quacks are major problem facing the monitoring role of the media in promotion of democracy. In conclusion, it was agreed that the monitoring role of the media should be made an integral part of democracy instead of being isolated and treated as opposition function.
Key Words: Monitorial role, Media, Democracy
Introduction
Access to information is essential to the health and promotion of democracy for at least two reasons. First, it ensures that citizens make responsible, informed choices rather than acting out of ignorance or misinformation. Second, information serves a “checking function” by ensuring that elected representatives uphold their oaths of office and carry out the wishes of those who elected them. In some societies, an antagonistic relationship between media and government represents a vital and healthy element of fully functioning democracies. While media is considered to be a part of the civil society arena, it is well known that media overlaps other functional areas of democracy and governance. For example, support for media may yield results in governance activities, particularly those related to decentralization, anti-corruption, and citizen participation in the policy process. Huntington (1991) said that the rule of law may be further institutionalized by support for an independent media that keeps a check on the judiciary, reports on the courts, and promotes a legal enabling environment suitable for press freedom. Free and fair elections conducted through transparent processes require a media sector which gives candidates equal access, and reports the relevant issues in a timely, objective manner.
International conventions buttress media activities. Most notably, Article 19 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Lewis (2012) further stated that credible outlets enable citizens to have access to information that they need to make informed decisions and to participate in society. A media sector supportive of democracy would be one that has a degree of editorial independence, is financially viable, has diverse and plural voices, and serves the public interest. The public interest is defined as representing a plurality of voices both through a greater number of outlets and through the diversity of views and voices reflected within one outlet.
This paper will take an in-depth look at the monitorial roles media perform in the promotion of democracy which has been the kind of government that is spreading very fast across the world since the last quarter of a century.
Conceptual Clarification
Media and democracy
Having discussed issues relating to the normative roles of journalism, we will now address some contentious issues regarding the actual role of media in democratization processes in relation to these normative roles. The need for a truly independent, ‘neutral’ and ‘objective’ media inherent to the monitorial role is already very questionable in mature Western democracies (Carpentier, 2005; Entman, 2007). It is thus not entirely unsurprising that this is also often very problematic in countries that have just emerged out of authoritarian rule, especially since local political elites tend to reject the principle of an adversarial press as they are used to expect a loyal and ‘collaborative’ media.
Democracy is therefore often marred by open as well as latent conflicts between the political and media elites over the extent of press freedom or conversely over the nature of government intervention in the media. As a result of this, a duality can be observed between, on one hand, ‘patterns of deference and even subservience’ – that is, a collaborative journalism toward ideological friends – and, on the other hand, a radical oppositional journalism toward ideological enemies; the latter often ‘takes on an extremely polemic tone and often uses rumors and fabricated accusations’ (Voltmer, 2010: 141).
The liberalization or ‘freeing’ of the media in democracy, which is often seen as one of the pre-conditions for democratization, tends to go hand in hand with a (further) commercialization or privatization of the media. This invokes issues of media ownership and media concentration. For example, Waisbord (2010) asserts that despite political democratization, the media in Latin America remains highly vulnerable to both market and state capture, leading him to conclude that in Latin America ‘democratic rule has not significantly altered the historical structural relations among media, state, and market’.
As a result of all this, the social responsibility invested in the media and mainly their facilitative role – that is, the need to act in the interest of all citizens and the common good, to protect and to advocate democratic values, to provide a platform for all different voices in a society – tend to be compromised as the liberalization and privatization of the media might lead to a highly fractious media landscape. In such a context, various political forces, religious, ethnic, or sectarian groups seek to control parts of the media, resulting in a lack or marginalization of genuinely independent media (monitorial) and a reduction of the public interest (facilitative) to partisan, religious, or ethnic interests (radical/collaborative).
In journalism studies, the notion of professionalism is increasingly contested (cf. Waisbord, 2013). New journalistic practices such as citizen or grassroots journalism challenge professionalism and threaten ‘the jurisdictional claims of professionals’ (Lewis, 2012: 850). In recent years and especially in emerging democratic contexts, citizen journalists using blogs and social media play an increasingly important role. This leads not only to tensions but also to collaborations between non-professional and professional journalists.
Concerning the collaborative and radical roles, it is clear that a complete lack of balance or of a certain degree of respect for ideological difference and for political opponents can foster antagonisms that are potentially destructive for democracy and for civic cultures. For democracy to work, Mouffe (2005) argues, hegemony of democratic values is essential: ‘A democracy cannot treat those who put its basic institutions into question as legitimate adversaries’. We therefore need, Mouffe contends, a ‘consensus on the ethico-political values of liberty and equality for all, dissent about their interpretation’.
Furthermore, if we accept that irreconcilable conflicts are a feature of all society, the crucial question becomes how these irreconcilable conflicts are dealt with and pacified in a democracy, if only partially or temporarily. Mouffe (2005) argues that the main role of a democracy and of all political elites should be to revert antagonistic conflicts whereby the ideological ‘other’ is articulated as an enemy who’s repression is legitimated into agonistic conflicts whereby the ideological ‘other’ is positioned as an adversary, that is, legitimate to exist, but also to disagree with.
The monitorial role
The liberal model emphasizes the need of journalism to act as a watchdog, to be independent and critical of the powers that be. Example, in the immediate aftermath of the uprising, a growing sense of empowerment among Egyptian journalists emerged to the extent of tackling topics that used to be strictly forbidden under the former regime. This statement of journalist of a private newspaper is reflective of this liberating trend that was arguably short-lived. The monitorial role of the media in promoting democracy according to Christians et al (2009) include;
- Keeping and publishing an agenda of public event as notified by cultural institutions.
- Receiving, screening notices and messages intended by external sources to further public dissemination; here, media act as an agent both of voices in society and of the public or intended audience as the latter presumably search for information.
- Maintaining a reportorial presence at the main forum where political, social and economic decisions are made, or new events are announced, and set in motion; this includes routine coverage of parliament, assemblies, law court, press conferences of significant bodies and so forth.
- Publishing reports on significant current events and reproducing key factual data on a continuous basis.
- Providing the public with the warning of risks, threats and dangers that might have consequences for it, ranging from weather reports to travel restrictions and foreign wars and disorder.
- Providing a guide to public opinion and to attitude of beliefs of key groups and figures on major issues.
- Offering an agenda that signals current programme and issues according to criteria of relevance and significance to the audience and society.
- Providing analysis and interpretation of events and opinion in a balanced and judicious manner.
- Acting as a fourth estate in political matters by mediating between government and citizens and providing a means of holding government accountable at the bar of public opinion.
- Adopting an active watchdog stance by “barking” when some major social actors is perceived to be acting against the public interest in an underhanded and disguised way.
- Initiating and pursuing self-chosen inquires when the information obtained suggests major deviance from moral and social order; this may involve keeping track of gossip, rumour, and unofficial and social information.
Theoretical Framework
Social Responsibility Theory
The media like any other sector should not harm, but should promote environment and socio-cultural aspects in relation to the economy of the place. Social Responsibility theory of mass media is relatively a new concept which started in the mid-20th century and is used mostly by developing and least developed countries. The theory started from Europe and took a shape with the Commission on the Freedom of Press that happened in United States in 1949.
The model was designed formally by Siebert, Peterson and Schramm in 1956 in their book. It encourages total freedom to press and no censorship, but it should be regulated according to social responsibilities and external controls. Content is also filtered through public obligation and interference. The theory replaced libertarian theory with the view that libertarianism was outdated. The theory also incorporates some aspects of authoritarian theory. After the emergence of this theory, professionalism in media started to be taken seriously.
Social Responsibility Theory Concepts
“Freedom of expression under the social responsibility theory is not an absolute right, as under pure libertarian theory. One’s right to free expression must be balanced against the private rights of others and against vital society interest. – Siebert, Peterson, and Schramm. The social responsibility theory of mass media changed the way press published news from objective reporting to interpretative reporting. Before this theory, facts were presented without any interpretation. The social responsibility theory of mass media changed the way press published news from objective reporting to interpretative reporting. Before this theory, facts were presented without any interpretation.
The audience interpreted it the way they wanted to. This caused problems as interpretation was not based on reality and it affected the social order. Interpretative reporting and investigative reporting started to uncover the reality behind every case. In Social Responsibility Theory, the press is taken to be for the people and society. The tasks of the press is to make a code of conduct and follow it, to develop a standard in journalism, to make journalism better, to protect journalists and to have penalties if any journalist violates the code of conduct. This way, the facts provided by the press are analyzed and interpreted so that the people get true information and understandable news. This helps maintain social harmony by revealing social evils like corruption and discouraging other bad conducts.
The media is taken as a place for the voiceless to have a voice and develop public opinions where each and every person has the right to speak, express and publish. . It is considered not an end but a tool for social development. Therefore, the objectives of media are stated to inform, document, analyze, interpret, mediate and mobilize by creating and finding solutions.
Major Features of Social Responsibility Theory
• Private press ownership
Press is supposed to be owned privately. The government does not own the press. The private owners should publish within the ethical guidelines and in a responsible way.
• Helps democracy prosper
• Media as a democratic institution
Media is not a part of the government and it must work on its own. It has the freedom to do anything they want, just not work out of the ethical standards.
• Public participation
Public must get to participate through comments, response, write and get involved in all aspects of media’s work.
• Emphasis on social responsibility
The media must be responsible towards the society.
• Self-regulation in media
The media must have some boundaries within itself to be ethical. The regulations are to be followed by all the media professionals involved in the particular institution.
• Code of ethics
All the media institutions must have a written or unwritten code of ethics which should be the standard followed by all.
• Professional standards
The quality of the publishing should be maintained, false interpretation of any information should be avoided.
• Media role of criticizing government
Media is allowed to criticize the government roles, works and policies. It is done to help the government get better.
• Helping eradicate social problems
Media must speak against and aware people about social problems as it is media’s responsibility to work for the betterment of the society.
• Pluralistic media (including ideas and people from different groups)
Media must write the views of different groups of people and not only about a single group. It must never be biased.
• Social benefit
Media must work for the society and only do the things that are beneficial to the society. It should not write about the things that are ambiguous or contradictory as those message might cause conflict in the society.
Strengths of Social Responsibility Theory
• It helps in avoiding conflicts during wars and conflicts.
• It accepts public opinion and works for the citizens.
• Press and media houses do not have monopoly as rules and ethics guide them.
• The media publishes truth due to regulatory activities and their moral obligation to do so .
• Yellow journalism decreases as media can be questioned by the law and public.
• There is pluralism and diversification on news and people involved.
• The voiceless and marginalized people are able to raise their voice.
Weaknesses of Social Responsibility Theory
• Ethics are always vague, ambiguous and differs from case to case.
• It is difficult to determine who sets clear principles and standards.
Social responsibility and ethics are morally obligatory things. Any form of legal limitations should not be imposed if media is just working in the principle of responsibility. Laws are authoritative and not democratic concepts.
Relevance of the theory to the topic
Social responsibility theory is a theory that encourages the media to be objective, fair and balance in reportage especially for the good of the society. In line with the topic of this paper, the theory properly underlines this work taking into consideration that the monitorial role of the media in promoting democracy is to provide information that will help the people to make informed decision and also serve as a check to those in authority to formulate and implement people oriented policies and projects for the general good of the society.
Literature Review
Public debate and citizen journalism
One of the major gains of media in democracy is the expansion of the diversity of political views expressed on a variety of media platforms, even on state-owned media. This new trend is even tested by media actors openly challenging policies and actions of the government in government owned media.
The Internet, mainly blogs and social media, represent another important way through which the public space is enlarged and public voices increased (Daoudi and Murphy, 2011). This also led to more interaction between online and mainstream media. Almost all journalists are using social media tools in connecting with their audiences.
However, besides the opportunities this created, there were also critiques of the ways in which these interactions between blogs, social media, and mainstream media legitimated a media style based on rumors leading to further confusion. Some considered the increased reliance on social media as a source of news a regression in professional standards.
This concern is echoed by a writer and journalist who connects this to the changes in the political landscape post-revolution and argues that these changes left journalists in a state of confusion as to how they should define media professionalism:
Attacking the ideological ‘order’
Journalists’ role as political activists can help in attacking and dismantling a political ideology which could divide or cause problem in the society. A good example is how the Egyptian media came to prominence during the Islamic Brotherhood government in conjunction with the flourishing of private media outlets and the growing appetite to invest in media as a platform for political lobbying. One clear manifestation of this was the expansion of the role of the talk shows as the most popular and vibrant arena for political debate (El Issawi, 2013). In order to increase their popularity, the personality of the talk show hosts and their political stances became the main focus of the TV shows. Egyptian talk show hosts evolved into genuine celebrities, which came with considerable financial benefits. The prominence of these debate platforms and the growing popularity of talk show ‘stars’ were accompanied by the emergence of two contradictory journalistic roles: the attackdog journalist, aligning with the radical role, and the lapdog journalist, concurring with the collaborative role. The main function of the latter is to legitimize the political camp he or she is supporting, and the role of the former is to mobilize against the ideological ‘enemies’ to the extent of spreading fabricated news, rumors, and misinformation. These two journalistic roles co-existed in the practice of the same professional group and sometimes even in the practices of the same media professional.
Under the Brotherhood government, private media led a fierce battle against what they considered to be an attempt by the Islamic group to ‘brotherhoodize’ the state institutions in the interest of implementing their conservative and religious policies. The alleged struggle between the Islamic government and the so-called deep state – the apparatus of civil servants with decades of loyalty to the old regime (Momani, 2013) – was also reflected in the media through a radical attackdog journalistic style directed at the Muslim Brotherhood. The hostile relationship between the popular talk show hosts and the Brotherhood government extended to the point of direct attacks between the (in the mean time deposed) president, Mohamed Morsi, and some of the most prominent media figures (Fawzy, 2012).
In this highly contentious context, the Western ideals of objectivity, impartiality and fairness in representation, as prescribed by the liberal normative model, were seen to not be compatible with what Egyptian journalists considered to be their duty, namely to take a stance in the ongoing political struggle. The answer of a talk show star on his understanding of objectivity and his role as a journalist is illustrative in this regard.
Most of the journalists interviewed expressed their difficulty in drawing a line between their personal political positioning and their professional role. While this activist style was praised as an expression of national or revolutionary ‘duty’ by a number of journalists interviewed, from the perspective of democratization this radicalization is potentially highly damaging.
The attack dog media style used by activist journalists and pertaining to the radical role systematically portrayed the Islamic government as non-patriotic, as in the service of foreign regimes, aiming of destroying the state, selling out its heritage, and so on. Through the dissemination of information on dangerous plots and alleged conspiracies by the Brotherhood leadership against the state, often based on confidential documents selectively leaked by the security apparatus, the liberal media – which in an Egyptian context refers to the non-Islamic media or media with an anti-Islamic agenda – became an important factor in the attempts to delegitimize the fragile newly democratically elected government. The most prominent platform to delegitimize the government policies was the program of the satirist Bassem Youssef, who consistently ridiculed the government to the extent of accusing it of planning to rent out some main touristic monuments to the Qatari government.
In reaction to this, the Muslim Brotherhood government resorted to the restrictive legal provisions that prevailed under the Mubarak regime to silence criticism, leading to an unprecedented wave of legal pursuits against journalists based on an article in the Penal Code that criminalized insulting the person of the president. There were around 30 similar cases against media staff and writers during the first 8 months of Morsi’s rule according to a report by a local non-governmental organization (NGO) (The Arabic Network of Human Rights Information, 2013). At the same time, Islamic media, especially online, were spreading a similar message of exclusion and antagonism against prominent liberal journalists media and liberal, that is, anti-Islamic, political leaders (Khondker, 2011).
This political activism against the Muslim Brotherhood government was led first and foremost by the elite of journalists, talk show hosts, and opinion writers. Asked about their role in fueling political tension, most senior journalists interviewed claimed a role going beyond informing to advocating for political change. Asked whether national media was shaping politics, thus contributing to the further social and political polarization, an editor-in-chief of a private newspaper proclaimed, ‘This is a war we did not chose’. For him, the role to be played by journalists was to provide privileged access to all actors opposing the new regime, which aligns with a radical/oppositional role.
In other words, the very forces that propel revolutionary change are not necessarily conducive to or embedded in democratic values to begin with. This takes us to the final section exploring the collaborative role played by Egyptian journalists, locating it in the historical relationship between Egyptian media and the power structure.
Discussion
There is no doubt that the monitoring role of the media is key to the promotion of democracy especially its norms and values. The questions begging for answers have always been; how well has the media performed this function. Many countries including Nigeria who are still battling to position their media to perform this role very well as they always attribute the ownership of the media as a problem they are facing. Like the saying goes “he who pays the piper calls the tune”.
Also, it has been observed that media in countries with strong economy are performing this function very well as they don’t depend on government to generate revenue to run their media. It is an issue media from poor economy are still battling with as most economic activities revolve around the government. Also, a bigger problem to this is the involvement of non-professionals in the performance of media role. Without proper training, they find it difficult keeping to the rules and ethics of the profession. Remarkably, these non-professionals are readily and viable tool in the hand of media detractor in their quest to counter what the professionals are doing as regards to the monitoring role of the media.
Conclusion
Overtime, it has been agreed that media which is the fourth estate of the realm is the life wire of democracy. Monitoring role of the media should not be viewed in isolation from other areas of democracy and governance, and understood to only be important when it is convenient to the authorities. In fact, greater impact may be achieved by integrating media into additional democracy and governance areas, particularly rule of law. This indirect approach may prove extremely beneficial in societies that are having less media impact.
References
Carpentier N (2005) Identity, contingency and rigidity: The (counter-)hegemonic constructions of the identity of the media professional. Journalism 6(2): 199–219.
Christians, C.G., Glasser, T.L., McQuail D, et al. (2009) Normative Theories of the Media: Journalism in Democratic Societies. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Daoudi A and Murphy E (2011) Framing new communicative technologies in the Arab world. Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research 4(1): 3–22.
El Issawi F (2014) Egyptian media under transition: In the name of the regime ... In the name of the people? POLIS report. Available at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/Polis/home.aspx.
Entman RM (2007) Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of Communication57(1): 163–173. Fahim K (2014) Egypt extends its crackdown to journalists. New York Times, 20 February. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/world/middleeast/egypt-extends-its-crackdown-to-journalists.html?_r=0
Fawzy S (2012) Morsi’s democracy devoid of press and media freedoms. Jadaliyya, 19 December. Available at: http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/08/21-egypt-brotherhood-momani.
Huntington S (1991) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
Khondker HH (2011) Role of the new media in the Arab Spring. Globalizations 8(5): 675–679.
Lewis S (2012) The tension between professional control and open participation. Information, Communication & Society 15(6): 836–866.
MomaniB(2013) InEgypt,‘Deep State’ vs. Brotherhoodization’.Brookings, 21August.Available at:http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/08/21-egypt-brotherhood-momani.
Mouffe, C. (2005). On the Political. London: Routledge.
Voltmer K (2010) The media, government accountability, and citizen engagement. In: Norris P (ed.) Public Sentinel: News Media & Governance Reform. Washington, DC: The World Bank, pp. 137–159.
Voltmer K (2013) The Media in Transitional Democracies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Waisbord SR (2010) Latin America. In: Norris P (ed.) Public Sentinel: News Media & Governance Reform. Washington, DC: The World Bank, pp. 305–28.
Waisbord SR (2013) Reinventing Professionalism: Journalism and News in Global Perspective. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Comments
Post a Comment