|
Notes for Lecture 1 Media and the Democratic Republic |
Dr. Janet McMullen
Copyright, 2002
Last Updated: 09/10/2002
Q: What is the role of the news media in a democratic republic?
Q: Do you think the new media are doing their job in that respect?
Assumption Number 1: The founders intended that every citizen have the right to vote for president.
What did our founders say about the role of media? (Discuss)
First Amendment - WHY?
Obviously, the founders believed a free press was important, and that individual citizens needed it to have the information necessary to make intelligent decisions about self-governance. HOWEVER, the founders may not have been as "populist" as we might think. It seems they were very concerned about run away public opinion.....
Patterson writes (p. 38)
In Federalist #10, James Madison sought a "republican remedy" in the form of the electoral college which would give states a say but whose job would be to ensure the choice of a president of high character.
In Federalist #68, Alexander Hamilton wrote that it must be a "moral certainty" that the choice of a president would rest upon "requisite qualifications" and not on their "talents of low intrigue and the little arts of popularity."
Patterson in his book, Out of Order, writes that Hamilton's assertion is "laughable" today. Why?
He wrote: "In no other era has the course of presidential campaigns been so unpredictable or hinged so much on small issues." (See pp. 40-41 for examples, some of which include President Ford's "Poland gaffe," Ed Muske's "cry, and "Willie Horton.")
One particular instance was when Jimmy Carter was declared a "clear-cut winner" in the New Hampshire primary and wound up on the cover of Time. The victory was in reality a small one, but media coverage framed it as a big deal and started momentum for the Carter campaign.
As a result, our election system has become erratic and unpredictable. It can be determined by coincidence, timing and serendipitous circumstances.
This is NOT what our founders intended: they wanted stability and consistency because they saw that was necessary for the republic to function effectively. As a result, they opted for the republican form of government with its emphasis on representation. ELECTORS, representatives of the voting populace of a state, were the ones who actually elected the president. Not even all white males were guaranteed the right to vote at the beginning of our history, nor were all minorities after 1870 or women after 1920. Amendments XV and XIX state that citizens will not be denied the right to vote based on race, color, pervious condition of servitude or on account of sex (gender). Requirements of property ownership, education and length of residence were often required. Each state has the right to decide who will vote in that state, and age and length of residency are restrictions still employed.
Discussion Questions about Assumption #1:There is an assumption that our voters are informed, but that is not always true. Sometimes the comedians find out the hard way, as David Letterman did when he made a political joke about Bob Kerry, but people in the audience didn't know who he was.
People didn't know much about Ronald Reagan in 1980, even though he had been governor of California and active in politics for years. Some even thought he was a liberal!
This lack of information can explain why the New Hampshire primary was so crucial for Jimmy Carter. Nobody expected him to win, because polls showed that when he was compared against any other single candidate he lost. But when he was compared to ALL of them, he won.! They all split the voting fairly evenly and he ended up with more votes. That did not mean that he was the most popular or the most qualified candidate, but that's what the media and subsequently, the country perceived. In addition, it was never emphasized that just because the New Hampshire primary is first, it is not necessarily representative of the rest of the country. It is NOT. So, coverage of the primary for Carter, made him look much stronger than he really was. But the reality is that it's not the reality that was important here; it was the PERCEPTION of reality.
Patterson says the modern electoral campaign is burdensome on the voters in several ways:
This indebtedness can be a real problem. A president may find he can't do what he needs to do for the country because of promises he made during the campaign. George Bush found that out when "Read my lips, no new taxes" came back to haunt him. He had made the statement to try to differentiate himself from his opponent, but the promise was unwise. Patterson wrote about the incident, "His retreat from his 1988 promise was a political mistake, but the graver error was the promise itself. It initially paralyzed his presidency and then discredited it, contributing to his failed bid for reelection." (Patterson, 1994, p.51)
He went on to write:
"An electoral system should strengthen the character of the office that is designed to fill. The modern system of electing presidents undermines the presidential office. The writers of the Constitution believed that unrestrained politicking encouraged demagoguery and special interest politics, and would degenerate eventually into majority tyranny. If we know now that the framers were wrong, we also know that they were right in their belief that an overemphasis on campaigning results in excessive appeals to self-interest and momentary passions."
In Mass Com Theory, we discuss the limitations of competence and capacity in an institutional market structure....THIS is a CAPACITY problem.
Discussion Questions for Assumption #2:
What is the importance of truth in political coverage? (Discuss).
When truth is in doubt, credibility of news media becomes a major issue.
James Fuller, in his book, News Values, provides some context for this assumption.
"The thought that news reports should be true dawned on journalists only recently. Until well into the 20th century, most papers were aligned with a particular political party and saw it as their purpose to advance the party line."
Fuller defines news as: news = significance + interest.
Note that truth isn't part of the formula.
Some critics and members of the journalism profession assert that journalists agree with the spin doctors, that truth is not real anyway, so what does it matter if you spin information to your advantage? Why not do what you can to affect people's perceptions of an event?
What are the implications for journalists? If they buy into the post modernist perspective that truth either cannot be discerned or does not exist at all, then what are they reporting?
Fuller believes that there are fundamental biases inherent in the journalist's profession:
(Note these will be similar to some biases we discuss in the next chapter....be able to combine them...)
Fundamental Bias:
What standards of truth should be held?
Independence is hard to achieve, according to Fuller, because "reflexivity reigns." He means that news people and political elites are so dependent upon each other that they can't help but be influenced by each other. Should something be reported just because an authority says something? Not necessarily?
In a 1997 speech before the Radio Television News Director's Association, Dan Rather stated that he believed the greatest danger before news is that entertainment values "completely over whelm news values" and the search for ratings is paramount. Four years before he made a major speech about news values. (McClellan, 9/29/97p. 59)
How does the news industry serve the truth or democracy when the Clinton's dog, Buddy, received more news stories than any previous Presidential Candidate. Vice President Al Gore received mention in 282 stories in the period between Dec. 6, 1997 and Dec. 17, 1997. Buddy was cited in 240 stories. (Center for Media and Public Affairs. 1997)
According to Center for Media and Public Affairs, crime is the major story of the 90s, with nearly 10,000 stories on crime since 1990 as of July, 1997, Averaging 110 stories per month, 4 per day in those seven years. The topic which was a distant second was economic news with 6,673 stories..That was followed by health and medical stories with more than 6,000 and in fourth place at 4,962 stories was the topic of the Soviet Union and Russia. Crime stories made a radical jump in number in 1993 when coverage doubled.
Other trends which present problems with serving the democratic interests of citizens:
Another CMPA research project revealed:
(CMPA, "What..." 1997)
There were several major projects examining the credibility of news media in 1997 and 1998. Additional examination of those issues didn't really happen in a big way until the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01.
Research conducted by the ASNE Journalism Credibility Project found similar results. (American Association of Newspaper Editors)
This fact was driven home with clarity after the events of September 11, 2001. Research examining the credibility of news media before and after the attack revealed how news content affects the perception of the news media. Prior to the events of September 11, media credibility was extremely low. It soared after the events, but within six months declined. By the one-year anniversary of the attacks, it was in many ways back at pre-9/11 levels. According to a Pew Research Poll, only 49% of respondents categorized news media as professional in August, 2002, down from 73% in November of 2001. (Pew, 8/4/01) See the specifics at
A comparison of stories covered and stories of key interest during these different periods of time is illustrating:
The harder the news covered, the more credibility the news media have. However, the concern is that people may respect hard news, but do they watch it when there's not a crisis.
Other factors which influence public perception of credibility and truth...
Professional Acceptance of Deception:
A recent article in News Photographer discussed whether or not hidden cameras were justified. Some contended that deception was necessary to reveal corruption and hidden vices. But others argue that it's hard to say you value the truth when the primary tool used to get is based on deception. The conclusion of the article suggested that hidden cameras should be used only when prominent people are involved and when significant issues of public concern are at stake.
(Scherer, 1997)
Soap Opera...
The American public has been upset with the coverage of the Clinton scandal, especially the fact that so much time has been devoted to it. One unhappy reader wrote to the Washington Post, "Never in American history has so much been said by so many who know so little about nothing..." But as the coverage increased, so did Pres. Clinton's popularity, according to polls. And while they objected to the coverage, the public watched it - LOTS of it.
David Weaver, an Indiana University journalism professor put it quite well, "People want all the gory details, but they don't feel it's important to their lives. The problem is, they are not likely to respect soap opera producers or journalists who deal in gossip and innuendo." (Ricchiardi, 1998)
Money....
Another reason why truth is questioned, and credibility is compromised results from the extremely lucrative contracts paid to top news people. The question then becomes "Are they in it to tell me what I need to know, or are they in it for the money?"
The issue of salaries is so much more significant now, that Broadcasting and Cable did a cover story on TV news agents in May of 1998. Katie Couric of NBC's Today was featured on the cover of Newsweek on July 6, 1998 after she signed a $7 Million deal with NBC. (Marin and Chang, 1998). Jane Pauley signed with NBC for Dateline for $5.5 Million per year for five more years. (AP, 6/30/98). Dan Rather also signed for another five years, making nearly $7 Million per year. (McClellan, 11/17/97). ABC,signed Diane Sawyer for $7 Million back in 1994 (Marin, TV Guide, 1994).
So WHAT?
Why is the issue of credibility so important? Because accurate, significant information provided to a thinking, involved and caring electorate is essential for a democratic republic to function. If in this country, television news is our primary source of information,, what happens to the electoral process, indeed to our republic, if that source cannot be trusted with providing the truth? What happens if they don't even SEEK the TRUTH, but rather what works best for themselves?
This was the topic of a recent article in Columbia Journalism Review. James Carey wrote:
"Indeed the tone and imagery of these scandal, if not their origins, are now a function of unused capacity in communications: too much time and space chasing too little information. As a result, news is displaced by hyperbole, rumor and innuendo as if the technology had caused a cultural stroke. And in the midst of this, journalists, particularly on the television, seem to derive unusual pleasure from the national trauma, suggesting they no longer have a stake in the Republic. After all, if it is good for journalists, it ought to be good for the country.
"Attempts to excuse the press from diminishing the authority of the democratic institutions simply will not work." He goes on to say that arguing that it's always been that way or that they're pleasing the audience won't work. Carey says this position is based on the assumption that times will always be good. But what happens if we have a serious crisis, and the institutions we have depended upon to provide information and to lead our country are no longer perceived as dependable?....(Carey, 1998)
Discussion Questions for Assumption 3:
Assumption Number 4: As a result of the process, the most qualified candidates are nominated and elected.
As we have seen, this is not necessarily the case. How the public perceives a candidate's ability and how that public opinion effects voting decisions, primarily in the early primaries is a far greater determinant of candidacy that the wisdom of party leaders. While they can influence contributions to some degree, ultimately if a candidate has the money and the public opinion, it is unlikely that party leaders can do much to inhibit candidacy without jeopardizing their own position in the party and perhaps the party's victory. The momentum of primary coverage and media momentum given a candidate is powerful and hard to stop whether it is positive or negative. While heavily self-financed candidates like Perot and Forbes have not been elected, their impact on the races in which they participated has been significant.
Discussion Questions for Assumption Number 4 :
Additional Resources and Links for this lecture:
Copyright,
2002
Dr. Janet McMullen
Return to Com 450 page
Return to Dr. Mc's Home Page