Good News for Democracy?
Lukasz Swiatek asks whether the phenomenon of Public Journalism can reinvigorate the media’s role in maintaining robust representative government.
“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.” John Milton’s famous defence became a seminal foundation for the freedom of speech, and, by extension, the freedom of the press. The media have long been acknowledged as crucial to the processes of representative democracy and to the lubrication of open, civil society. Yet today, disenchantment with modern media continues to grow, in conjunction with cynicism about politicians and politics generally.
In this context of disillusionment with the role of the media within a democracy, Public Journalism, a new, innovative school of journalism pioneered in the United States, may hold some potential for reshaping the media’s role in democracy.
The Importance of the Fourth Estate
Numerous scholars and philosophers, extending as far back as Socrates, have championed the importance of press freedom. John Milton, Daniel Defoe and Sir William Blackstone, all argued for the importance of a transparent press able to openly communicate the actions of government. In 1790, Edmund Burke added a Fourth Estate to the ‘three estates of the realm’ by positing that: “There are three Estates in Parliament, but in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder sits a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.”
“Public Journalism provides potentially beneficial new avenues for re-enlivening the media’s role.”
However, perhaps the most celebrated of these scholars was John Locke, who famously articulated in social contract theory that government best serves the people when freedom of expression is allowed to exist. In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke stated: “Truth, like gold, is not the less so for being newly brought out of the mine. It is trial and examination must give it price, and not any antique fashion.”
These English paradigms were strengthened in the United States through such advocates as Thomas Jefferson, and in documents such as the 1776 American Declaration of Independence, the 1789 U.S. Constitution and the 1791 Bill of Rights. The First Amendment, particularly, enhanced the U.S. liberal tradition by clearly delineating the freedoms of the press.
Contesting Liberalism
However, social responsibility theory has openly questioned the libertarian philosophy that historically dominated American journalism. In particular, it questions the emphasis placed upon audience appeal – a trend characterised by Richard Pride in The Public Voice In A Democracy At Risk, as “news is whatever interests the public … conveyed quickly and accurately”.
Social responsibility theory stemmed from the Commission on Freedom of the Press’s landmark 1947 report, A Free and Responsible Press. The Commission lambasted American media for their emphasis on triviality, for reporting “the exceptional rather than the representative, the sensational rather than the significant”. It noted that the media were failing to furnish the average citizen with the information necessary to carry out his or her societal responsibilities in an informed manner. Gathering recognition in the 1950s, social responsibility encouraged awareness of public accountability and moral cognisance in disseminating information.
Public Journalism (also known as Civic Journalism) embraced many tenets of this social theory. Gaining popularity in the early 1990s, the movement attempted to situate the public at the heart of information provision. Jay Rosen, one of its founders, sought to explain the public’s apathy toward societal debate, and why the media were failing to stimulate society-wide engagement. The impetus for Rosen’s research was the reporting of the 1988 U.S. presidential election, widely condemned for focusing on campaign rhetoric more than content, and resulting in record-low voter turnout.
In his influential piece, What Are Journalists For?, Rosen proposed re-aligning journalism as “democracy’s cultivator, as well as its chronicler”, by mandating that journalists cease to be dispassionate, disinterested observers. Rather, he argued, journalists should engage with the public by embracing “membership in the polity as well as the fraternity”. To that end, the movement’s core, guiding aims encompass: a desire to foster deliberation, to rebuild a community’s sense of ‘self’ and to present substance over tactics when covering political debates.
“Public Journalism’s perceived abrogation of autonomy, rejection of independence, detachment and objectivity, are potentially problematic.”
Other commentators argue that reportage has holistically become de-politicised and taken the form of entertainment. Brian McNair, for example, in Journalism And Democracy: An Evaluation Of The Political Public Sphere, opines that political coverage has become spectacle, “increasingly shaped by a sometimes uneasy blend of public service and commercial criteria”.
Integrating Community
Closely interwoven into Public Journalism’s aims is the philosophy of communitarianism, which contests liberalism’s emphasis on individual rights and personal freedom. Instead, Public Journalism subscribes to the notion of the ‘embedded self’, where an individual’s reasoning and identity are recognised as inherently fixed within shared social contexts.
In The Public and Its Problems, John Dewey asserted that public journalists, by acknowledging their ‘embeddedness’ within a community, thus attempt to facilitate “public conversation”, rather than “expert information”.
Public Journalism has since attempted to redress the perceived disconnection between citizens and the government. For example, The Wichita Eagle’s 1990 series ‘The People Project, Solving It Ourselves’, encouraged citizens to examine issues such as crime, health and education, and to develop innovative responses to such civic concerns.
The Difficulties of Public Journalism
Can Public Journalism save and restore socially responsible journalism in a democracy? Numerous difficulties exist for a practice that now has international reach. At a practical level, journalists are uncertain about whether to invoke public discussion as face-to-face dialogue, or as mass debate and deliberation.
Beyond these discursive difficulties, other challenges exist. Public Journalism’s perceived abrogation of autonomy, rejection of independence, detachment and objectivity, are potentially problematic. For instance, Public Journalism has been criticised for blurring the distinction between news and opinion, and actively involving journalists in the investigated story.
Japanese newspapers, such as Asahi Shimbun, have attempted to integrate Public Journalism into daily news practices with regular features such as ‘Section for Civic Welfare’. However, the Japanese response has been predominantly apathetic, stemming from commercial pressures and financial restraints, increased controls over governmental news sources, and a decline in newspaper readership. According to a Japanese Professor of Media Studies, Takashi Ito, media practitioners in Japan “lack the attitude to theorise about journalism and reflect on … the relationship between democracy and journalism”.
Equally, Public Journalism cannot be considered a remedy for conventional practices due to its problematic assumption that the public is interested in the political occurrences of the day. Disenchantment and apathy characterise many individuals’ perceptions of elections and political debates. In other words, critics ask: is the public interested in politics enough for Public Journalism to work?
Furthermore, the issue raises the question of agenda setting. In Good News, Bad News, Jeremy Iggers posits that “the public may not be the best judge of which social issues are most pressing or how those issues should be framed”.
“Disenchantment and apathy characterise many individuals’ perceptions of elections and political debates.”
An analysis of The Record’s coverage of the 1996 New Jersey election demonstrates precisely this lack of interest in Public Journalism. Despite more rigorous electoral analysis and citizen participation, scholars David Blomquist and Cliff Zukin’s empirical results concluded that public journalists’ “election coverage had made hardly any impact [on public opinion] … especially when compared to the apparently substantial effect of the candidates’ TV advertising”.
A Way Forward?
Attempts have been made to remedy the deficiencies in the practice of Public Journalism. Many commentators argue that citizens’ participation in journalism through online weblogs should be even more widespread and encouraged. Weblogs such as OhmyNews and Indymedia have already witnessed a profound shift in participation.
Yet these new fora feature problems of their own. The need for access to the internet, and its attendant intellectual capital, precludes many sectors of the public from participation. Moreover, reductionist perspectives are often provided in online debate and discursive spaces can be highly fragmented along rigid ideological lines.
Public Journalism, although imperfect, certainly provides potentially beneficial new avenues for re-enlivening the media’s role within democracy, including the presentation of comprehensive political analysis and a fostering of greater community engagement. Whilst it should not yet be lauded as the answer to the public’s growing disenchantment and apathy, it might provide some positive indicators and clues about the future of open debate and representative government.
Leave a Reply