Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. If one were to ask any
random group of people off of the street, probably any street anywhere in the world, what
democracy was they would most likely describe it as a government in which people are free.
Indeed the word democracy has become synonymous with freedom, and few could argue that the
United States of America is the face of modern democracy, and the symbol of freedom.
When that country was founded, the constitution that was and is the cornerstone of its
entire governmental infrastructure, was not able to pass without the inclusion of a Bill of
Rights; ten amendments to the original document that outlined certain rights that the founding
fathers deemed essential to the preservation of the democracy they were creating, and the very
first of these amendments read as such: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a
redress of grievances.1 Right in the middle of the first amendment to what many would call the
single most important document in the history of the United States, if not the world itself, was
the freedom of press. The founding fathers of the face of democracy recognized the media as one
So what is it about media that puts it on the same level as the right to practice ones
religion without persecution, or speak their mind, or get together in a group? What is it about
1 "Bill of Rights." Bill of Rights Institute Bill of Rights Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 27
Apr. 2015.
Caleb Haney
POL 102 Final Paper
4/27/2015
media that is so important for a free country? What exactly does democracy require of the
media?
The first step to answering that question is to define what exactly media is. The word
medium is defined as the main means of mass communication (especially television, radio,
newspapers, and the Internet) regarded collectively. In the time of the founding fathers this was
basically limited to newspapers, which is why the first amendment uses the word press but
today we have television, magazines, the internet, social media, and more. All of these are ways
in which a message or information can reach a massive group of people, and it doesnt take a
political scientist to realize that information is key to freedom. The civil rights movement for
example may have never stood a chance if the southern state governments had been able to keep
the violence they committed from being reported. Alexis de Tocqueville summed it up best
when he said democracy requires the free flow of information, enabling us to keep in touch with
each other and with our leaders and to keep up with important events.2
In order for the whole population to participate in government the whole population must
be properly informed. After all if they are simply voting as they are told to vote they are not
really participating are they? Many authoritarian governments understand this and seek to control
the media, and therefore what information their subjects receive, usually through overt
legislation. For example, in Mugabes Zimbabwe, the law provides for a maximum of seven
years imprisonment for the publication of (allegedly) false stories that are likely to cause fear,
alarm or despondency among the public, in Saudi Arabia a journalist was imprisoned for trying
to report that there had been clashes between the police and the Ismaili minority in Nijran, and in
the constitution prevents the making of any such laws, but that doesnt mean our government
officials just sit back and let the media do as it pleases, at least not completely.
The relationship between government officials and the media is a complex one. On the
one hand politicians have no chance of getting elected if the media does not share their message
with the voters. On the other hand, those same politicians do not like it when those same media
outlets tell the country about their dirty little secrets. The media in turn have to keep a balance
between reporting the stories that the viewers want to hear but the politicians do not, and keeping
those politicians happy with them so that they will share their knowledge of political news. The
result is a complex love-hate codependence relationship between the two most powerful
The media has the power to destroy a leader like no other entity in existence, so long as
they can report what they want. The Watergate scandal for example may have been completely
swept under the rug if it hadnt been for the efforts of investigative journalists. Instead a United
States President was forced to resign for the crimes he committed, crimes that would go
unpunished in a country without a free media! Of course even their efforts would most likely
have gone to waste if it had not been for the cooperation of various sources, most notably those
It does not always have to be as large-scale as Watergate however. In 1983 a local news
channel in Chicago ran a series of stories under the title Beating Justice which investigated
his client had had a cattle prod shoved down his throat and applied to his genitals. The reporter
decided to look further into the story, and with the help of fellow reporters, local lawyers, and
hospital staff, discovered a pattern of police brutality, usually against African American citizens.
Once the story broke the station dumped incredible resources into the investigation and equally
incredible airtime to the reporting thereof. After all few things capture viewers attention like
abusive police officers. The result was that the names of those responsible were discovered, and
the first black mayor of Chicago, Harold Washington, was elected based largely on promises to
reform the Police department, something his predecessor had failed to do despite the state
dishing out about 5 million dollars, over the course of five years, to settle, and silence,
complaints of police brutality. Washington made good on his promise too, at least until his early
death. Under his short time as Mayor the police superintendent, Richard Brzeczek, was forced to
resign, and internal supervision and control of the police was tightened.5
Freedom does not necessarily mean reporting against the government however. In fact it
has been shown that media in new democracies, which have spent so long being forced to toe the
party lines, can equate freedom with opposition to government. The truth is however, they are
still completely partisan. They have simply traded one forced view for another.6 Whether the
partisanship is pro or anti-government, it still disrupts the free flow of information. What this
means is that even though democracy certainly requires media to be independent to an extent, it
can. Of course the first amendment keeps them from the kind of silencing techniques that we see
in other countries, but there are other methods. One prime example comes from President
Theodore Roosevelt, who on the one hand gave the press access that they had never enjoyed
before, but on the other hand threatened to take that access away if they reported things he didnt
Of course government control isnt always a bad thing. When radio broadcasting was first
invented it enjoyed absolute freedom, and suffered for it. Competing radio stations would often
broadcast at the same or nearly the same frequency, which would cause interference.
Furthermore if a station could get a particularly powerful transmitter they could and would block
out their competition entirely. Ironically the unparalleled freedom of radio broadcasting was a
detriment to the freedom of radio broadcasting, and so Congress passed the Radio Act of 1927.8
From this it can be concluded that democracy requires media to be free from government, and at
The media has been around in the form of television for decades, radio for more decades,
and print for centuries, but there is a new form of media coming into its own today, and that is
social media. Thanks to the internet it is easier to get political news than ever before. According
to the web article, Internet's Broader Role in Campaign 2008-Social Networking and Online
Videos Take off, "Nearly a quarter of Americans (24%) say they regularly learn something about
the campaign from the internet, almost double the percentage from a comparable point in the
on traditional news sources for information about the campaign has remained static or declined
slightly since the last presidential campaign. Compared with the 2000 campaign, far fewer
Americans now say they regularly learn about the campaign from local TV news (down eight
points), nightly network news (down 13 points) and daily newspapers (down nine points). Cable
news networks are up modestly since 2000, but have shown no growth since the 2004
campaign." Which means the internet is on its way to becoming the most powerful source of
The good news is that people are becoming more active in politics, and are generally
more educated than ever before, due to the ease of access to information. The bad news is that
they also have more power to limit that information to what they want to hear. It doesnt take a
sociologist to understand the power of peer pressure, especially when it comes to silencing the
dissenting voices in a room. We once thought that the anonymity of being online would be a cure
for this, but in practice people seem just as averse to bringing up topics that may spark debate as
they are in person. Furthermore it takes virtually no effort at all to limit ones news sources to
those that they agree with.10 This brings us to the last thing that democracy requires of the media,
In a way what democracy requires of media is a long and complex list. Media must be
both controlled and free, it must be both independent and cooperative, it must be willing to
become the enemy of government and yet must rely on government officials for information, and
9 Pecorino, Philip. "Study: Impact of Internet on Democracy." Study: Impact of Internet on
Democracy. Queensborough Community College, Fall 2009. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
requires one thing from the media, access to as much information as possible. From that point on
it is entirely up to the people whether they live in a democracy or not. If they choose to listen to
the information, if they choose to know, then they have all the tools they need to be a democracy.
If they do choose to avoid information they do not like, then democracy is doomed to fail, and