Media and Democracy in America

The battle cry was “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain”.  Concocted by William Randolph Hearst in 1898, it ultimately started the Spanish-American war.  Unfortunately, that war was not based on protection of innocent people, or the defense of idealistic values.  It was merely an abuse of media power grounded in the capitalistic value of profit.  You see, Hurst was the owner of the New York Journal.  Hurst and his competitor, Joseph Pulitzer, owner of the World, were in a heated battle for circulation and mere facts would not interfere with whatever it took to win readers.   In fact, Hearst saw the unexplained explosion of the USS Maine while in Havana harbor as an excellent topic to sensationalize and gain market share.  So, for weeks, his newspaper was dedicated to fantastic stories of the atrocities the Spanish were inflicting on the pure and innocent Cuban rebels, complete with torture and “death camps”.  Hurst dispatched dozens of reporters and photographers to chronicle the death and destruction.  Even after receiving telegraphs from his reporters and photographers that there was nothing happening in Cuba and asking to be recalled, Hurst famously replied, “Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war.” True to his word, under tremendous political pressure, the U.S. Congress authorized military action and had them “a splendid little war”.  The Spanish American war is a testament to the power of the media.  Fortunately, in 1898, the state of military weaponry was constrained to small arms and canon fire.  Let us not imagine this happening, for instance, in modern day Iraq! 

If the media is indeed this powerful, what does it mean to the founding principles of America?  Can this amount of power corrupt the ideology of democracy?  The founding fathers went to extremes to ensure that one branch of government would not rule over another.  The executive branch could not run rough shot over the legislative branch or the judicial branch.  The Constitution is a document of negative freedom.  It ensures freedom from tyranny and despotism and exalts the American Creed - values of individualism, liberty, equality, and democracy.  But if a newspaper can start a war based on half-truths that sway public opinion in the name of capitalism, who is protecting us from the media?  Even as far back as 1898, the forces of free market capitalism were creeping into the work of an industry that is supposed to educate the electorate.  Why does it seem that the modern 24 hour news cycle is more couched in the value of entertainment than it is in presenting facts and encouraging public debate?  It is my contention that not only do the modern news media not present the facts, but chooses what to report on the basis of what will sell advertising, create profit, and support whatever political goals the board of directors might have at any given time.  This illustrates the main premise of this paper.  In the 21^st century, to what extent has free market capitalism invaded the area of public interest that is so vital to an electorate that depends on corporate owned media to inform them so that they can exercise their democratic rights, participate in debate, and create discussion that leads to responsible public policy?  Is it possible that corporate ownership of media outlets in a modern society is deterring the dissemination of relevant, accurate, and balanced information to the public? Without unbiased, balanced, and accurate information, the public is merely a by-stander masquerading as a participant.

Understanding the Models

The interesting part of this very complex issue is that it can be illustrated easily using just two conflicting models.  The Public Sphere Model & the Market Model.  David Croteau and Willim Hynes present these models in their book, The Business of Media:  Corporate Media and the Public Interest.  They describe the market model as one existing in the same capialistic supply and demand structure that all other products exist within.  Couched in bottom line profit, the market model makes no distinction between the value of say, coal, and the value of information presented in the free press.  Just as consumer choice will maximize the utility of coal, this model posits that by virtue of demand, consumers will also identify the type of media information that maximizes its utility.   Therefore, as long as media company profits are high, the public's demand for unbiased, balanced, and accurate information is being met.  No one will argue that free markets have advantages.  Economists admit that in most instances, government regulation only creates inneficiencies in a market.  Free markets are much more responsive to consumer demand, they promote and stimulate innovation, and are much more flexible in terms of responding to market dynamics.  The question that is raised here is not whether free market capitalism is a good system, it is whether it is a good system for an industry that is responsible for serving the public interest by fostering debate and ensuring delivery of diverse views.  And as we will see, the question of regulation is not whether it should exist, but rather on what model the regulation will be in favor of.

In contrast, the Public Sphere model is built on the understanding that American values are sometimes contradictory in nature.  In the case of the media, the public sphere model places free market capitalism in direct conflict with the idea of democracy.  In other words, a capitalistic market only sees the power of currency as an indication of "demand", whereas democracy is blind to currency and sees only "one person, one vote".  If media is built on the market model then it is only sensitive to a citizenry that has currency to spend and silences those that do not.  The public sphere model recognizes that the role the media plays in American society cannot solely be measured in terms of profit.  Because the media plays such a vital role in democracy, the public sphere model measures media performance by other criteria such as the delivery of unbiased, diverse, and accurate information to the electorate.

Purpose of media in a democracy 

Perhaps it would be beneficial to examine the purpose of the free press in a democracy.  In other forms of government, the purpose of the press is simple.  For instance, in a totalitarian state, the media is controlled and its content selected by the government.  Programming is approved for broadcast based solely on furthering the interest of the state.  There is no opposing view to balance viewpoints or argue the validity of the information presented, and there is no electorate to educate.  However, in a democracy, it becomes somewhat more complicated.  In a democracy, media supports the ideological values contained in the American Creed by placing itself in between government and society while gathering, authenticating, and disseminating relevant information to the electorate so that they may fulfill their role in democracy.  This process is enhanced when there are multiple actors obtaining the information and serves as a check against abuses found in the Spanish American War.  Presumably, if there had been a multitude of papers in Cuba at the time, they could have increased their circulation by sensationalizing the sensationalized false information that Hurst was delivering.  This is the way it is supposed to work.  Media outlets serve as watchdogs over current political and social activities within society and police themselves by fostering differing points of view, discussion, and debate that will ultimately lead to reasoned public policy and responsible social behavior.  The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution contained in the Bill of Rights states “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.” Clearly, our Constitution protects the free press from government.  However, it does nothing to force media's compliance with the values contained in the American Creed that Samual Huntington so eloquently describes in his book, American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony – "What are the values of the American Creed?  ... liberty, equality, individualism, democracy, and the rule of law under a constitution.  The question becomes, who will protect the people from the media?  Arguably, Mr. Hearst was totally in his right to promote a war through his newspaper.  Obviously, this is a rather dramatic example of misuse of power within the media but it begs the question, what is the role of media in a democracy? 

 To further complicate the issue of media in a democracy, media outlets within the U.S. must exist within a capitalistic environment.  In order words, they must turn a profit!  In the past, this process was somewhat straightforward in that market share translated into more circulation which translated into increased revenue and profit.  However, as technology such as Television, radio, and the internet became commonplace, those revenue streams were diminished.  Today, newspapers and television are primarily reliant on advertising for their revenue.  The complicating factor in this new revenue paradigm is that it places a third party, the advertiser, in a position of power over the media outlets.  The advertiser therefore controls the purse strings that ultimately will decide how much revenue will be generated.  And more importantly for democracy, advertisers in most cases will decide what content will be delivered to the public.  The bottom line in this complex chain comes down to the fact that if media outlets are to be successful in a modern capitalistic democracy they must first produce programming that attracts as many viewers as possible, then by virtue of a large viewership, they can attract advertising dollars that create profit. 

Legislation & History of Media

During William Hearst's time, things were simple.  Print media was protected by the armor of the 1st Amendment.  However, starting in the early 20th century, with the advent of radio, things became much more complicated.  Unlike print media that only used paper and ink, radio used public airwaves.  As radio spread, it became obvious that someone would need to regulate, license, and control the use of these public airwaves.  This issue drove the creation of the Federal Radio Commision which was empowered through the Radio Act of 1927 to grant licenses allowing the use of public airwaves.  It is this legislation that started the debate over the role the government should play in the media. 

For conclusion look to conclusion in What Liberal Media pg 262 - 269

Affect of Corporate Ownership

Future possibilities

http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=cbs  Who owns what

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4l29sEqUjI   Youtube of Fox news promo

http://video.pbs.org/video/1328972370 PBS news promo

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v606/human_carbine/Remember-the-Maine.jpg

Works Cited

Alterman, Eric. What Liberal Media?. New York: Basic Books Inc., 2003

Cooper, Mark. News Incorporated. Ed. Elliot D. PhD Cohen., 2005.

Croteau, David, and William Hoynes. The Business of Media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 2001.

Frank, Thomas. "The Rise of Market Populism." The Nation October (2000) . Oct 29, 2009.

Goldberg, Bernard. Arrogance. New York, NY: Warner Books, Inc., 2003.

Lieberman, Trudy. "In the Beginning." Columbia Journalism Review Vol 47.Issue 3 (2008).

Schudson, Michael. Discovering the News. New York: Basic Books Inc., 1978.

---. The Good Citizen. New York, NY: The Free Press, 1998.

Tremayne, Mark. Blogging, Citizenship, and the Future of Media. Trans. Mark Tremayne. Ed. Mark Tremayne. New York: Routledge, 2007.