Sistema cereal

2.6. The Ideal Functions of Mass Media in a Democratic Society

Like social scientists such as Harold Lasswell, John Bittner, Joseph Dominick and Stanley Baran, who postulate similar (if not the same) functions of the mass media vis a vis informing, educating, enlightening and entertaining the society, McNair (2011) identified five functions of the media in an ‘ideal’ democratic society, which were born based on the normative functions of the press. They are:

First, the mass media must inform citizens of what is happening around. This implies the

‘surveillance’ or ‘monitoring’ role of the mediated sphere in a democracy. They are to have an eagle’s eye which is capable of collating all important information about daily happenings in the society and injecting it into the public sphere for the consumption of the public. Only when well informed can the public be equipped with the necessary knowledge to be able to participate in any rational discourse on the platform.

Secondly, the media must educate the public on the meaning and significance of the facts.

Such a function is important in the sense that it highlights and explains the importance attached to objectivity in reporting by journalists. As educators, they are saddled with the responsibility of detaching themselves from the issues being analysed.

Third, the media must provide a platform for public political discourse. Once such information of general public interest is sourced and synthesised by journalists, it is expected that the mass media should provide that platform for discourse on such an issue by way of

facilitating the formation of ‘public opinion’ and feeding that opinion back to the public from whence it came. This encompasses the provision of space for the expression of dissent, without which the notion of democratic consensus would be said to be meaningless.

The media’s fourth function is to give publicity to governmental and political institutions- the

‘watchdog’ role of journalism. Through the provision of publicity to political groups, the media can create awareness and checkmate the activities of public officials to keep them on tract, ensure accountability and avoid incidences of abuse of power.

Finally, the media in democratic societies serve as a channel for the advocacy of political viewpoints. Political parties and groups in a democratic society require an outlet for the articulation of their policies and programmes to a mass audience, and thus the media must be open to them to be able to exhibit their manifestoes and plans in order to win their support.

McNair only gave a summary of the functions of the media, leaving his readers with different opinions and interpretation of these functions. With changing trends in mass media and the global information and communication sector, the way we view, apply and use the media has been transformed beyond the traditional functions. Enhanced meanings and interpretations have been given to these functions. To understand these functions, there is the need to comprehend McNair’s idea of an ideal liberal democratic society, which he premised the media functions.

McNair based his idea of an ideal liberal democracy on the works of John Stuart Mill, John Locke and John Milton. In a related study, Bobbio (1987) argues that the main concern of liberal democracy was ‘to grant individuals civil liberties against the incursion of the state’

(1987, p.10). While democracy presumes ‘an open state in which people are allowed to participate in decision-making, and are given access to the media, and other information networks through which advocacy occurs (ibid, p.42). But at the heart of this is that these people must be sufficiently educated and knowledgeable to make rational and effective use of the information circulating in the public sphere. (McNair, 2009, p.20). Drawing these strands together, McNair identifies the characteristics of a democratic regime in the following terms:

constitutionality, participation and rational choice.

By constitutionality, a democratic regime must provide agreed procedures, rules and regulations governing the conduct of elections, the behaviour of those elected, and the legitimate activities of dissenters. It should however be noted that constitutionality is not limited to these, it encapsulates the behaviour, responsibility and eligibility of the electorates, and the rules and regulations governing the various sectors of the state, all enshrined in a

constitution. This could either be written (such as in the United States) or unwritten (as in Britain), or just a bill of rights which focuses on the people’s rights.

Secondly, by participation, McNair argues that those who participate in the democratic process must comprise what Bobbio terms a ‘substantial’ proportion of the people (1987, p.

3). This means a good or sizeable number of the population, and in essence, the majority of the people. For as Mill argues, ‘only this guaranteed the rational, informed electorate demanded by democracy’ (McNair, 2011, p.17). Thus, any society that deprives majority of its population the right to vote is to be viewed as ‘undemocratic’ or ‘partly democratic. Partly democratic society, to borrow the ideas of Freedom House is a situation whereby in theory, a country is said to be practicing liberal democracy, but in practice, those in power uses their influence and social psychology to manipulate the people and get them to support their causes rather than allowing (the people) to support causes and candidatures based on rational judgement.

Rational choice (which is the third characteristic of a liberal democratic regime) emphasises the availability of choice and the ability of citizens to exercise that choice rationally.

Availability of choice presupposes an even or levelled ground for political parties to exist and operate, and for citizens to be free to join any party without fear, constraint or favour, while rationality demands that these citizens must be knowledgeable or educated enough to be able to make rational choices. Having identified McNair’s idea of an ideal liberal democratic society, I will now discuss the functions.

The number one function of the media in every society is to inform the citizenry about the daily happenings and occurrences in all the spheres of their lives. Information they say is power and an uninformed society is like a dead society (Hofstetter, 1999, p.1). Even before the advent of newspapers and the subsequent revolution in science and technology, information dissemination was very important; merchants and monarchs used town criers to convey information and news about the arrival of ships conveying goods, town meetings, marriages, impending war, victories, achievements, and so on. Today, communicating information and news involve the use of the mass media to reach wide heterogeneous and anonymous audiences. Also, this function of the media stretches beyond informing the people to ensuring that the message (information) conveyed impacts on the receivers or produce some effects.

Dominick (2009) used the word ‘surveillance’ to describe the information function of the media, which can be divided into two main types. Beware or warning surveillance describes a situation whereby the media informs us about threats caused by nature such as hurricane,

volcanoes, storms and tornadoes, or man-made threats such as terrorism, depressed economic conditions, military attack or increasing inflation. The second type is instrumental surveillance which transmits information that is not threatening to the society but is useful and helpful in everyday life. For example, news about films, new products and services, stock market prices, fashion ideas. Today, we rely so much on the mass media for information because of speedy news delivery. Most breaking news is reported on the electronic media within minutes after they happened. News across the Atlantic, beyond our environments is relayed to the whole world almost instantly and simultaneously, in fulfilment of Marshal McLuhan’s idea of a global village, of no barrier to communication.

Unlike prehistoric times, when people were living in small independent communities easily surveyed; where a stranger would appear and relay information, which can easily be verified.

Today, news is screened and determined for us by reporters and editors, and our conception of that which is real (if there is no eye-witness) is determined by ‘this second-generation information, whose authenticity we do not usually question’ (Dominick, 2009, p.30). But mere presence of different media houses and pluralism in the ownership of the media presupposes the availability of varied viewpoints about a news story which enables us compare and judge each medium’s report and come up with a personal opinion, which when collated, becomes popular view point. With this plurality of the media and the availability of choices, can we still doubt the authenticity of the media? Unfortunately, we are still bombarded by fake news from the main stream media that we rely on over the years as sources of factual news stories.

Closely linked with the information function of the media is the education function, what Dominick called the interpretation function. Media in a democratic setting are expected not only to supply facts and data but to provide information on the ultimate meaning and significance of events. This function can be carried out in the form of editorials, comments, opinions and articles that analyse the causes of an event or the implications of government and corporate organizations’ policies.

Most media houses carry out this function based on the in-house policy of their organization.

Because in-house policies vary both in theory and in practice, information relayed by media outfits and organizations, whether private or government owned and controlled, also vary;

while some are more critical and objective in their news report and analysis, calling a spade a spade, others (especially those owned and controlled by the government) portray such information in a subtle mode. McNair opine that the media may be complicit in the politicians’ concealment of sensitive information by choosing to downplay or ignore

otherwise worthy story which could damage that government (if such a media is strongly committed to the government. Where then is the fate of objectivity in news reports and analysis?

Journalism as a profession is very important in the society that most members of the fourth estate try as much as possible to abide by certain professional ethics and code of conducts.

Most journalists attempt to do this by cultivating an air of neutrality, reporting of issues as they are so people can judge the facts for themselves. Others focus on offering commentary and analysis from a particular point of view. As a whole, journalists are careful and encourage people to put their faith in the press by protecting sources of information, verifying the truth in information before publishing or broadcasting it, and using a variety of techniques and eye-witnesses to convey a trustworthy appearance and information to the public.

To get a credible, objective, fair and balanced information requires looking out for those media with high sense of social responsibility in theory and in practice, and or comparing news reports from different media and coming up with a personal opinion. Another way of doing this is to analyse the same news item from different media focusing on popular viewpoints.

The consequence of mass media providing different platforms is that the audience is exposed to a large number of viewpoints from columnists, bloggers, and analysts and can evaluate all sides of an issue before arriving at a conclusion. That way, the issue of credibility or reliance on a particular editor’s point of view (which might not be objective) is to a large extent, put to rest.

This is one of the good things that a liberal democratic society provides; the availability of media choices that enable us make informed decisions about the ideologies and policies that govern our daily lives. This is guaranteed by media pluralism (which emphasises free and unrestricted existence and functioning of mass media outfits). Brown Onuoha in Luke Uche’s Mass Media Communication, Democracy and Civil Society in Africa argue that free and unrestricted multiplicity of mass media organization, invariably mean the presence of diverse platforms for the debate and the representation of diverse groups, interests and groups in a political system (1999, p.118).

The third function of the media emphasises the provision of ‘platform’ for public discourse.

A democratic society place great emphasis on the availability of choice and free market place of ideas, where people are confronted by competing and conflicting ideas and programmes and are allowed to judge amongst them and make choices. Such competing and conflicting

ideas include the presence of different political parties and ideologies, the presence of a mixed and or free economy, existence of different social orientations, the accommodation and promotion of different cultural beliefs, values and norms, and religious tolerance. It is the duty of the media to provide a levelled playing ground for all contenders to showcase their ideas to the citizens, in adherence to the core social democratic values of social justice and equality of opportunity. This includes the provision of space for the expression of dissent. If that is granted, a well informed and educated citizenry would be able to make not only informed and rational choices but be able to form public opinion and the opinion fed back to the public from whence it originated, and public opinion would be said to hold sway.

Although most media outfits claim to provide levelled platforms for political discourses, it should however be borne in mind that free market place of ideas, fuelled by capitalism, a key tenet of democratic society, breeds competition and in most cases, only the powerful determine who gets what, when and how. The same applies to the use of the media for political discourse. Some media tend to focus on or align with the dominant force in power, the most powerful political parties, the dominant religion, culture and social ideology. These dominant forces tend to overshadow the rest, if not for anything; they have the material resources to influence and control the entire system, especially the conventional or mainstream media. They can buy media space and time for advert, which guarantees them more exposure and invariably, attracting more audiences and influencing citizens’ perception with their powerful and well-packaged ideas, capable of manipulating and influencing public opinion, without much persuasion, since people make decision based on information available to them, for a citizen is a rational subject who absorbs the information available to him and makes rational choices (McNair, 2011, p.23). The danger of this free market place of ideas, where the ideologies of the most powerful forces dominate the platforms for political discourse is, the media promotes liberal democratic ideals in society, which exists only in theory, but in reality, it can only be imagined.

McNair’s fourth function of the media stresses the provision of ‘publicity’ to governmental and political institutions-the ‘watchdog’ role of journalism. This function confers on the media the title of ‘watchdog’ of the society, which is also seen as serving as ‘eyes’ and ‘ears’

of the public, and as the ‘fourth estate of the realm’. This watchdog function which was embraced by most societies coming out of the ruins of socialism and authoritarianism in the 1970s and 80s, was adopted mostly by citizens facing corruption, weak rule of law, and parasitic or incompetent governments and structures unable to deliver basic services. The watchdogging role embedded in the personal ethics and in public expectations of the media

stresses that it is not enough that the media in a liberal democratic society should publicise all activities of the government and political institutions but should also check on the excesses of the government, reporting all misappropriations and acts of corruption. The watchdog media monitors the day-today activities of government, thereby helping citizens assess the effectiveness and efficacy of its performance. Investigative journalists derive their power from this function. They invest time, effort and resources to fish out and expose wrongdoing in the system. They warn citizens about the bad eggs in the system and empower them with necessary information and demands transformations and reforms. The watchdog role of the journalists should not end there, they should ensure that public office holders remain transparent and are held accountable at the end of the day.

This vigilant media as Sheila Coronel argued in her work ‘Media as Watchdog’ is liberal democratic orthodoxies’ key to good governance. Challengers of this believe such as Leninist view the press in socialist regimes as propagandist and agitator, as partner in building socialism, rather than an entity independent and skeptical of government (2008, pp. 2-3).

Also, the ‘East Asian values’ of the media in the 1990s which centred on the uniqueness of the people, with the citizens willing to sacrifice individual freedoms in exchange for economic well-being and development. Media’s primary role is that of helping forge social consensus for strong governments in pursuit of economic growth and development of the region.

Another challenger is the School of Development Journalism fashioned in the 1970s, which preached that in poor countries, the media should veer away from the Western fixation on conflict and disaster and should instead promote developmental goals (ibid). This implies the press should not be critical and instead serve as source of information and main supporter of development.

The work of a vigilant press has also been questioned citing it as causing scandals which only raised dust for a few weeks and die, without achieving any meaningful change or reform in government. It can cause citizens to be hostile to the official involved in a scandal but that those not mean that if he comes out to contest for a public office tomorrow, they would not vote for him. For some citizens (especially in developing countries) are very poor and hungry, capable of selling their votes and consciences to the highest bidder, not minding the long-term effect it would have on their well-being. Apart from that, Coronel stated that:

‘The impact of watchdog journalism becomes very difficult in some countries because of ‘the unwillingness of elites to take action, the weight of bureaucratic cultures that are resistant to change, a law-enforcement system that is incapable of punishing wrongdoing, and an apathetic and cynical public’ (2008, p.13).

Some Western communication and media scholars belonging to the “media malaise” school of media effects also assert that too much negative reporting undermines support for public officials, making it more difficult for them to govern effectively (Robinson, 1976; Newton, 1999; Norris, 2000; Slater, 2004; Chang, 2007; Stromback and Johansson, 2007; Stromback).

Not only that, it leads to rising dissatisfaction with governments and invariably, with democratic institutions and democracy itself.

Whatever the criticisms and no matter the level of scandalous reporting, some scholars argued that it takes only a government that is ready for reform for whistleblowing by the media exposes to have any impact. Not surprised, Protess et al., (1991) were sceptical of the

“mobilization model,” which says that exposés, by changing public opinion and mobilizing publics, ultimately lead to policy reforms. There may be a link between them “but the link is weak and unreliable” (Coronel, 2008, p.13).

These debates, however, have not changed the fact that exposure of wrongdoing and corruption in public office can help make personnel and policy changes possible if the

These debates, however, have not changed the fact that exposure of wrongdoing and corruption in public office can help make personnel and policy changes possible if the