Why does a democracy need journalism and the First Amendment?
To answer this question, we must first define "democracy" - Abraham Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, defined it as "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Thus, for a democracy to truly remain a democracy, the common citizens need to be aware of their government's inner workings, and also be able to interact and influence said government. Journalism is an excellent vehicle that citizens utilize to remain in the fray; journalists (assuming they are professional, place the truth above all else, and refrain from putting a spin on the story) provide a transparent view of the government, wording their reports in a way that helps us common folk understand what exactly is taking place. Journalists also often ask the questions that are on the public's mind, providing the "little guys" with a voice to be heard (now, making the government actually heed these voices is another issue).
An important aspect of journalism is their freedom from the government, stated in and protected by the First Amendment. Journalists have the power to say what they want about whatever they want (as long as it isn't libel), and this freedom can keep the governments in check. The First Amendment also helps provide and protect democracy by allowing citizens the right to speak their own minds, to practice any religion, to assemble for any reason, and to petition any issue.
I believe good journalism and democracy go hand-in-hand. If journalists are ever "taken over" and ordered what to write about, democracy will shift closer to communism or totalitarianism; inversely, if democracy is replaced with communism/totalitarianism, you can be sure good journalism will soon disappear.
[post composed while listening to the album "Tubthumper" - Chumbawamba]
I agree. If we didn't have journalists we'd never know what was truly going on in the world. Governments would continue to hide secrets and the people would continue life in ignorance.
ReplyDeleteJournalism is key in maintaining a democracy. The problem is in that each news outlet is owned by a corporation with its own private agenda. If you have a news corporation that has a large conservative or liberal viewership, then you aren't going to make the majority of your news something that contradicts your viewers' beliefs.
ReplyDeleteIf only there were a publication that was paid based on the neutrality and the quality of the news it reported.
I also agree with Burka Burka. "Someone" needs to start that publication. In fact, I think they should all be paid on that basing. The two major problems (I believe) we have in journalism are that we don't have enough "truth seekers" and that we don't have anyone to publish them without bias. When they do happen to find someone with little bias to publish them they get buried by legalities and even if they "win" they've still lost because no one wants all the trouble that comes with printing the truth.
ReplyDeleteI agree that journalism is an essential element of "our" version of democracy. Unfortunately, there are some democracies that find ways to restrict journalists.
ReplyDeleteThe privatization of major news companies has in its own way restricted journalists in the United States. For the most part, however, journalists are free to write what they want, but this creates another problem. Even with all the information available from all kinds of journalists some people are still misinformed. They either stick to one news station that might slant the stories a certain way or they watch only the local news with all its puff pieces and very little about the events around the world. Although the fault lies with the people and not the journalists.
@ burka - i agree, there needs to be a completely bias-free, publicly-owned news publication. the only problem is that it likely wouldnt make much money, and while personally that doesnt seem like a downside, it usually takes money to make an impact in this world (depressing, i know). and you made a good point when you mentioned that news corps only report news that their target audience will like. this is backwards, IMO.
ReplyDelete@ anon1 (the one who agreed w/burka) - i am young and inexperienced in terms of the world of journalism, but i'd like to think that there are a few publications and journalists that report the truth and stay on the high-ground. if not, then i will be the first :) (and if theyre getting sued for printing the truth, something needs to be fixed in washington dc)
@ anon2 - totally agree, people only read what they want to read. i am reading a book titled "True Enough" by Farhad Manjoo, and in it he explains that people often have these false beliefs because it sounds "true enough" to them and their personal ideals. pretty eye-opening material.
I agree that a democracy when run correctly and journalists when reporting honestly, do go hand in hand and are dependent upon one another.
ReplyDeleteHowever one thing I would like to put out there for you to mull over is that our country, as it stands today isn't necessarily a democracy by the concrete black and white terms you mentioned. Our country is more of a republic. And journalism, as mentioned by a previous commenter, is anything but unbiased due to the influence of corporate greed and political agenda. So much like a true democracy and honest journalism go hand in hand, as does a republic and jilted journalism, or at least that is the standard to which our society seems to follow.
I could go on forever about this, but this is a review on your blog, not a time for me to blog my opinions. I think that your overview of the relationship here is true, but I would be interested to see what you had to say on a deeper level, by say researching the world of journalism and describing journalists you believe to be "honest" and by specifically naming the direct benefits and disadvantages of journalism in a "democracy". Just a thought, hope it helped!
@ amanda w - very true, our govt seems to be more of a republic than a democracy. now, my american history is pretty rusty, so i dont remember if the constitution declares what our govt system is or not.
ReplyDeletepertaining the unbiased journalism angle - im sure there are plenty of unbiased journalists out there, but the problem is that they ultimately have no say in what the publication puts out. the editors, and the editor's boss(es) have the final say, and since like 90% of the newspapers in the country are owned by a handful of people, they pretty much control what info gets out to the mainstream public. ill have to double check that percentage, so dont quote me on it lol. i do know its an absurdly high proportion
ok, according to my COM101 class, there are 8 CEO's in the world that control 95% of the information.
ReplyDeletethe 5 american companies are: Time Warner, News Corp, Disney, Viacom, and General Electric.
the 3 international companies are: Vivendi Universal (french music corp), Bertelsmann (german publishing & music corp), and Sony (japanese film/music/technology corp).
General electric is apparently about to be owned by Comcast, which is the #1 cable company after buying 51% of NBC.
I will just say I agree. Although we have the first amendment we cannot say whatever we want. We have rights but they are restricted rights, we cannot offend people. I agree in the aspect that the journalists help us "little people" understand more about what is going on; but I disagree with the quote from Abe because we have little say with what really goes on.
ReplyDelete"but I disagree with the quote from Abe because we have little say with what really goes on."
ReplyDeletedo you think that the common citizen ever had a legitimate say in what goes on?
one example i can think of is a small-town city hall. im assuming that the larger a city's population gets, the less weight any one person can throw, which results in these elected officials that "speak for the journeyman". and somewhere along the line the average politician stopped caring about the little guy and started caring about their own wallet. AND im also guessing that around the same time politicians were becoming corrupt, certain corporations started gobbling up companies and building up their strength, and then putting their weight behind candidates of their choosing, allowing the corporations a say in what laws are passed/not passed. which seems pretty illegal to me.
Thinking that rich people and corporations own/control everything and we are powerless ends up being defeatest. Because we have a free press and free speech and the right to vote, we have a voice. And as long as we have a voice, we have power. The important thing is to remain informed and to be wary of movements fueled by big money. If a message aims at pitting the middle class against itself or poorer classes, be suspicious. Big money minority thrives by keeping the majority fighting amongst themselves over smaller and smaller pieces of the pie while they grab a bigger share.
ReplyDeleteIgnore corporate news: there's a whole internet out there to educate yourself and to spread an alternate point of view. You have access to a multitude of independent journalists. Grassroots movements abound: go Wisconsin!
When oil companies and Wall street financiers profit on our tax dollars yet the people being asked to make harsh sacrifices to balance public budgets are teachers and police and public employees....and the message is these folks have fed too long at the trough...you can bet its big money defecting attention to preserve their way too big slice.
Speak up! Blog! Write! Voices are powerful...especially in numbers!
I agree. Information is power, and in these times, information is easy to obtain. Everyone should be informed of not only views they agree with, but also views they don't agree with. Journalism without bias is a goal, but at least we can have news from different views from which to choose.
ReplyDelete