Caleb Haney

POL 102 Final Paper

4/27/2015

Democracy is officially defined as a system of government by the whole population or all

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

of the most important ingredients in a successful democratic government.

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

2 "Lesson 1: The Media and Democracy: Theory and

History."Services.online.missouri.edu. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.
 Caleb Haney
POL 102 Final Paper
4/27/2015
Indonesia three leading weeklies were closed down by official fiat in 1994.3 In the United States

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

collectives in the nation.

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

political insiders from within the American establishment.4

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

3 Curran, James. "Media and Democracy." (n.d.): 15. Print.

4 Curran, James. "Media and Democracy." (n.d.): 11. Print.

 Caleb Haney
POL 102 Final Paper
4/27/2015
reports of local police brutality. The investigation began when a lawyer told a local reporter that

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

also requires cooperation with the government.

5 Curran, James. "Media and Democracy." (n.d.): 11-12. Print.

6 Krimsky, George A. "THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA IN A

DEMOCRACY."Http://usa.usembassy.de. N.p., n.d. Web.
 Caleb Haney
POL 102 Final Paper
4/27/2015
Naturally politicians try to control an institution as powerful as the media as much as they

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

like being reported.7

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 same time requires some form of regulation of the media.

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

7 "Lesson 1: The Media and Democracy: Theory and

History."Services.online.missouri.edu. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2015

8 "Lesson 1: The Media and Democracy: Theory and

History."Services.online.missouri.edu. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2015
 Caleb Haney
POL 102 Final Paper
4/27/2015
2004 campaign (13%)." That same study showed stated "the proportion of Americans who rely

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

information in the world.9

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,

a democratic viewer base.

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.

10 Allen, Cynthia M. "Is Social Media Enlarging or Stifling Democracy?" Star-

telegram. N.p., 27 Aug. 2014. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
 Caleb Haney
POL 102 Final Paper
4/27/2015
above all it must be non-partisan. Yet at the same time, in a way democracy actually only

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

the media can no longer be held responsible.