ABSTRACT
Of all the overlapping philosophical principles that underpin conceptions of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, the idea that journalism should function to safeguard the institutions and principles of democracy is by far the most enduring. As we saw in Chapter 1 the democracy argument for freedom of speech is a principle which is central to Western philosophical thinking about the role of freedom of speech in stimulating an active and informed citizenry and as a means of holding its representatives to account. In Chapter 2 we examined the historical development of journalism’s role within this framework as embodying the so-called Fourth Estate and explored the notion that the philosophical ideas which emerged in response to specific historical circumstances over time contributed to the development of principles which have come to connect freedom of speech and eventually freedom of the press, with democracy – the democratic imperative of journalism. Anderson and Ward (2007: 39) suggest that debates about role of the news media in democratic societies tend to ‘vary between two extremes’. This polemic is essentially animated by those who see the liberal news media as performing their democratic function in that they are supplying their audiences with what they want, and those who see commercial considerations effectively undermining the public sphere to such a degree that democracy becomes
contorted and degraded. In other words on one side of the debate is the argument that the commercially driven media adequately services the democratic imperative and allows a plurality of voices and opinions. The commercial imperative of the market ‘makes the press a representative institution’ (Curran and Seaton 2010: 326). On the other side of the debate the argument tends to focus on the media’s role in ‘dumbing down’ political debate and ‘sensationalising’ politics with its emphasis on ‘hyperadversarialism’ and personalisation (see McNair 2000: 1-13). Of course journalism exists and has existed in a variety of forms as both a reflection
and reinforcing element of culture and identity (Carey 1989; Anderson 1991), as entertainment (Conboy 2002), as a weapon of defiance and critique (Atton 2002), as well as a means for making all money (Greenslade 2004), yet of course the dominant liberal view of journalism sees its prime role in safeguarding democracy. In order to do this journalism must be unfettered, as far as is possible, from government control. Of course there are numerous examples of journalism serving the interests of democracy and acting as a ‘Fourth Estate’ against political corruption and misdeed. Woodward and Bernstein’s exposure of the Watergate tapes for the Washington Post in the 1970s is probably the most famous of all the examples of investigative journalism exposing government corruption. Before Watergate the publication of the ‘Pentagon Papers’, initially by the New York Times, brought to light classified details and top secret information about the conduct of the Vietnam War (Bollinger and Stone 2002). More recently in the U.K. MPs’ abuse of their expenses allowances was exposed by the newspaper press and became a key issue of the 2010 general election.1
Indeed there is a long history of investigative journalism, which demonstrates the power of quality journalism in exposing the corruption and abuse of power (de Burgh 2008; Pilger 2001). However, though one of the key functions of journalism has been to safeguard against abuses of power and wrongdoing, it is a matter of debate whether or not journalism adequately functions in this capacity on a consistent basis. The purpose of this chapter then is to explore the issue of ‘freedom of the press’ specifically with regard to its relationship to democracy and examine some of the factors which impact on journalism’s capacity to fulfil its democratic obligations. The first part of the chapter will explore the relationship between journalism and
democracy by analysing the role of the media. Here the deliberative model of democracy is fore-grounded as I suggest that it is such a model which most closely relates to the effective functioning of news journalism in democratic societies. The role of commercial speech and advertising in particular is central to this discussion as I examine how and why commercial speech in the United States came to receive almost as much protection under the First Amendment as individuals. Though this argument is built on in later chapters with regard to media regulation in Britain it is necessary here to closely examine the relationship between First Amendment protection for commercial speech as it offers an insight into the way in which, primarily via advertising, commercial imperatives of commercial enterprises became protected within the sphere of constitutional democratic rights in the United States. The second part of the chapter moves on to explore political communications and looks at
changes which have occurred in the communication of politics which have led some commentators to argue that democracy is being fundamentally compromised. Finally, I point to the relatively recent observations from a prominent philosopher that address the very foundations of the relationship between news media and democratic societies.
