Education – perhaps the most essential investment a Country can make. What happens when those who are there to educate, do so with bias and agenda? Instead of telling news how it is, they force on you their interpretation of what you should take from it?
I believe a vital role for the media is to scrutinise the Government and to hold it to account for its actions. It should act to communicate the actions of those in power to those the actions are made in the name of. Failure to communicate this undermines our effectiveness in holding the Government to account.
Unfortunately, news is often run not with truth or understanding at its core, but with the desire to make money. Sensationalist stories aired to shock, inspire, outrage and ultimately entertain you achieve all of the above, but they fail to effectively educate. After all, why have a public debate on the merits of going to war for example when we can hear about the local boy born with 3 hands and 2 heads…
It boils down to the issue of ownership. Media will represent the views of those who own it. Competing news agencies need to get the edge somehow, and sensationalism certainly provides that. This unhealthy competition also adds to the growing polarisation of opinion, as agencies try to ‘differentiate’ their products to us, the consumers.
I want news that is not going to give me left or right, but both and everything in between. A news that tells me of the key issues and then breaks the arguments down and weighs them on their intellectual merits and costs, and then to encourage me to make up my own informed mind. I want more debates on the actions of the Government and the affects they have.
Would a nationally funded institution independent of Governmental influence be a viable solution? It is clear that privately owned media outlets have only their interests at heart, which conflicts against the nature of what news should be about - to educate.
Any thoughts on this? Would greater degree of objectivity and relevance not act to increase effective democracy and accountability?
This is what I mean; why must we take news with a pinch (or bucket) of salt? Why must I expect the news to be slanted to a political opinion? I think the role of the media in democracy is massively under-rated, and until it is starts focusing on issues that genuinely concern us, such as the actions and consequences of those who have the role of governing us, there appears to be a significant democratic deficit in place.
Jerry, would you not concede that there are however differing levels of subjectivity, some closer to reality than others? Would you then not want to hear those more informed ‘opinions’ as news rather than the ideological and sensationalist verbage we currently must endure? I don’t think political ideology should have any place in the newsroom.
I’m not sure that a good media is a pillar of democracy. After all, in true democracy, the power in society rests very close to, or with the people.
This doesn’t mean that every decision is made by referdum, but that the people are in close contact with the decision making process.
If the people are in close contact that massively undermines the role of the media. Those in politics must report directly to those they represent, face to face.
In fact, I think in many ways, the belief that media exists to “hold those in power to account” assumes that those in power will act in such a way as to need to be held to account.
If we were all involved in the political process more we would not need the media to tell us what congress, or in my case parliament was voting on… I could phone up my MP and ask her.
Hi gemty; perhaps my phrasing of ‘democracy’ is not specific enough. I am referring to any elected body of Government, fully accountable to the people.
I agree that ‘if’ the people are in close contact with their elected representative, then the role of the media would be less significant. However in today’s world, people have a much more passive role in the decision making process. Some cannot even be bothered to turn up to vote. They look to the news to educate them on what their leaders are doing in their name.
I see the role of the media simply as facilitating the information from what happens in Government, to the people. The media should be the tool for bringing the actions closer to the people in order to make the system more democratic.
The Government must always be accountable and responsible for its actions. Ultimately they are held to account at the ballot box (if people can be bothered to turn up and vote) but how can the electorate make an informed opinion on who to vote for if they are not fully aware on the issues, actions and consequences of doing so?
Effective communication and lack of intellectual discourse is on the decline in the mainstream media, and we, the people are going to be the ones who suffer at the end.
Hmm. I’m not so sure. If there’s no standard of objectivity, how can there be degrees of subjectivity? Subjective relative to what exactly?
On a more practical note, I would say that removing ideology is going to be next to impossible. Everybody brings something with them. News people have opinions just like us.
The problem is not bias per se, as bias is, if nothing else, a reflection of subjectivity.
Selective bias, however, is a different animal. Applying different levels of scrutiny to favored or disfavored news items is reflected not only in the media itself, but in the public at large. The idea of “balanced coverage” presupposes selective bias. It accepts it out right, such that the recitation of fact becomes intermingled with editorial to the degree that both become interchangeable. What happens then, and what is happening now, is that certain “facts” are reported in furtherance of editorial styled arguments which make use of said “facts” as support for one’s subjective goals… all done before the eyes of an audience predisposed to your subjective view and therefore less likely to question the authenticity of said “facts”. Thus journalism becomes a tool to reinforce one’s biases.
Truth, I think, should never become a matter of comfort. An honest, sincere person has a responsibility, at times, to experience certain challenges to one’s own views. The mere notion that one can simply flip on a particular news network, be it CNN, Fox, whatever, and only be confronted with comfortable truths is so entirely childish it is my belief that people who act in such a manner are, ultimately, children looking for nothing more than their favorite bedtime stories.
That said, Democracy will always have its Demagogues, and that is who employs selective bias the best, demagogues.
I reckon that innovative technologies and how best to use them are the most essential investment a country can make, but I suppose that you need certain forms of education for that.
There is no force involved, there is merely lots and lots of heavy implication. Do you know when was the last time I bought a product based on a TV advert? I don’t. I can’t remember. But I love adverts. Well, I’m impressed by them on a regular basis. When the adverts are better than the shows it shows you where the most talented people lie. If you don’t like the news source you are using then use another one - there are a lot out there.
Balls to holding the government to account, what about the bloody opposition? The Tories and the Democrats are a joke. All they do is provide watered down versions of their opponents policies with a half dozen key differences that distinguish them so that the media have something, however vague, to talk about. The media shouldn’t be doing the job of the opposition, the opposition should be doing it and the media reporting on it. It’s because of demands from all sides that the media get so involved in being directly confrontational regarding politics that there are accusations from all sides regarding political bias. You too are part of this discourse, you are not a passive observer.
Or, more generally, preserve a rough economic (and subsidiary lifestyle) situation.
Are you kidding? I’m sick to bloody death of reading about starving people in parts of the world where food just doesn’t grow, I’d rather read about Elephants running around St Petersburg or Virtual Make Up in Isreal, or people marrying their pets. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
You had a public debate, you didn’t produce a very interesting or convincing one. No offence, I don’t know you well enough to characterise you, but many people who complain about the quality of the media discussion of various topics are incapable of producing a better quality of discussion themselves. Therefore they should get on with improving their own voice before criticising others.
Not entirely, in fact not even for the most part. The tensions and contradictions in a single news article, let alone a whole show/paper/website demonstrate than no media organ, let alone the beast a whole, is completely subsumed under one motive. That’s out of date Marxist claptrap.
So cease being a consumer and encourage others to do the same. The more demand there is for a better quality of discussion the more some bugger’s going to think that he can make something of himself by producing and selling something of that kind. Or, alternatively, seek out the sources that already exist.
So read lots of different stuff…
Never going to happen, you have to do half of it (or more) for yourself. Alternatively, ride the crest of the wave, become a millionaire (preferably overnight) and buy a newspaper/news show/web equivalent and run it properly. Or write futurist propaganda novels.
You mean like the BBC? I adore the BBC, it’s produced more than it’s share of crap but there are some absolute diamonds to be found amongst it’s schedules. It’s not really independant, it’s run by a series of Quangos, all sort of responsible for one another as well as for the BBC. They’ve tried to simplify it by getting rid of the old bunch and setting up a brand spanking new Quango that mostly consists of the same people who were on the various previous ones. I’m sure it made a lot of sense to somebody in an office somewhere. Probably not a particularly smart or educated person though…
Yes, if it were possible. As Jerry pointed out, it isn’t.
Jerry, I’ve never much favored semantics, but I shall try to explain my position a little clearer.
While I realize we can never fully appreciate objectivity as we are inherently subjective beings, doesn’t mean we should not strive to understand it. I am making the presumption that a greater level of understanding will lead to a more democratic and accountable system. In the case of news and reporting, I would consider relevant information concerning an event the greatest factor of importance.
For example, say the Government was proposing to pass legislation to build a wall around the whole of the Country. I would like to know why the Government thinks this is a good idea. I would like to know the pros and cons to such a scheme. I want to know the costs and benefits to society and the considered implications. This is what I think the role of the media should be.
I do not want to listen to what the news outlet ‘thinks’ of the idea. Their job is to simply relay the information and to break it down to bite-size pieces to the people. Their opinions are the very thing I am against.
GCT, you are right; I am addressing selective bias here, not simply bias as ‘a reflection of subjectivity’, as you so elegantly phrase it. I want news as close to objectivity as is possible.
Again I agree, but instead of seeing the news as comforting, I think the emphasis is on the entertainment value it provides, at the sacrifice of an effective means of scrutiny.
My only comfort in the way things are going is that we are living in an increasingly digital age, where information is becoming easier to access. Thankfully we no longer need to rely on mainstream media to provide us with the ‘facts’ or coverage to what is really going on, provided someone, somewhere is. The difficulty now is not so much finding the information, but rather processing it.
SIATD, thanks for your reply - I’ll be back after lunch to address some of the points you raise.
I must admit I turn the channel more often than not when I see mainstream news hit the screen over here. It is not so much I don’t like this sensationalist news; (it really is quite amusing) It’s more the purpose of what they are trying to achieve. They are appealing to their ‘consumers’, which is fine, but it is not fulfilling the role to educate, which I consider of vital importance in a democracy.
Yes I totally agree. Political parties have their role to play, and scrutinizing the executive is certainly a big one for them. However their ability to do this is effectively undermined by their ultimate desire to survive and prosper, which boils down to winning elections and appealing to the center ground. As such, populist manifestos are drawn up and followed, but not necessarily to the benefit of the Country if the electorate does not fully appreciate the underlying intentions behind them.
I agree that the opposition should be the main branch of criticism for the executive. They should effectively scrutinize every Bill proposed until it is resoundingly clear that this Bill is in the best interests of the Country. However ultimately the people are the ones to pass judgment as to the future of who runs the Country. All I am proposing is that the better informed they are, the more effective and legitimate their vote will be, and so a greater degree of representation can be claimed. Do you disagree?
This is the difference between media in the UK and the US. The UK has some great news agencies. The BBC, while it has its faults (who doesn’t) generally speaking provides a good degree of all round coverage of global issues, as well as having regional news at the end too. I personally think that Channel 4 news is the best for dealing with political issues.
My post was really addressing mainstream US media. I feel it is overly sensationalist and politicized, and doesn’t deal with the issues to the depth I would think is required to form a decent level of understanding.
Perhaps you are right. Maybe I am too broadly painting the media with a stroke of the proverbial brush. What we have seen is a vast increase in the number of opinions through blogs for example on websites. I propose that this diversity of opinion should be encouraged, discussed and debated, rather than to be restricted via the harness of dogmatic political ideology.
Well I can’t speak for you, but the adverts they show for the new ‘gillette fusion’ that promises to ‘blow you away’ with 6 blades certainly sounds exciting, if not a tad dangerous… I am tempted…
No paper/show/etc. will be labouring under one motive in terms of content… most media outlets do present two sides of every debate. But, at the same time, there are many assumptions and motives that go unquestioned.
For example, does the Wall Street Journal prbongly and searchingly question the value of capitalism as an economic system? Or, does it take capitalism for granted?
It isn’t Marxist claptrap - its a fair question about the unquestioned re-enforcement of our cultural assumptions.
That’s not the argument, the argument is not about presenting sides of an argument, it’s about tensions built into the very medium itself regardless of what one is saying. Even a fascist propaganda movie contains tensions that demonstrate that it is not JUST a fascist propaganda movie, that a bazillion other interpretations are always already possible…
Of course, this is true of any conversation ever, anywhere.
It takes capitalism for granted. If you want to read something that doesn’t take capitalism for granted then read socialist propaganda, or anarchist propaganda, or fascist propaganda, or something else
The notion of meaning subsumed under capital is Marxist claptrap. I stand by this claim…
Hmm…I’d like to think it’s an open-ended discussion about an observation of a democratic deficit and proposed solution rather than an argument as such, but I digress.
Interesting example gemty - I was thinking purely from the angle of political ideology, but you are right, economic ideology should also be questioned for a better understanding of why we use ‘capitalism’ (broadly speaking) as the working paradigm for today. Especially in the States; some seem to think unrestricted capitalism can do no wrong. Personally I’m in favour of the best idea(s) for the job…We should never stop questioning the basis of our assumptions, nor take anything too much for granted so that it is so inflexible to change.
I guess at the end of the day, it’s not what they say, it’s how and why they say it, and perhaps more significantly - what they don’t say.
I didn’t intend this to be an ‘I am right you are wrong’ debate, just trying to highlight an observation I’ve noticed, and was wondering if others might have noticed this too. I think it happens to have significant implications regarding the foundations as to what makes a healthy democracy.
If the education system was better then mass media wouldn’t have to do that job/fulfil that role. You want the media to do the role of the political opposition, and the role of the public school system. It isn’t designed to do either, though it has more money and other resources than either of these things.
Only if political parties see themselves as primarily reactionary, rather than creative. That’s a sign of our times, of the ‘taking for granted’ of late capitalist culture in general, rather than an actual function of political parties per se. Political parties see themselves how advertisers saw themselves 50 years ago, now advertisers are completely aware that they don’t respond to demand but actively create it. Political parties need to mature and catch up with the advertising industry in this regard and get back to the business of ‘what is the best possible world that we can create?’ rather than ‘how do we cover our asses and maintain the present’. Fukuyama (who has a lot to answer for in my book, though my book has a lot of names in it of people who have a lot to answer for) identified all this about 15 years ago when Soviet Communism collapsed but it had been heading that way for a while. It’s temporary, it will change.
No one reads manifestos except for the parties themselves, elite sections of the media and people like me. They aren’t followed, just ask Tony ‘no top-up fees’ Blair.
Only if they are well informed and intelligent. Most of them aren’t, for a combination of reasons that in part is their own damn fault.
No, I just don’t see how, in the present system, we can construct any sort of criterion for defining ‘better informed’ and, secondarily, what sort of media produces ‘better informed’ citizens. Using censorship as a means to greater democracy is easily labelled as hypocritical, any major corporate or governmental intervention in the present mass of media will be rejected as antidemocratic. So, there’s no viable way to produce the circumstances that you desire, given the situation as things stand. Well, I actually believe that there are but I can’t be bothered outlining it all here for any tom dick or fanny to plagiarise and sell as their own.
Channel 4 and, on it’s better days, Newsnight are the best for politics. The BBC in general is best for ‘edutainment’.
In a late capitalist culture it simply doesn’t have the roles you want it to have. Concentrate on making the schools work better, or on the opposition not just being a watered down version of the present government.
Personally I think that most people who write blogs should be publically executed for the vacuity of their opinions but we needn’t get into my latent fascist streak.
I don’t shave, I spontaneously shed my beard at every second full moon. More seriously, you have to consider what sort of politics, what sort of praxis, could produce the sort of media that you’d like to see, performing the sorts of functions that you’ve described. Almost every route involves some variation on ‘censorship in the name of increased democracy’…
‘Top-up fees’ is to do with university funding, the proportion of the contribution made by the student/the student’s family to the costs of their degree education. Blair said in his 2001 manifesto that he wouldn’t introduce them to deal with the funding gaps in university budgets but that’s exactly what has happened. Of course, situations change and I’m not particularly concerned about middle class kids having to pay fees to get degrees in leisure and tourism or women’s studies, I certainly don’t think that tax money should go to pay for such things, but it’s one of the most blatant examples of how manifestos are written in one set of circumstances, policies are made in a different set of circumstances.
hi SIATD – I never said democracy would be an easy thing to uphold. Maybe I am overly demanding of the institution, but I feel it is nothing less than what is required in order for it to effectively work.
I feel the role of the news should be at least 3 fold: As an extension of the education system; as a means of scrutiny, and ultimately as a tool for the people to use to use (through becoming more educated) to hold the Government to account.
I would say Jeremy Paxman fries politicians more than the opposition ever could!
If you are exclusively referring to schools to educate the public, isn’t education taught simply a reflection of the times we live in? News media is for everyone, regardless of if you go to school or not. You cannot expect someone who wants to know what is going on in the world to go to school every day to get some idea, assuming that the schools do indeed know best. Unless every school teaches Current Affairs or Government and Politics, I don’t think that the school system is adequate enough to bare the responsibility of informing the people of the actions of Government.
I think it’s an interesting comparison you draw between political parties and advertising companies. Both appeal to give the electorate/consumer what they want, and so it may well be the case of style over substance that triumphs. Even more so then is the need for unbiased media to tell us the truth behind the glossy ads and manifestos. Obviously we cannot rely on the word of those who seek to sell to us their products.
I think it’s important to note that the world that advertising companies create is nothing more than an illusion. It does nothing to change the usefulness of the product. It merely tries to change opinions, to make us feel we need that product. Advertising in the US is another pet hate of mine, but I don’t want to go into that here other than to say if every product claims they are the best, where does that leave you?
I think the first step is to recognize that the problem exists. Then seek to get it fixed. Indeed as Jerry pointed out earlier, defining values and judgments is a near-impossible task. Deciding what is ‘best’ for the people and what exactly should be shown are the biggest problems of this system, for which I am still thinking of ways that would best tackle it.
However looking at the BBC for example as to how they operate, I think most people regard it as a decent system that does a good job of effectively reporting relevant information. It is not however without its critics. The Biased BBC blog believes that the organization has a labour bias; but since politics in the UK is becoming increasingly more pragmatic, I feel this is less of an issue.
I think ‘Censorship’ is a misleading term here. Obviously any media is limited by ‘air time’, or ‘web space’. Censorship would be a valid argument if the emphasis of what the media was not showing was called into question, as opposed to favoring selective bias as to what it is showing.
I’m interested in how your outline might go about changing the status-quo conditions as to deal with this issue; can you give us some gist of your idea to work with and perhaps build on?
The Boston Metro today ran an article that deals with the very issue we are talking about, albeit a different side to it. Elliott Kalan’s column talks about the attractiveness of the newscaster and how that affects the news we expect to hear from them, and how seriously we take it. Haven’t you ever wondered why Trevor McDonald is a living legend of ITV?
Not to dwell too much on top-up fees, but if you want a better service, you need to invest in it. It seems only right that those who want to attend and can pay for it, should do so. Universities are massively under-funded in the UK, so it makes sense to make them more self-reliant.
I think the bogging down of higher education as the Government tries to reach its target of getting 50% of students into it results in a reduced quality of service and the devaluing of degrees; a lose-lose situation it seems. Making those who attend pay is at least some way of addressing this problem. Again it seems, more responsibility should lie on the news to get it right.
