Thesis Statement and Research Problematic
The Social Responsibility Theory suggestes that in the U.S. anyone with something to say has a right to use the media, and that the media should serve as a watchdog over government, as well as remaining free from pressures of special interests. However, many theorists have argued that there is considerable deviance between the rationale and actual practice. Due to influences of concentration of media ownership and economic agendas, the media are no longer functioning according to the Social Responsibility Theory, in fact, a majority of the criteria outlined by this theory are now being taken up by the citizens outside of the press. This essay will explore how citizens use methods of collaborative documentary and blogs to fulfill the responsibilities suggested by the Social Responsibility Theory in the absence of the press fulfilling their social responsibilities.
Theoretical Background and Literature Review
Fred Siebert, Theodore Peterson and Wilbur Schramm are authors of the book Four Theories of the Press; they outline six tasks ascribed to the press under the Social Responsibility Theory; (1) serving the political system by providing information, discussion and debate on public affairs; (2) enlightening the public so as to make it capable of self-government; (3) serving as watchdog against the government; (4) servicing the economic system through the medium of advertising; (5) providing entertainment; and (6) maintaining its own financial self-sufficiency so as to remain free from pressure of special interests (Siebert, Peterson, Schramm, 1963).
In Four Theories of the Press, Peterson writes, “To the extent that the press recognizes its responsibilities and makes them the basis of operational policies, [it] will satisfy the needs of society. To the extent that the press does not assume its responsibilities, some other agency must see that the essential functions of mass communications are carried out” (Siebert et al.). This paper will suggest that several of these responsibilities are not being carried out by the press, and although not being taken up by any particular agency as the previous quote describes, these responsibilities are being carried out by individuals and groups of citizens through the use of blogs and collaborative documentaries. Following World War II various books published by the Commission on Freedom of the Press, placed great importance on the social responsibility of the press and the idea of “a free and responsible press;” during the twentieth century within the United States this notion developed that the press had a social responsibility, and because if this it became the only industry protected by the Bill of Rights (Siebert et al.).
J. Herbert Altschull argued against the categories outlined in Four Theories of the Press, he maintains that the four theories are no longer relevant and an independent press cannot exist because the media are agents of those who hold the economic, political and social power within the system (Severin, 2000). Because the media are so closely tied to those in power, they function more to maintain the status quo and represent the upper class than to serve in the interest of the public or to question the system. Lazarsfeld and Merton similarly point out that because media are supported by corporate businesses within the economic system, the media in turn supports that system. They state that the media “fail to raise essential questions about the structure of society,” and that a commercially sponsored media provide little basis for the critical appraisal of society (Lazarsfeld and Merton, 2000).
John C. Nerone wrote in Last Rights: Revisiting Four Theories of the Press, “The press driven by capital cannot be expected to provide a thorough critique of the economic system or to offer alternatives because it is not free from control or domination by capital. Naturally, from its very beginning, the capital-driven press did not have as its aim to be a watchdog over the system of which it is a part. Watchdogs do not bite their owners” (Nerone, 1995). Nerone also writes of how the press’ social responsibility under this theory also includes providing citizens with the raw materials they need to govern themselves and have a proper democratic society, but he says that by placing this responsibility on the press the theory is actually helping to reinforce the status quo, as ‘monopoly media seem like the voice of the people, even as they keep the people silent and stupid (Nerone, 1995).
Methodology
Of the six criteria outlined by Social Responsibility Theory, only two are still unarguably being carried out, that is media as entertainment and media as servicing the economic system through the medium of advertising. The other criteria, which are more “socially responsible” are lacking in many cases of mainstream media. The functions of serving the political system by providing information, discussion and debate on public affairs; and enlightening the public so as to make it capable of self-government are lacking because news papers and broadcast news often have a political leaning to left or right, and in some cases represent one side more favorably than the other. This is an issue Fox News has had considerable attention drawn to from outside of the press by individuals working together to show the public they can not receive their information from just this source, as this will leave them lacking in all the information necessary to be capable of self-governing (Outfoxed, 2004). As has been discussed by theorists opposing Four Theories of the Press the media are no longer serving as watchdog against the government as they are now a part of that system and often represent similar views. The last function, maintaining its own financial self-sufficiency so as to remain free from pressure of special interests is not occurring in many instances because the press in fact do have special interests, being owned by much larger corporations a medium is unlikely to report stories that have a negative impact on the corporation or its sponsors. As Altschull has concluded, “the content of news media always reflects the interests of those who finance the press,” and “On all press systems the media are agents of the people who exercise the political and economic power” (Severin, 2000).
The corporations known as “The Big Six” own an overwhelming amount of the mass media, these companies include General Electric, TimeWarner, Walt Disney, News Corp., CBS and Viacom (Freepress, 2008). According to the organization Free Press, the media “inform our ideas, values and beliefs. They shape our understanding of the world. Media are also essential to our democracy. We depend upon the news and information we get from the media to make informed decisions and to hold our government and corporate leaders accountable” (FreePress, 2008). For democracy to properly function the public needs to be informed, and they require access to diverse sources of news so as to make their own informed decisions and opinions based on all of the facts and all sides of every story and argument.
Media concentration is placing too much power in the hands of a small group of individuals. The big six corporations are worth billions of dollars and have access to such a large group of people it is almost impossible for marginal and alternative media to compete or be heard. The mainstream media seek primarily to make profits and are not concerned with social responsibility as a main priority. Because the owners of these media are upper class citizens they have no desire to question and oppose the system of which they are a part. In order to receive the alternative views needed to be an informed citizen, individuals can rely on no one news source, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find opposing view points in the media as fewer disseminating voices are being heard.
Citizens unsatisfied with the current media situation are finding ways to express their points of view to the public, ensuring that alternative voices are out there. Anyone with internet access has a location to express their point of view and discover alternative ways of thinking. People are also working together to produce documentaries that draw attention to failure of the media to report all sides of an issue and to express the side that would otherwise go unreported. This essay will explore case studies where citizens express alternative views through the use of internet and blogs, as well as three collaborative documentaries; This is What Democracy Looks Like (2000), Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance (1993), and Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism (2004).
Case Studies
The Internet:
For democracy to function properly people must be aware of issues in society, if people feel the media are not adequately serving this function they will find means at their disposal to raise discussion about issues they feel are important. This is why lobby groups form and internet forums arise about issues of concern to the public. People will use whatever means at their disposal to raise awareness and bring about change to issues they feel are important. In the new technological world, the internet is perhaps the most available means for the public to raise awareness of problems and discuss various issues in society. Personal web pages, blogs, ezines, or discussion forums such as Facebook provide a platform for people to discuss and question the world around them. Angelo Fernando has claimed that citizen powered journalism has stepped in to fill the void of the national media (Fernando, 2008).
Citizen journalism by means of the internet has been critiqued as being untrustworthy and not real journalism, but in the contemporary situation of the press, where a handful of companies own a majority of the media and means of communication, citizen journalism is necessary for individuals to find alternative points of view. Individuals simply need to regard everything they read or view, mainstream or online, with a critical eye. The Online Journalism Review outlines some internet platforms where citizens are expressing alternative views, these include: audience participation (such as user comments attached to news stories, and personal blogs); independent news and information Websites (for example Workingforchange.com and the Drudge Report); ull-fledged participatory news sites (such as Indymedia); collaborative and contributory media sites (such as Evrerything2); and personal broadcasting sites (video broadcast sites such as KenRadio.com or YouTube in some cases). (Lasica, 2003)
Collaborative Documentaries:
Collaborative documentaries are another important method whereby people can raise discussions of important issues. In a majority of documentaries there is an outside reporter discussing an issue on behalf of a group they are not a member of, much like journalistic news reporting. Collaborative documentary is a method where a group of people can speak for themselves about an issue, providing an alternative view from mainstream media. Journalists’ use of “official” sources often leaves the group affected by a situation in the position of “the other,” unable to speak for themselves (Ruby, 2000).
A few particularly interesting examples of collaborative documentary are This is What Democracy Looks Like (2000) and Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance (Alanis Obomsawin, 1993); each of these films depict an event that was highly publicized by the media, but take an opposing stance to the “official” representation of the event. Both films use footage to show how the issue was covered by the press, while also showing their side of the story by working with the people directly involved and representing the event from the opposite point of view of the press.
This is What Democracy Looks Like consists of a compilation of footage provided by protestors during the 1999 World Trade Organization Summit in Seattle. The film shows how the media portrayed the protestors as criminals and spoke highly of the police; while the film shows a great deal of footage of peaceful protestors being gassed and beaten by the police, an extreme opposition to the details provided by the media. This shows a potential problem in the media’s desire to represent news from the position of “official” sources, as this approach leaves out alternative points of view out of many events. In this case of this protest, the views of the protestors involved were not fully reported, but rather the media focused on the position of the police and only represented their side of the story. This depicts a situation where the press did not raise appropriate questions about the event as the Social Responsibility Theory would suggest to be their role. In this instance the press did not serve as a watchdog on the government, but the citizens involved took on this role by making a documentary that showed wrongful actions of the police and the media in covering the event. Obviously, if the media only rely on police statements of what was occurring in Seattle the police will defend their actions against the protestors by making the protesters seem violent.
The news footage that is shown in the documentary shows the media reaffirming the police point of view by stating that the protestors were violent and the police were “showing great restraint” in their actions towards them. But footage displayed within the documentary shows peoples right to freedom of speech being taken away from them. The police began making all of the city of Seattle a no-protest-zone, and used tear gas on people who were sitting on the ground in the form of a human-chain. This all seems like very excessive force on the protestors, and does not show “great restraint” as the news footage described.
The documentary Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance depicts the conflict that occurred in Oka, Quebec during the summer of 1990 between the Mohawk people on their reserve and the provincial police and federal military. The conflict in this situation arouse when the town of Oka decided to use the land on the Native reserve to build a golf course. In opposition to this the Mohawk people barricaded the road to prevent the construction of the golf course, this eventually resulted in a stand-off between the Mohawk people and the Canadian Military for several months time. The military would not allow press into the Native reserve so a majority of the representation of the event had to rely on the military and the local police as sources, while the Mohawk’s were unable to represent their side of the story. The film was made from inside the barricade where the press were not allowed, so is shot from the point-of-view of the native people. The film shows the Mohawk people as not wanting violence, but merely to protect their land. It represents the military as being in the wrong through the use of footage that shows unnecessary violence on the native people. The entire reserve was surrounded by military and tanks, no food, clothing or family were allowed to enter. One native man was beaten by a group of soldiers to the point he had to be taken to hospital, and he was not allowed to return to reserve once he had left. While the Mohawk people were described as savages by the press and the military, the effect of the film is to show the military as the savages (Pick, 1999). In the end everyone on the reserve surrendered and were loaded onto buses to be taken to police headquarters for questioning, but the golf course was never built, and most of the people were released, making the entire event seem very pointless on the part of the police and military whom could have left months earlier.
Another collaborative documentary is Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism (Robert Greenwald, 2004). This film is slightly different than the other two examples as it is not speaking out for a marginalized group in society, it is a film critiquing the Fox News slogans of “Fair and Balanced” and “We Report, You Decide.” This film includes a great deal of stock footage of Fox News coverage as well as interview segments with former employees, activists and experts. The Outfoxed website describes the film as an “in-depth look as Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the publics right to know (Outfoxed, 2004). The film shows evidence that Fox News is among the least balanced and objective journalism, and how this is seeping into many of the large news corporations, hunting for facts can be time consuming and costly so news corporations are cutting costs and running simple stories whenever possible. This film also shows how mainstream media are not necessarily the best source for individuals to get their political information, as Fox for example is extremely Right Wing. The film shows a report by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)conducted form June to December 2003, which concluded Fox had 5 times as many Republicans (83%) as Democrats (17%) speaking one on one during the program Special Report with Brit Hume, whereas if they were really “Fair and Balanced” these numbers would be much closer (Outfoxed, 2004).
The film includes a quote by former Fox News Anchor Jon Du Pre, “We weren't necessarily, as it was told to us, a news gathering organization so much as we were a proponent of a point-of-view” (Outfoxed, 2004). Everyday employees of Fox News receive a memo from headquarters in New York telling them what they should and should not discuss for the day. One short example of these types of memos read:
Fox Memo
Date: 4/28/2004 From: Moody
Let’s refer to the US marines we see in the foreground as “sharpshooters” not snipers, which carries a negative connotation.
This is an example of how the journalists who work for the corporation are controlled and told what to say and how to say it. The film also draws attention to the fact that when George W. Bush was elected president in 2000 it was Fox News which first announced the win. George Bush’s first cousin was the individual at Fox News responsible for the election analysis division, while most people decided that the final count, for the State of Florida was “too close to call,” Fox News went ahead and announced that it was a clear win for George W. Bush. Within minutes several major news stations started reporting Bush’s presidency, ABC, NBC, and CBS (Outfoxed, 2004).
This film is an interesting example as it not only offers alternative ideas, it offers alternative ways of thinking about the entire structure of the press, it raises questions about democracy, such as can we trust stations like Fox to give us balanced information to determine our political decisions and ideological ideas? This film goes so far as to speak out directly against a major news station, and suggests it is neither fair and balance, nor objective, but simply one point of view on selected issues.
Conclusion
Due to the failure of the media to cover the rationales as outlined in the Social Responsibility Theory, citizens in society are raising awareness and alternative views to important issues through the use of the internet and collaborative documentaries, which are only two of many methods employed by citizens to fulfill this role in society. Concentration of ownership due to the development of large media conglomerates has resulted in few opposing point of views. It is difficult for alternative voices to be heard in the mainstream over the voices of these few large corporations. The media are no longer raising debates about political issues, or serving as a watchdog over the government, they are no longer free of special interests, but instead are driven by special interests of the economic system they service. Primarily the citizens outside of the mainstream press are now fulfilling the social responsibilities which are crucial to a democratic society, only they are raising opposing views, alternative voices, causing debate on issues of importance and acting not only as watchdog over the government, but now operating as a watchdog over the press as well.
References
Fernando, Angelo (2008) Citizen-powered journalism fills void. Communication World. Vol. 25, Iss. 1, 8-9.
Free Press (2008). Free Press: Reform Media, Transform Democracy. Retrieved March 29, 2008 from http://www.freepress.net
Gaines, J.M. (1999) Political Mimesis. Collecting Visible Evidence. J.M. Gaines and M. Renov (Eds.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 84-102.
Lasica, J.D. (2003). “What is Participatory Journalism.” Online Journalism Reiew. Retrieved March 27, 2008 from http://www.ojr.org/ojr/workplace/1060217106.php
Lazarsfeld, P.F., & Merton, R.K. (2000) Mass Communication, Popular Taste and Organized Social Action. Media Studies: A Reader. P Marris and S. Thornham (Eds.). New York: New York University Press, 18-30.
Nerone, John C. (1995) Last Rights: Revisiting Four Theories of the Press. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Outfoxed. (2004). Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism. Retrieved March 23, 2008, from http://www.outfoxed.org
Pick, Zuzana (1999) Storytelling and Resistance: The Documentary Practice of Alanis Obomsawin. Gendering the Nation: Canadian Women’s Cinema. Kay Armatage (Ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 171-181.
Ruby, Jay (2000) Speaking for, Speaking about, Speaking alongside. Picturing Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 195- 219.
Severin, W.J., Tankard, J.W. (2000) Communication Theories: Origins, Methods and Uses in the Mass Media. 5th Edition. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Siebert, F.S., Peterson, T. & Schramm, W. (1963) Four Theories of the Press. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment