A free media is a fundamental underpinning of a democratic society and is rightly defended fiercely – as in the strong negative response to recent news that Quebec police had obtained court warrants to monitor the phone calls of a number of journalists as part of criminal investigations they were conducting. Our media deserves praise for some of the excellent investigative work that they carry out, bringing to light issues and injustices that our governments then address and rectify. |
One of the most important roles that the media plays in a democratic society is to disseminate information and analysis about the issues of the day, thereby helping to educate the public so that they may participate in their government system in an informed manner. I am sorry to say that I find the media increasingly ineffective in this role at a time when they have never been more needed. The explosion of social media and the anonymity that it can provide has triggered a flood of commentary about every imaginable issue – almost none of it thoughtful and balanced. As Emma Teitel has written (Maclean’s December 23, 2013):
The Internet has a way of democratizing debate to the point where anybody with a bad attitude and an IP address can make the nightly news, or launch an all out culture war. It has a particular knack for turning the virtual equivalent of a bathroom wall scrawl into the issue of the day.
Citizens need to have news sources that will provide them with thorough and reasonably balanced consideration of issues, so that they can watch, listen, or view these reports, reflect upon them, and come to their own decision about such matters. Increasingly, however, the line between news and entertainment has blurred. Balanced coverage can’t compete with the latest crisis, tragedy, conflict, or confrontation. The guiding principle has long been “if it bleeds, it leads.”
The Media’s Superficial Coverage of Elections
Superficial and slanted media coverage is particularly evident during an election campaign. Instead of an analysis of issues and alternatives, the media focuses on the “horse race” aspect of the campaign, breathlessly reporting on each new poll and what it may mean for the governing and opposition parties. There is very little media examination of major issues that should be a basis for voter decisions.
One particularly pathetic example arose during the media’s slavish devotion to every utterance and activity of Rob Ford, the deceased former Mayor of Toronto. A mayoral candidate for the upcoming municipal election of 2014 announced a news conference to set forth some of his campaign policies. Doug Ford, the Mayor’s brother, told the city hall press gallery (erroneously) that the Mayor would be visited at the very same time by a magician who would perform card tricks. All but three reporters turned up to cover the card tricks (only to find that the supposed guest had magically disappeared). The only justification offered (by a former journalist, Dan Rath, in the Toronto Star, August 28, 2014) is that today’s media owners want content that will be prominent in Google (or other search engine) findings – regardless of its substantive content or merit.
Even more disturbing has been the U.S. media’s obsession with coverage of every action and utterance by Donald Trump, no matter how obscure or obscene. As Tony Burman pointed out in a recent article, the major U.S. networks devoted very little time to discussion or analysis of issues. They became, unwittingly or not, mouthpieces for Trump because providing him with coverage was good for their revenues. It is discouraging to learn that while NBC, ABC, and CBS newscasts devoted 220 minutes to issues coverage in 2008 (the last time both parties nominated new candidates for the White House), they had only devoted 32 minutes this time around (as of a week before the election).
Democracy Needs Balanced Media Coverage
Now, as never before, we need a media that is not only independent but is also willing to play a role in informing and educating the public about the issues confronting their governments. This is admittedly a tall order, since most people today seem to prefer seeking out sources that will tell them what they want to hear and will reinforce the views (biases?) that they already hold. Media sources that try to outline issues and explain alternatives will likely struggle for attention. The temptation will be for them to try competing with the myriad of extremist sources that now exist by becoming more aggressive and strident themselves. Indeed, we already hear many criticisms of particular media sources as being very one-sided. It is amusing to note, however, that the media are regularly attacked as being too liberal or too conservative, depending on the source of the complaint.
A democratic system works best when those participating are informed about the issues of the day and have some appreciation of the complexities surrounding these issues so that they can cast a vote based on intelligence, not raw emotion. Where will the people gain this information and understanding if the mainstream media increasingly abandon this role?