The Watchdog Role of the Media
The watchdog role requires the news media to provide a check on powerful sectors of society, including leaders within the private and public domains. To remain objective, there should be no canoodling between the press and these leaders. The press has been given First Amendment protection, but they urinate all over it by choosing sides, and then they wonder why they aren't trusted.Turmoil grows over White House correspondents' dinner
February 12, 2017
AFP - It is supposed to be a light-hearted gathering of journalists, celebrities and the president, where differences are put aside for good-natured jibes.
But amid a bitter war of words between the Trump administration and the Fourth Estate, plans for the 2017 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in April have been thrown into turmoil.
After President Donald Trump's repeated barbs against the "dishonest media" and "fake news," some journalists and media outlets are thinking twice about their participation in the April 29 dinner, a tradition that dates back to 1921.
"How can media clink glasses with a White House that makes clear its contempt for press freedom and its admiration for (Russian President Vladimir) Putin methods?" tweeted David Frum, a senior editor at The Atlantic.
The association, which organizes the annual event that raises money for journalism scholarships, said the dinner will be held as planned.
The White House has indicated it is on Trump's calendar -- despite some doubts about whether he will attend.
Opinion editor Robert Schlesinger of US News & World Report said that regardless of what Trump does, "the media should boycott the dinner."
"News organizations should buy tickets as usual (it's for a good cause) but make other plans that night and if he does attend, let the ratings- and crowd-obsessed narcissist freak address an empty ballroom," Schlesinger wrote.
Ironically, some analysts say the 2011 dinner in which then president Barack Obama skewered Trump became a pivotal moment in the billionaire's decision to make a White House run.
In recent years, the dinner has become a star-studded event attracting A-list celebrities ranging from George Clooney to Helen Mirren to Lindsay Lohan, with politics mainly an afterthought.
This year, The New Yorker and Vanity Fair have canceled parties they traditionally host as part of the hoopla surrounding the dinner.
Also, many stars are avoiding the event this year and no "headliner" comedian has committed so far, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
- 'Stick a fork in it' -
Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan said the glitzy party and related events around it no longer seem appropriate.
"Once merely embarrassing and ridiculous, the annual White House correspondents' dinner is poised to tip over into journalistic self-abasement," she wrote. "It's time to stick a silver-plated fork in it."
Slate correspondent Jacob Weisberg echoed those sentiments, saying in a tweet: "Please cancel the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Unseemly spectacle, totally at odds with the press holding administration accountable."
Meanwhile, late-night comedy show host Samantha Bee is planning an alternative event the same evening, "welcoming journalists and non-irritating celebrities from around the world."
All proceeds from that event -- dubbed "Not the White House Correspondents' Dinner" -- will go to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Bee said.
Although all presidents have had scrapes with the press corps, relations between the media and the White House are at what some see as an all-time low.
After some news organizations called out Trump for "lies" on a variety of topics, the president disparaged journalists as "among the most dishonest human beings on earth."
His top aide Stephen Bannon called the news media "the opposition party."
Association president Jeff Mason of Reuters said the dinner would be held as usual "to celebrate the First Amendment (on freedom of the press) and the role an independent press plays in a healthy republic."
- Dining with 'the enemy' -
The pro-Trump news outlet Daily Caller reported there was "chatter" that the president may skip the gathering, in an article titled "Will Donald Trump Dine With The Enemy?"
Brent Decker, a former newspaper editor who authored "The Conservative Case for Trump," suggested he steer clear of the dinner.
"I don't think #PresidentTrump should go into the coliseum to wrestle with the wild animals," Decker tweeted.
Daily Beast editor Lloyd Grove argued that the show should go on.
"Despite aesthetic and even principled objections to this annual rite of spring, the dinner continues to serve a valid journalistic interest. Journalism can frequently be a messy enterprise," Grove wrote.
But Northeastern University journalism professor Dan Kennedy said the event serves little purpose and "should have been canceled a long time ago. "
"The public sees Washington journalists as out-of-touch, well-heeled insiders more concerned about access than they are in holding the powerful to account," Kennedy said.
Deborah Potter, a former CBS News correspondent who heads the NewsLab training center, said the event has long been "awkward" and "raises legitimate questions about coziness between reporters and their sources."
She said that the dinner "has become a creature of the White House, at which journalists take on the role of bit players in service to those in power. That's not OK under any administration."
The Watchdog Role of Media - Media as the "Fourth Estate"
January 27, 2007
Rrezja Journal - The watchdog conception, according to which, the media is supposed to serve as a controller of government, is one among the oldest main beliefs in journalism. The term ‘fourth estate’, the press’ role in being a ‘watchdog’ that will control the government was reputedly coined by Edmund Burke, in late-eighteenth century in England to refer to the political power possessed by the press of that time, on a same level with the other three ‘estates’ of power in the British realm: Lords, Church and Commons.[1]
This essay will aim to explain the ‘watchdog’ role of the media; in particular it will deal with issues like: Social Responsibility Theory, current trends of media agenda setting, and how media fulfills its role in the society and how it helps opinion make wise and informed decisions. In countries where democracy is fragile, there is less emphasis on the ‘watchdog’ role of the media; circumstances dictate such a thing. On the other hand, in the democratic countries, in the societies with a high level of political culture, the ‘watchdog’ role of the media is highlighted very strongly. Media are considered as a ‘fourth estate’, as a powerful ‘watchdog’, which is used for revealing mistreatments of state authority, in particular protecting the democratic and constitutional rights of the citizens. However, with the slow, but stable, decline of the public’s belief in the mass media,[2] it is contentious whether the ‘watchdog’ role of the media is still undamaged. The essay will prove that media still remains ‘watchdog’, the ‘fourth estate’ that, more or less, realizes its responsibilities toward society.
Social Responsibility Theory
The Social Responsibility Theory is one among other press theories; some say, there are four theories, the others say that there are really just two theories of the press, Authoritarian and Libertarian, which the latter two theories, Social Responsibility and Soviet Communist are merely extensions of.[3] Nevertheless, the Social Responsibility Theory is very important one; it is considered as a theory that should serve to the achievement of valid societal goals. According to this theory, the media have responsibilities toward society; the media should be available to more than a marginal group of people and present more than the opinions of influential politicians. Therefore, the essence of the Social Responsibility Theory is an affirmative role in advocating social justice for general public, which are powerless.
The social responsibility tradition that received its philosophical basis in the American commission of 1947 was actually put into practice with much more determination and effects in countries other than the United States, especially in Western Europe in the two or three decades following the Second World War.[4] The idea was to put order in media’s scene of the Europe; it was a post-war period and Europe needed, more than any thing else, an accountable media that will act responsibly toward demands of society, it will promote a social justice. In a way, for the media, social responsibility should be always a main concern.
The social responsibility model involved a number of ways in which the state could attempt to play a role in attempting to ensure that media fulfills their social obligations whilst at the same time trying, more or less, to retain the independence of the journalism and the freedom of the speech.[5] Mass media should provide citizens with information. They should identify the problems in our society, and unlawful activities of those who have power. Media also should have mobilization function, campaigning for societal purposes in the area of politics and economic development. So, everywhere, social tasks come prior to media rights and freedoms.
The social responsibility model suggests that among others: the media have obligations to society; news media should be truthful, fair, objective and relevant; the media should be free, but self-regulated; the media should follow agreed codes of ethics and professional conducts.[6] According to this, the media in Kosovo and in the region, with a few exceptions, are not respecting the bases of the Social Responsibility Theory. For instance, the daily Bota Sot, deals more with untruthful accusations than with news (i.e. during the national elections before two years daily Bota Sot has written about Mr. Veton Surroi and his ‘marriage’ with the sister of Xhoana Nano-the wife of former Prime Minister, Mr. Fatos Nano).
On the other hand, the Public Television of Kosova (RTK) deals more with unimportant issues than with important ones. People acquire factual information about public affairs from television news, but they also learn how much importance to attach to a topic on the basis of emphasis placed on it in the news. If the first story on the newscast is unimportant one, if the length of time dedicated to the salient story is too short, as RTK is doing there is no way to fulfill tasks toward the public. By calling attention to the secondary matters, while ignoring the important ones, RTK is not fulfilling its responsibilities to citizens of Kosova.
According to the Social Responsibility Theory, socially responsible media also should represent the public and speak for and to the public interest in order to hold government accountable.[7] So, the media should be considered as ‘watchdog’ that the public rely on for revealing errors and wrongdoing by governmental institutions. The Public Television has never revealed even one illegal act, which is done by governmental institutions, and, of course, there are plenty of them. On the other hand, there are some media, socially responsible, that represent the public interest. One of them is daily Koha Ditore; this daily newspaper has revealed a lot of unlawful activities of politicians. A few days ago this newspaper, Koha Ditore has revealed a latest scandal of Minister of Culture, Youth and Sports, Mr. Astrit Haraqia. The Minister Haraqia has engaged the Italian songstress with Albanian origin to sing for his birthday; every thing has been paid from the money of Kosovo’s tax-payers.
Even in United States, the first constitutional democracy in the world, there are a lot of cases when different forms of media fail to cover issues in a socially responsible manner. For instance, the Nevada Daily Mail, while writing about an investment of Murphy Farms in their city, represented it as a family farm instead of a corporate giant run by Wendell Murphy, an influential former state legislator who is actively involved in gaining agricultural exemptions from state sales taxes; and environmental regulations.[8] Therefore, readers were told not only that family farm had arrived but that the arrival involved potentially controversial issues, such as problems with environment. As a result this investment was not done, since it was not allowed by citizens. By doing this, Nevada Daily Mail didn’t fulfill its tasks to citizens, and later was accused by them for misinformation.[9]
On the other hand, the media’s scene of United States is full of examples where media cover issues in a socially responsible way; it remains a ‘watchdog’ that reveals bad behavior of politicians and in this way fulfills its responsibilities to public. Watergate and the Pentagon Papers were issues of national scope in which a more powerful executive branch of government threw its weight against the media’s ‘watchdog’ legacy; although there have been mixed reviews on the media’s role in these incidents, most authorities writing on that time identify these challenges as the media’s finest exercise of the ‘watchdog’ function.[10]
Current Trends of Media Agenda Setting
Agenda setting is a highly political process: political actors actively seek to bring issues on top of the agenda if they are looking for a change of policy, or to keep them off the agenda if they want to defend the status quo.[11] The function of the media in this process is essential since they determine which issues are the most important ones; agenda setting illustrates a very powerful authority of the media – the capability to inform the public what topics are important.
Two basis assumptions underlie most research on agenda-setting: (1) the press and the media do not reflect reality; they filter and shape it; (2) media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than other issues.[12] First of all, media do not represent certainty; there are filters inside of the media, which decide what is ‘real’ and what is ‘false’. In other words, every thing passes through the filters of the media and after that it will be presented to the public; agenda setting is the process that lets some information to reach the audience while other information is kept out. Secondly, different forms of the media tell us which issues are worthy of our attention; or, as Bernard Cohen stated: “The press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about”.[13]
The power of the news media to set a nation’s agenda, to focus public attention on a few key public issues, is an immense and well–documented influence.[14] Do the media in our country and in the region do such a thing? Of course, there are some media in our country that really set an agenda; however, a lot of them do not set an agenda. Among those media that do not set an agenda is our Public Television (RTK); Public Television of Kosova is characterized by an absence of power to set an agenda, to focus attention on a few important public issues. If most of the stories on the newscast are less important ones, if the length of time dedicated to the main story, if any, is too short, as RTK is performing, there is no chance to set an agenda. Besides, RTK deals more with irrelevant issues; consequently, Public Television remains a surrogate media, which doesn’t fulfill its tasks to public.
United States are known as a country where media set an agenda; this happens always, especially, during the elections. During these political races there is rarely evening news that goes by without having something about the city races, congressional races, and the presidential race.[15] Political debates and presidential news has always flooded the headlines and newscasts during the elections. These issues always are essential and everyone talks about the candidates and their programs. It happens like this since the media leads the public to believe that this is important. As McCombs and Shaw stated, “We judge as important what the media judge as important”.[16]
Conclusion
To conclude, the most important role of the media is that of ‘watchdog’, regular and independent inspection of those in power, including, supply of trustworthy information about their activities. The main concern to the watchdog role is to do the investigative journalism. By doing this, the media consider themselves as a representative of the wide public, and of course, the opponent of government. Media representatives have this right as members of the ‘fourth estate” – their role is to keep an eye on politicians on behalf of the public. This role of the media, the ‘watchdog’ role, is essential if citizens want to hold public officials accountable for their actions. Although, there is a small decline of public’s beliefs in the mass media,[17] they still remain a ‘fourth estate’. Media perform its ‘watchdog’ role and in this way fulfills its tasks toward public; otherwise, the scandals mentioned above and unmentioned ones would always remain unrevealed.
QUOTES
Freedom of speech and of the press are fundamental rights which are safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. [...] The right of peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press, and is equally fundamental. As this Court said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552: The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances. The First Amendment of the Federal Constitution expressly guarantees that right against abridgment by Congress. But explicit mention there does not argue exclusion elsewhere. For the right is one that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions — principles which the Fourteenth Amendment embodies in the general terms of its due process clause. [...] These rights may be abused by using speech or press or assembly in order to incite to violence and crime. The people, through their legislatures may protect themselves against that abuse. But the legislative intervention, can find constitutional justification only by dealing with the abuse. The rights themselves must not be curtailed. The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people, and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government. - Charles Evans Hughes, De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365 (1937).
The freedom of speech and of the press, which are secured by the First Amendment against abridgment by the United States, are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties which are secured to all persons by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by a state. The safeguarding of these rights to the ends that men may speak as they think on matters vital to them and that falsehoods may be exposed through the processes of education and discussion is essential to free government. Those who won our independence had confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning and communication of ideas to discover and spread political and economic truth. - Frank Murphy (1940). Thornhill v. Alabama. Supreme Court of the United States. pp. 310 U.S. 88, 95.
COMMENTS FROM YAHOO
The Media is made up of a whole bunch of Liberals who think they have the right to tell the American people lies and fake news. End the practice of this dinner, tell the fake news reporters of CNN, NBC, The Post Papers, PBS, and the rest of them to take a hike.
I say give each of those overbearing word-twisting reporters a $10 gift certificate to Jack in the Box, so they can have a fake dinner to go with the fake news they report.
Another stupid article trying to exclude the majority of citizens from being on the FAKE NEWS awakening. It is not just the White House administration that can see through the lies of CNN and the MSM. We can all figure it out.
By boycotting it the Media is showing their true selves which we already knew for years now that they are in the pocket of the left Politician and work only for them. Used to be journalism was a respected career choice, not anymore.
Press freedom exist mainly for the left, not conservatives. The press should be totally ashamed. Besides, most of it is a working arm of the democrat party so why would they want to attend?
AP and Yahoo trying to make it sound like everything was so warm and cozy with Obama and his administration. How easily they forget how Obama quickly forgot about his promise of transparency. It became a pay to play for the journalists, so naturally they're going to make it sound like a gay event. I'm glad there's tension among the journalists. The ones that do their jobs with pride and integrity haven't nothing to fear, it's the biased media and their reporters that should be scrambling like the rats they've become.
The media is a biased left leaning propaganda machine......It is long overdue that the media be held accountable. I saw the White House should boycott the dinner!
There shouldn't be a White House dinner for the press. They are supposed to be the watchdogs!
Media should just report the events. Now the arrogant media thinks it is above the president and that it can pick the presidents for us... It is time to put the media to it's right place. Arrest some of the worst agitators and put them to trail for abusing the media The rest will learn the lesson and will stop spreading false news.
Why don't reporters just report and stay out of politics?
Shame on you greedy left wing unions. Obama took you fools from 3 trillion debt to more than 22 trillion debt to my land, my children, my grandchildren. You greedy unions are the cancer on your land, then, now and into future. Shame on your greedy left wing liberal democratic public unions and the idiots protesting democracy.
Just another Marxist propaganda piece. Ho-hum. "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?" (Psalm 2:1, KJV).
Liberal democrat biased journalists have lost credibility with the Republicans Party, perhaps never to be regained. I don't believe much, if anything, of what is reported by the MSM these days, as they have devolved into a liberal propaganda machine that peddles lies and misinformation, in the hopes of influencing voters in their liberal agenda. It is not working. I became a Republican specifically because I could tell that the MSM is a biased liberal democrat spin organization. If a democrat wants to refute me, start by explaining why the presidential polls were so wrong.
Here's the thing, the purpose of this event is to raise money for scholarships for young people entering schools for Journalism. The problem is these schools breed more Liberal Journalists than Conservative Journalists. So who would want to be part of this one-sided circus of a dinner except liberals who are looking forward to trashing President Trump. If I was President Trump I would not show up just to send a message.
The MSM is nothing but the lying liberal biased propaganda wing of the Democratic Party.
The war on media and judicial system is long overdue.
No comments:
Post a Comment