Posted Friday evening for class Monday. In class today, we looked at a World Newspaper Federation website that say government and the news business have been inseparable since Julius Caesar posted the daily acts (Acta Diurna) of his government in Rome more than 2,000 years ago. And I suggested, in a couple of links we didn't get to, that today's American news media contribute to a public distaste for politics and government by treating politicians like celebrities.
One of the links quoted Sarah Palin, a politician who is often treated like a celebrity, complianing about what she calls the "lame-stream media." So it goes both ways.
But later today, I realized I left out something important. In fact, it's so important it
might be on a test someday.
[By the way, did you notice the HINT? Just askin'.]It's related to this whole idea of the media as a
fourth branch of government - after the the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches. We mentioned it in passing during class, but I want us to have it very clearly in mind - especially now that we're in the last month before important statewide and congressional elections. According to
Wikipedia, the idea is attributed to Sir Edmund Burke, an 18th-century English statesman, and Thomas Babbington Lord Macaulay, a 19th-century English historian, who said, "The gallery in which the reporters sit has become a fourth estate of the realm" [the other three were the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the bishops of the Church of England]. You don't have to remember these details - they're ancient history. Well, early modern. But I do want you to realize how old they are. In America, the phrase has been adapted to say the press, or the media, comprise a "fourth branch of government."
On the Yahoo! ANSWERS interactive website in 2007, contributors were asked, "Why is the media sometimes called the 'fourth branch of government?'?" Voted the
best answer was this from "Trish JPA and Jewish Pastafarian":
I haven't heard it before, but it makes sense to me. Our media is one of the forces that keep the other three branches of government in check, and checks and balances are what our constitution is all about. There are many things that would never be known by the general public if it were not for the media, and that in turn enables the public, and thus VOTERS, to influence government, and to have an informed say in who our leaders are. We have a formidable constitution and government, but it would be nearly worthless if its functions were carried out in secret.
Much as I often dislike some of the things the media does and their intrusiveness, I have had MANY occasions in my lifetime to be thankful for their presence. We are what we are in part because of our media and its freedom of speech, and I wouldn't trade it for anything, even when I'm angry at it! :-)
Source(s):
My opinion; it's worth EVERY penny you paid for it, too ;-)
OK, that's the theory. The press is part of the system of checks and balances in our system of government. Its role is to publicize the acts of government and serve as a watchdog over government. As wcolwell2, another contributor to the Yahoo! question board, put it, "In an ideal world, the press keeps the three branches of our govt honest."
Well, that's the theory. We'll be looking to see how well it works in practice.
Part pf what we're seeing in this year's election season is an attack on the institutions of government and the press themselves - not so much the institutions, perhaps, as they way they do business. But an attack, all the same.
Thus we get Fox News commentator Palin blasting the "lamestream media" along with the Democratic majorities in Washington, as she did in a
speech at a Republican fund-raiser in Iowa last week. "We have to hold the press accountable when we know they are making things up and telling untruths," she said. She says that a lot. The Des Moines Register's story treated it as a standard political speech directed at standard political targets, a "full-throated call to arms for angry and out-of-power Republicans on Friday in front of an audience of some of the nation's most influential party activists."
But Mark Halperin of Time magazine saw in it more than "a rambling nothingburger of a diatribe, with a convoluted, self-pitying screed about the media." In a
column about Palin's speech, Halperin said she's attacking "Coastal Elites, the Media and Establishment Politicians of Both Parties." And therein, he says, lies her appeal:
The past 22 months have been replete with situations in which Palin has refused
to adhere to the conventional playbook of presidential contenders and party
honchos. That posture, along with — let's face it — her watchability, star
quality and good looks, is what keeps her core supporters hanging on her every
word. Her followers forgive her sloppy syntax and seemingly haphazard
methodology — to them, this makes her accessible, relatable and real. The more
she is attacked and belittled, the more they rally to her defense.
And the more she attacks and belittles the establishment, the more she appeals to her fans.
In short, it's good politics for Palin to go on the attack.
According to Matthew Dowd, a political analyst who coordinated President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign,
it's a good year for anti-establishment politicians in general. Palin is just the most prominent of the bunch:
The underlying problem is that the vast majority of the people do not trust the
federal government and Congress to understand and address the concerns of
everyday Americans. Distrust of Congress is at a historic high (Gallup's latest
polling has congressional approval at 18 percent positive, 77 percent negative).
Disapproval appears even higher among Republican primary voters. The problem is
that institutional trust is extremely low and needs to be restored. People need
to believe that Congress and the federal government can be effective together.
Dowd adds:
Americans are angry and frustrated with the incompetence of the federal government. They don't like fiscal irresponsibility (massive budget deficits). They don't like the fact that government can't get the job done well (responses to the Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil disasters). And they don't like it when neither Republicans nor Democrats in Congress seem to get it -- when members appear to be more concerned with keeping and expanding their power than with tackling the very real problems facing the nation.
So, in Republican primary after Republican primary, voters are turning away from candidates with Washington experience toward novices who may not be considered "the best and the brightest." ...
Dowd doesn't say a word about the media, but I think it's clear: Palin's attacks on the media, and those of others on the right wing, are part of a general attack on the political establishment.
Question: Are the media so bound up with the governmental institutions they cover that they ignore the interests of their readers, their viewers, the voters? If so, how well are they fulfilling their role as watchdogs.
Just askin'. And just hintin'.Similarly, Ronald Brownstein of National Journal magazine sees a
general, widespread distrust in American institutions at work in this year's election. He dosn't directly mention the national media, but they're certainly affected. Browstein takes a historical view:
During the transition from the agricultural era to the Industrial Age in the late 19th century, America suffered through a generation of political instability and volatility.
The political hallmarks were narrow congressional majorities and rapid shifts in control; repeated one-term presidents; and divided government, with the parties routinely splitting the White House and Congress. This turmoil (which lasted from about 1876 to 1896) was rooted in the widespread sense among Americans that neither party had convincing answers to the enormous challenges created by the shift from farm to factory.
Based on last week's release of the annual Census Bureau report on income and poverty, it appears that the U.S. is experiencing something similar again, as Americans uneasily navigate a globalized, information-based economy. Across a wide range of economic measures, the bureau report demonstrated, the past 10 years have been an utterly lost decade for many, if not most, Americans. And that helps explain why the U.S. continues to careen through so many sharp political reversals.
From 2000 through 2009, the Census Bureau found, the median income (measured in inflation-adjusted dollars) declined by 5 percent for white families, 8 percent for Hispanic families, and more than 11 percent for African-American families. That's almost unimaginable over an entire decade. From 1991 through 2000 (again in inflation-adjusted dollars) it had risen by 13 percent for whites, 19 percent for Hispanics, and 28 percent for African-Americans.
Brownstein concludes:
The larger point is that, as in the late 19th century, millions of Americans feel that the ground beneath them is cracking as the economy convulses in destabilizing structural change. They are losing faith in all institutions, and many have grown dubious that either political party has answers for their distress. Since the mid-1990s, Americans have flipped from divided government in Washington, to unified Republican control, to unified Democratic control. Voters now appear poised to divide power between the parties again. That's not likely to be the final spin of the wheel. Until more Americans obtain greater security in their financial lives, don't expect either party to enjoy much of it in Washington, either.
Now, here's the kicker: The same underlying economic changes are affecting the media, too, especially the print media and the national television networks that comprise the national mainstream media. As Sarah Palin might say, how is that underlying economic change-y stuff workin' out for them?
As the Nov. 4 election draws nearer, we'll be looking at how the news media live up to their theoretical role as the fourth branch of government.
[HINT: Did I mention we'll have a midterm, and probably a documented essay too, coming up during that time period? Just askin'.] We'll also be looking at how structural changes in the economy affect their ability to do that. And we'll be looking at what John Vivian, author of our textbook, calls "demassification" ... i.e. a trend away from mass media toward smaller publications geared for niche markets.
[Something to think about:
Would the election make a good 25-point short essay and the trend toward niche marketing in all kinds of media make for a 50-point essay? These are the kinds of things I think about as we go along, and it might pay you to think about them too.]
Tangent [or is it a tangent?]. Brownstein used to be the White House reporter for The Los Angeles Times (circulation 616,606, down from a peak of 1.1 million), and he was arguably the most respected reporter on a very competitive beat. He left the Times for National Journal (circulation 12,171). It's a niche publication, more accurately described as a cluster of even narrower niche publications. Its "About Us" page says:
National Journal Group is the leading source of nonpartisan reporting on the current political environment and emerging policy trends. Our print, online and broadcast properties include National Journal, CongressDaily, The Hotline, NationalJournal.com, The Almanac of American Politics, and "Washington Week with Gwen Ifill and National Journal."
The "About" page gives a clear picture of its hoped-for target audience:
... National Journal Group enjoys unparalleled readership loyalty from decision makers and policy influencers across the nation. National Journal Group's publications have become trusted professional resources for Members of Congress and their senior staffs, the Executive branch, federal agency executives, government affairs professionals, corporate and association leaders, and the political news media.
Why would somebody like Brownstein jump from the Los Angeles Times to National Journal?
Just askin'.
