We’ve already identified one of the key reasons why a free press is so crucial to a functioning democracy. In a democracy, people make decisions relating to government by voting and by petitioning their government leaders. People obviously cannot make good decisions without accurate information about important issues.
Thomas Jefferson said that newspapers should be the means of bringing important information to the people. In Jefferson’s time, newspapers were really the only way that anybody could spread or obtain information.
But is the press as important today, when information is available from so many different sources? If we want to know what’s going on in the White House, can’t we just hop on the White House website? Can’t the government just place a camera on the floor of the Senate and broadcast their activities to our living rooms? (Take, for example, C-SPAN, a television station devoted to broadcasting government processes.) After all, with the rise of the internet, we can get a lot of the information we want directly from its source. It comes in its raw form, and we can interpret it however we want to. Some say that the internet makes a journalist out of everybody. So is journalism still as important today as it used to be?
Journalism begins to look more important to us when we start to think about the mountains of information we would have to sort through to be truly informed citizens. For example, do we always have time to read an entire Supreme Court decision? Do we even know which cases are important and relevant to us and which are not? How do we know which sources to trust? We simply do not know enough and do not have enough time to adequately find the important information that we need. Even though we have access to new communications technology, we still need someone to gather all the important and up-to-date information that we cannot gather by ourselves.
The press is devoted to this task. Press agencies have reporters everywhere who know the right people to talk to and the right places to find information. They save us time by sifting out important and relevant information and by interpreting that information for us in terms that we can understand and relate to.
But if we need the press to interpret our information for us, aren’t we giving the press a lot of power? How do we trust the press to tell us the truth without inserting their own opinions? Obviously, we rely on journalists and news editors to be responsible and to tell us the truth. After all, bad information doesn’t really help us any more than no information at all. Either way, we can’t form complete opinions or make good decisions.
So who should be in charge of making sure that those who operate the press operate it responsibly? The government? As we’ve seen, governments throughout history have taken it upon themselves to regulate press activity. But in America the First Amendment strictly forbids the government from doing so, for good reasons. The press is the watchdog of the government. It keeps the government in check by keeping the people in tune to government happenings and by alerting the people if anything goes wrong.
Could we expect the government to watch itself? Perhaps, but most of us don’t really trust that all politicians will admit or even recognize every mistake they make. They are, after all, human. Instead, we would rather have people analyzing the government who aren’t part of it. We tend to trust them more.
A press that isn’t made up of government officials, that doesn’t rely on the government for its funding, and that doesn’t have to report its activities to the government is called independent. In theory, an independent press is made up of ordinary citizens who serve as a link between the people and their government, conveying government information to the people and visa versa. An independent press also links members of society to each other. It tells local stories as well as stories happening elsewhere in the nation or in the world. It reports societal trends, upcoming events, notable human accomplishments, disasters, important discoveries, and more. The press is the workhorse of information. A self-governing society such as the United States benefits most when the press is independent.
The press is not “free” in the monetary sense. Operating a newspaper costs a lot of money, and operating a broadcast TV station costs even more. Even internet news journals need money to pay reporters and editors and to maintain a decent website. An independent press is privately owned, meaning that ordinary citizens own it and find ways to fund its operations without the government’s help. How can a press that is not supported by the government survive?
In America, news organizations earn money by selling advertising to private individuals, businesses, and corporations. Anyone can pay news organizations to carry advertisements in their newspapers, during their broadcasts, or on their websites. The commercials you see during news programs and the grocery and other ads that fill the Sunday newspaper pay for the news that you are receiving. Some news organizations also sell space or time for sponsored material or discussions that may resemble news content. Although newspapers and internet news agencies can charge subscription fees to their readers, most still have to rely on advertisements to meet their expenses.
In this way, the press is a business. Beyond reporting credible, accurate, and relevant information to the American people for the good of civilized society, most press organizations also exist to make a profit. In order to make a profit, news organizations have to attract readers and viewers with interesting stories that captivate their attention. The more readers and viewers a news organization can attract, the more advertisers it can also attract. More advertising means more money, which means more profits.
Today, many news organizations are part of much larger multimedia corporations like ABC, CBS, or FOX. These large national corporations are involved in all sorts of media productions besides news. These organizations are privately owned and committed to making a profit. Even though many press organizations now belong to much larger corporations, they are still considered independent because they do not report to the government or depend on the government for their survival.
Do you see the challenge? Press organizations are caught in a sticky spot because they have to balance profit interests with public interests. For example, if a newspaper wants to survive, it has to make money. To make money, it needs subscribers and advertisers. To attract subscribers, it must tell interesting stories that people want to read. When a newspaper attracts a lot of subscribers, it attracts a lot of people who will see the advertisements the paper offers. Businesses know this, so they are more willing to advertise in papers that tell interesting stories and attract a lot of subscribers.
Interesting news stories require interesting news. If news organizations do not feel the news they are publishing is interesting enough, they may be tempted to spice it up by exaggerating it or by creating scandals. They may even be tempted to brush over important news in favor of emotionally driven (though less important) stories. If news agencies are not careful, and if they are more focused on making a profit than on serving the public, they may find themselves publishing stories that carry more shock value than important information.
This is called a conflict of interest. Most news media deal with conflicts of interest in one form or another. Many press organizations handle their conflicting interests well because they realize that they will be more respected, trusted, and profitable in the long run if they report honest, balanced, and important information to the people they serve.
For example, responsible journalists usually steer clear of their news agencies’ advertising departments simply to avoid the appearance or possibility of conflicting interests. Sometimes a reporter may discover a developing story that could potentially harm the reputation or profitability of one of their advertisers. Running the story could result in the loss of valuable advertising dollars for the newspaper or broadcast station. Most reporters and editors don’t want to be stuck making tough ethical decisions about what stories to run based on the interests of advertisers, so many news agencies keep their news departments and advertising departments in separate rooms with little contact or knowledge of what the other is doing.
For the free press to serve the most people, it must be objective and balanced, meaning it must tell both sides of a story, regardless of popular opinion and regardless of a journalist’s personal feelings. News reporters and editors must avoid reporting with bias. Bias occurs when a reporter or news agency reports something that is inaccurate or one-sided, either because of the personal or political beliefs of the reporter, or because of other conflicting interests. The news media should serve as many people as possible by sharing news and information that relates to people from all walks of life.
Jon Mott, a former associate professor of political science at Brigham Young University, suggests that we should ask the following questions to determine if a news story is biased:
“While these questions are not easily answered,” Mott says, “you should think about them as you consume media information, especially when that information comes from nontraditional sources.”2
News happens quickly and unpredictably. News agencies have to act fast to keep up with rapidly developing events so they can communicate up-to-date information to people as they need it. Journalists work under intense pressures to meet deadlines and to pump out newsworthy, interesting stories. Mixed into the rushed atmosphere of a newsroom are corporate demands for higher profitability and a sense of obligation to the public to report the truth with fairness and accuracy.
In short, press organizations not only walk, but run a fine line between their own interests, corporate interests, and the interests of the self-governing society they serve. Some run the line better than others, and sometimes even the best don’t run it perfectly. People have written volumes criticizing or defending press organizations in one way or another for the way they handle their conflicting interests. At the root of the debate lies the ever-pressing question: Does the press really do what it was established to do? Does it help us—the people—govern ourselves by giving us enough important information?
The following passage is an interview conducted with Marvin Kalb, taken from the U.S. Information Agency’s Electronic Journal. Kalb worked for thirty years with two major U.S. television news networks as an award-winning diplomatic correspondent. He is now a James Clark Welling Fellow at George Washington University and a guest scholar in foreign policy for the Brookings Institution. He is a guest scholar in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution.now heads the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.
The interview covers many of the topics that we have been discussing. Watch for Kalb’s response to a question regarding the news media’s ability to balance its desire for profit with its need to report news well. Also notice Kalb’s beliefs about the relationship the press should have with the government.
Q: Is the freedom of the press in the United States the consequence of First Amendment guarantees alone?
A: A free press must have a legal, constitutional guarantee, but that is not all it needs. It needs an independent judiciary and an independent legislature—independent of the arbitrary power of the president or prime minister or chairman of a political party. Independence of governmental authority is the key. This is admittedly very difficult to achieve without the economic means to buy space and time.
Q: Yes, and most of us would agree that one of the cornerstones4 of press freedom in the United States is the abundance of privately owned, profitable media. But does the desire for profits make it difficult for private media, particularly television, to cover the news with the depth and seriousness it deserves?
A: There would appear to be a contradiction between serious news and the demands of the marketplace—increasingly so, as one watches prime-time television news magazines and even the evening newscasts. The salvation, however, lies in the technology itself, which produces a vast menu of choices. The viewer can now watch not just the three evening newscasts, whose joint rating has dropped to less than 50 percent of the audience, but also many other news programs on cable, such as CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and more immediate, direct access to the internet. It takes more time and effort initially for the viewer to find quality programming, but it does exist. It merely awaits the viewer’s discovery.
Q: How would you define the proper relationship of the press to government and the political process?
A: The press should be neither adversarial5 nor friendly, though if I had to choose one over the other, I would prefer adversarial. The press should go about its business of collecting and reporting the news without fear or favor from the government. It should keep its distance. My concern is that the Washington press corps, without doubt the most powerful and influential in the world, is too cozy with governmental officials. Competition is so severe that journalists feel the need to cultivate and nurture sources, and sources6 take advantage of the situation to play one journalist off against another. Beware of all those smiles!
Q: Under what circumstances are governments justified in limiting access to information, and are journalists within their rights in publishing such information?
A: Governments are fully justified in limiting access to information considered too sensitive for general distribution, and journalists are fully justified in pursuing such information—and publishing or broadcasting such information. This is a never-ending struggle between two rights: The government’s right—indeed, obligation—to protect national security; and the people’s right to know, based on the journalist’s ability to get the news. At the end of the day, however, theory retreats before reality. If the publication of a story, in the journalist’s view, runs the risk of jeopardizing lives, then the journalist should decide not to publish or broadcast. But the decision must belong to the journalist, not to the government. This is very tricky turf.
Q: In a recent editorial you asked whether the news media can continue to function as independent observers at a time of unprecedented7 mega-mergers8 and technological breakthroughs that change the economic underpinning of the entire enterprise of journalism. Would you care to hazard9 a preliminary response to your own question?
A: The question I raised in a recent issue of The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics is central to the future of a free press, and the honest answer is I do not know. But I hope and pray and ultimately believe that the marketplace10 will find a balance between the mega-merged corporations and the emerging opportunities provided by high technology for new companies. The glory of the free marketplace is that it does not play favorites. A good idea is rewarded. Finally, what seems dreadful and frightening today may be utterly different tomorrow. So rapidly is the world changing in this time of the communications revolution, opening doors, but more important, opening minds to new ideas. Today is only a prelude to the excitement of tomorrow.
Kalb pointed out one of the greatest advantages freedom of the press has to offer our society, thanks to technology. When we want to find news, we have a lot of options to choose from! Chances are good that if we look at a variety of news sources, we will be able to find a lot of information from a lot of different viewpoints. New technology and the free marketplace, in which people can introduce fresh approaches to old problems, may be the keys to keeping a free and independent press.
Keep in mind Kalb’s other comments about journalists’ responsibilities. Journalists must often decide whether or not to publish information that is true, but that may lead to bad consequences if it is published. Sometimes journalists find information that would make interesting news, but that the government fears could hurt national security if it were published. Kalb suggested that the government is justified in trying to protect national security, but that the decision about whether or not to publish the information should rest with the journalist. Again, journalists have to balance their interests with public interests and act responsibly.
Keeping a free, independent, and responsible press is tricky business. The press needs to keep its distance from the government, but it needs to survive. By surviving, it needs to make sure that it doesn’t let other interests, like profit, get in the way of its ultimate purpose: finding and reporting accurate, objective information.
Who should be responsible for making sure the press walks the line? For the most part, we leave responsibility for and regulation of the press to the press itself. People can criticize the press and choose not to watch a news program or read a newspaper, but the press ultimately decides how it will conduct itself. It is self-regulated.
To meet their responsibility, a lot of press organizations have adopted a written code of ethics. A code of ethics directs news reporters and editors to act responsibly by giving them a set of guidelines to follow. Some news organizations, like the Los Angeles Times, even hire reporters who watch the news media and write stories about the strengths, weaknesses, and trends of daily press coverage. Such reporters are called media critics. Other news organizations hire ombudsmen who listen to complaints from readers and viewers and then pass those complaints on to the appropriate reporters and editors. Ombudsmen encourage and instruct their news organization to act responsibly in response to valid criticisms.
Speaking on press responsibility, Sandra Mims Roe, editor of The Oregonian, told the Organization of News Ombudsmen that “the high road is there if newspapers will take it. If newspaper journalism and journalists long for greater respect, then newspaper editors must supply the discipline to play down—not play up—the trivial, the perverse, the bizarre.”11
And so it is with all news media.
Beyond the talk and the theory, does a free, independent press really work? Are we, as a society, really better off by letting the press go self-regulated? Were Jefferson and Madison right? Where’s the evidence that the free press is really helping us?
Dana R. Bullen, Executive Director of the World Press Freedom Committee, argues that a free press encourages economic development. He provides several examples to back his argument, and also explains some of the ways a free press benefits a society beyond what we have discussed thus far in our unit. Watch for these points as you read, and think about how a free press has improved the quality of your life and your community.
There’s a simple truth that needs to be plainly stated:
A free press and the free flow of information promotes development.
The available evidence indicates that more, faster, and better development is much more likely where there is a free press than where the press is controlled by governments.
In Ethiopia, for instance, media are not free and the per capita gross national product of $140 is one of the lowest in the world. In Fiji, media are free and the per capita GNP of $1,850 is more than thirteen times as high.
In Benin, media are not free and the per capita GNP is only $300. In the Dominican Republic, media are free and the per capita GNP of $1,140 is about four times as high.
In Zaire, media are not free and GNP is $220. In Colombia, media are free and GNP is more than five times as high at $1,180.
While there are exceptions, studies of 165 countries conducted by Freedom House that make possible such comparisons show freedom, a free press, more successful economic development, and a better life tend to run together.
It also is true in the industrialized world, where East and West Germany might be compared. Or the Soviet Union and the United States.
Why is this so?
There may be many reasons, but among them must be these:
- The best programs flow from a full debate of alternatives,13 if not only behind the closed doors of government offices but throughout a society.
- The choices developed in such a debate will draw support because there will be understanding of the reasons for such choices. This support will be far deeper and more effective than the support that leaders may attempt to command others to give.
- Nobody possesses all wisdom. An independent media helps bring to the surface ideas from many sources that may be better than those under consideration.
- An independent media will watch the progress of development programs. Such programs will be more effective if problems are exposed than if they are covered up.
- Often it is only a free press that allows the voices and needs of the people to be heard by the government or other powerful interests.
- This also is a way in which different parts of a government can speak to each other without bureaucratic14 constraints.
It is significant that leaders everywhere want uncensored, uncontrolled news about the world, their region, and their countries.
If it is useful to them, it seems it would be useful to everyone.
The Declaration of Talloires adopted by media leaders from twenty-one countries put it this way:
The people’s interest, and therefore the interests of the nation, are better served by free and open reporting. From robust public debate grows better understanding of the issues facing a nation and its peoples; and out of understanding greater chances for solutions.
Examples of how a free press promotes better development and a better life in Third World countries would be more widespread if more of these countries had a free press. But examples are easily obtained on how it could work everywhere:
One wonders what other human suffering, waste of resources, or destruction to the environment might have been avoided if the press had been even more active in such places—or permitted to be active at all in others.
How many big monuments would not have been built? How many more schools, hospitals, and other facilities might have been built?
As noted Indian journalist Pran Chopra has said:
Discovering the truth and stating it is one of the best contributions that newspaper (and other media) people can make toward nation-building. . . if there is any suppression of the truth under any kind of a false notion of the obligations of the media, then very soon you will end up with a situation where you neither have truth nor nation-building.
According to annual Freedom House surveys, governments in two-thirds to three-fourths of the nations of the world have a significant or dominant voice in determining what does or does not appear in the media.
And in about two-thirds to three-fourths of the nations of the world—a great many of them precisely the same countries—there is a serious lack of needed development.
One might well reflect on this “coincidence.”
The United States of America was one of the first nations to adopt a free press. Since that time, more and more nations have adopted one as well. Would the United States of America enjoy as much prosperity if it were not for a free press? According to Bullen, the answer is no. Freedom of the press has shaped our lives and our communities in ways that we do not often think about.
Bullen listed six ways that a free press helps develop society. Here’s the list again, a little more simplified. Review it carefully. It provides an excellent summary of some of this unit’s central themes.
The best programs (government and other) flow from a full debate of alternatives.
In short, press organizations are not always perfect at balancing their competing interests, but many have taken great strides toward better serving the interests of society. Overall, the free press brings us important information that we would not have otherwise received. News organizations play a crucial role in developing a well-functioning, self-governing society. Even with any difficulties that may result from its exercise, freedom of the press is still as vital to America’s freedom today as it was at the time of the Founding.
1. open and observable; not hidden and secret
2. Mott, Jon. “Understanding and Interpreting the News.” An American Citizen’s Guide to Government and Politics. Provo: Brigham Young University Independent Study, 2003.
3. “The People, the Press, and the Government: An Interview with Marvin Kalb.” USIA Electronic Journal 2, no. 1 (Feb. 1997).
4. basic elements
5. opposing; resisting
6. people who are willing to provide information to reporters
7. never before seen to such a large degree
8. combination of two large corporations to make one giant corporation; as large media corporations continue to combine to create even larger corporations, many fear that the news media will come under the control of corporate interests and will no longer be able to serve the public as independent observers.
9. attempt
10. not an actual place, but the environment where businesses and ideas compete for success and acceptance
11. Itule, Bruce, and Douglass Anderson. News Writing and Reporting for Today’s Media, 6th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2003, p. 11.
12. Bullen, Dana. “A Free Press Means Better Development.” World Press Freedom Committe.
13. different options
14. governed by organizational rules, policies, and strict lines of authority
15. vigorous; healthy; sturdy
16. an exposure of corruption, dishonesty, etc.