Throughout this essay it will be shown that the mass media are not only beneficial to a democratic public sphere but at times can also be characterized as detrimental to that public domain. However within any democracy the mass media are definitely a fundamental component in the process of governmental accountability.
The right to public communication and debate lies at the centre of all democratic processes and is an essential element of all democracies. Citizens of a democracy not only require but also demand access to all sources of information and all opportunities to participate in debates from which political decisions ultimately flow.
This can be illustrated by the way in which major campaigns are fought for the political support of the general public during both State and Federal elections. Australian politics is often influenced by the way in which the news media corporations present issues to the Australian public.
Politics as we know it is inconceivable without the news media. They are the central channel of communication between governors and the governed, the most important link between the actions of the state and the citizenry, the major arena in battles between political groups for public support.
Governmental accountability, freedom of speech and informed public opinion are issues, which are considered to be crucial to the public sphere and in what ultimately constitutes a truly democratic state. The American Constitution can be seen as the clearest example of a document that truly enshrines citizen’s rights and liberties in such a clear and precise manner. In the First Amendment, of the Bill Rights there is an indisputable right to free press often characterized as an extension of the right to freedom of speech. However, this right is undoubtedly “an enforceable limitation on government, when that government infringes upon a freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.”
There is no such equivalent affirmation within the Australian Constitution, however the concepts of governmental accountability, freedom of speech, and informed public opinion are to a greater extent taken for granted. Through classic liberal ideologies that argue that “the primary democratic role of the media is to act as a public watchdog, overseeing the state.” This can often be characterized by revealing abuses conducted at the hands of government authority, or by facilitating a general debate regarding the function and accountability of government.
The classic liberal ideology of having the media as an ultimate watchdog is often said to prevail over the importance of all other functions of the media. It is perceived that influential empires with strong political affiliations for example: the Murdoch and Packer empires that control a substantial proportion of the Australian mass media industry should not monopolize the press as is often the case within Australia.
In recent decades the media have demonstrated that they possess the ability to extract policy favours from both major arms of government. It is interesting to note that governments believe that by curtailing to the media empires, their electoral interests will be represented at the next election with favourable coverage and ultimately political success.
The next election is in two years… I’m sure Howard will need some help then from a media proprietor… Every election cycle costs the government in respect of free and tangible gifts to media proprietors, half a billion dollars per election cycle.
However according to classic liberal ideology it is preferred that the mass media should be secured within the free market thereby ensuring the media’s complete independence from government. Consequently as can be illustrated above a “press that is licensed, franchised, or regulated is subject to political pressures when it deals with issues affecting the interests of those in power.”
However the huge establishing costs, the concentrated supply, distribution expenses, and the advertising revenue have all contributed to oligopoly that is established within the media empires of Australia. It has been decades since a successful daily newspaper not linked to a major media chain has been established with Australia, this only reiterates that the mass media industry is a monopoly dominated by those that can afford to play. “The outstanding feature of the contemporary media is not just its commercial nature but its sheer size and concentration.”
Whilst the media in Australia may be instrumental in the democratic process, and may be crucial in upholding the traditional foundations of what a democracy is said to represent that does not always mean that their corporate interests always coincide or are beneficial to the major public interest.
The news media is the only quasi-institutional check in a representative democracy, whose achievements are measured by commercial success. Its head is in politics while its feet are grounded in commerce.
The influence that the media has over the government does not represent a truly democratic model that is beneficial for the public sphere.
A significant illustration of the mass media being influenced and subsequently driven by governmental agenda is the ongoing controversy surrounding the events of September 11 2001. The ‘war against terror’ crisis as it has become known has been sensationalized by the mass media to create a wave of hysteria within the public domain. “Television has long been established as the primary source of news for the Australian public.” It has been television that has been used to deliver explosive headlines and short television frames of planes flying into buildings, thereby the media have created and developed a devotion to the ‘war against terror’.
The events surrounding September 11 2001 have continuously been reiterated over a space of time by the mass media for the public domain. This has been a concerted effort to gain wide spread support in Australia for the Howard government’s decision to support America by committing the people of Australia in the fight against terrorism. It would be naпve to assume that the mass media during this period would not push the government’s agenda or deliver a truly unbiased opinion.
It became clear in the 1970’s that a new form of terrorism was emerging, characterized as “media-orientated terror.” Since the events of September 11 2001 it has become apparent that the mass media have been used as an effective tool in driving fear into the hearts of the Western world. This could not of been more successful than through the use of the Western worlds own source: the mass media.
Terrorist attacks are often carefully choreographed to attract the attention of the electronic media and the international press… Terrorism is aimed at the people watching, not at the actual victims…
In most terrorist cases the media serve as the sole source of information and interpretation for the public domain, therefore by redefining the images of September 11 2001 the public become dependent on the mass media for information and interpretation.
Before September 11 2001 it would be correct to assume that the majority of the public domain within the western world did not have any form of established or informed opinion of terrorism. However in the months following September 11 2001 through television presentation and continuous coverage of dramatic features of the event, people within the public domain have become easily influenced into believing what the mass media is continuously generating.
As has been illustrated above the type of power that the mass media wields over international and even national affairs is specific. In recent decades this power has been used to dominate what the public thinks about and what the prescribed popular opinion is. Thereby setting the agenda for public discussion regarding public affairs instead of determining public opinion. “the media influence what the people think about more than what they think.” September 11 2001 illustrates that the media have significantly contributed to the public opinion that unrestricted revenge against those responsible for September 11 2001 is justified.
In the months following September 2001 the public discussion centered around the events and activities of September 11 2001. Whether that discussion was precipitated by the events, or the mass hysteria that was sensationalized by the media is irrelevant. The mass media used their power to create the public hysteria surrounding September 11 2001 and the events that are the direct consequences of that day have become the ultimate news of the new millennium.
A more recent example of the mass media using their power to influence public opinion at the bequest of governmental agenda has been through the current ‘refugee crisis’ currently encapsulating Australia.
The mass media have again sensationalized the issues surrounding the arrival of refugees in Australia. This has been consistently achieved by dramatizing the figures surrounding the actual number of arriving refugees within Australia. During the recent months September 11 2001 has been used as the catalyst for statements by both arms of the Australian government that the refugees that are arriving do not have a checkable backgrounds which is essential for the granting of refugee status.
Thereby the scenario has been created and established by the government with the assistance of the mass media that the events of September 11 2001 could occur within Australia if the government accepts all refugees that arrive.
The images of planes flying into buildings are again depicted across television screens and newspapers and the discreet undertone of the ‘west verses the rest’ is reiterated for the masses. This consistently reinforces the opinion that by allowing and accepting refugees from war torn states, Australia is opening the floodgates to terrorist attacks on the same scale of events that occurred on September 11 2001.
As has been shown the mass media within Australia contribute enormously to the process of political socialization through influencing and often setting the agenda for public discussion regarding public affairs. The media’s potential to influence and shape cultural and political attitudes, reiterates the power and influence that is concealed within the everyday functioning and running of the public sphere.
However within the confines of the mass media there is the incentive to be responsive and responsible to the public domain. It is true that Australians in recent years have become significantly better informed regarding political agendas and policies that were ever available to the public in the preceding decades.
Overall the mass media are a fundamental element of democracy allowing for greater accountability of government, and freedom of speech thereby establishing that mass media is ultimately beneficial to the public sphere. The mass media have ultimately ensured that the government of the day is to a greater extent accountable for the formulation of policies and innovations affecting everyday Australians.
However what must ultimately be determined is are the mass media truly providing a informed and unbiased opinion that is considered essential for a true democracy, or are the media simply just another player in the government game of convincing the public domain?
