The 19 days revolution of Nepal results in an immense triumph. Why should we care about press coverage during that time? What does it matter, for example, if The Kantipur does a terrific job or, upon examining its own work, finds fault with how it reported the run up to the uprising? The answers to these questions depend upon the purpose of journalism in a democracy. Given that journalism serves a mass audience made up primarily of citizens, how one sees that purpose depends on how one defines the work – the obligations, if you will – of citizens in a democracy.
For political theorists, this is a central question, as old as Socrates. But theorists do not focus enough attention on citizens’ use of the mass media. For journalists and journalism professors, the obligations of citizens should also be a central issue. One cannot evaluate the quality of news coverage without asking what readers, listeners and viewers should do with the news. In turn, that means asking what obligations we have as citizens.
In the democratic equation, there are three types of identities: the politicians, the public, and the publication. The three elite ”P’s” of the democratic process which, through their correlation with each other, make modern democracy unique compared to other political philosophies. The relationship between the politician and the public, through the media and journalism particularly, is distinctive in a democracy, and has a very special connection with the electoral process, which separates true democracies from imitations. Remember, even the China had elections, but that certainly did not make them a democracy. Liberated media is fundamentally crucial in genuine democratic societies because it practices the theory of including the public in governmental affairs, and commemorates the democratic idea that reality can only be relative and truth and facts are to be deemed authentic by individuals, not administrators.
Journalism is necessary because direct democracy is obsolete. People do not really have a say in modern democracy, aside from their vote, unless they are a politician themselves. Journalism serves as a window; however it could be rose colored glass, to the bureaucracy that is democratic process. From there you can see what polices and philosophies you buy into. Journalism, relating to the politicians, is the glass display counter that lets the audience see what kind of watches there are to buy. Some are fake, some are real. You buy the one you like, but in an eerie “twilight zone” plot twist, the appreciated watches stay under the display, and the underappreciated watches disappear. The average man is discreetly unconnected in a democracy, his opinions and beliefs have no real influence on anything. The only real reason there is journalism in a democracy is so the average man is aware that there is an election, so he can vote! And to vote for whom, largely depends on which newspaper and journalist you subscribe to. While politics might make up less than a quarter of a newspaper, make no mistake, journalism is the advertising agency of politicians. The rest is simply marketable brain fodder.
Journalists serve as cocaine dealers. But also the wholesaler and retailer. If journalism was like a cocaine supply trade, journalism would be the “internal supply chain”, consisting of purchasing, producing, and distribution. Cocaine, consisting of interviews, government “leaks”, and alleged scandals would be bought at a low price, refined with sweetener, and sold to the men, women, and bloggers of the country. To be a journalist is to have the freedom to modify the raw facts given from sources, to change information so that the audience can see the world from different perspectives. Journalists have the freedom, and should be encouraged, to have and publish their own opinions because many journalists lack the courage to have diverse opinions in publications, also by ignoring and un-publishing individual opinions, free journalism and press would become futile. The main difference between a democratic and non democratic country is not determined by elections, but by how free their journalists are.
Journalism is an anarchist dimension where individuals can choose to relay the truth, or make their own. Governments don’t need free press, but free journalism needs democracy. Free journalism is simply impossible without one. A democracy would be unattainable without attempting to include the public into governmental affairs. A French novelist once said, “Free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad.” Journalism, for better or for worse, is the best example of the freedom of individuals and the importance of free thought in a democracy.
As a general rule, I think citizens should avoid shortcuts and try to use solid information. For example, you don’t have to listen to The Kantipur or The Himalayan Times argue about the Army problem and compare each side because all newspaper has selfish agendas. Instead, you can actually look at real incident and make up your own mind. But the “fog of media” makes that kind of analysis impossible to be seen in citizens.
I don’t really know the solution, but I think that all of us should be somewhat cautious about our own judgments and open to arguments from the other side. We should look for constructive opportunities rather than wish that our domestic political opponents are damaged by the war. And we should hold onto hope, even if we believe that the invasion and occupation were grave errors in the first place.
If we can decide why citizens need to be well informed, then we can ask what kind of press they need and how they should use the available media. It is our overall conclusion that raising this question would be the best way to promote discussion between journalists and Democracy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment