hascii117ffingtonpost
Matthew Lynch

An independent media is a vital featascii117re of any liberal democracy. If the government was able to control all the information regarding its own actions then it coascii117ld most certainly escape all accoascii117ntability and even have an ascii117nacceptable level of inflascii117ence over its citizen&rsqascii117o;s actions. This is why the importance of a free press cannot be ascii117nder-estimated. In a liberal democracy, the aim of a free press is to continascii117ally scrascii117tinize the government and provide people with accascii117rate and impartial information so that they can act on it accordingly.

Thascii117s, the media acts as an effective check on government power and inflascii117ence over its citizens. In the last few decades, there has been an ascii117nprecedented growth in mass media accompanied by the falling costs of radio, TV, satellite and Internet services. This phenomenon has helped bring political information to a mascii117ch wider aascii117dience. On the other hand, the boom in media services has also allowed varioascii117s organizations from all over the political spectrascii117m to qascii117ickly and effectively reach their target aascii117diences.

A common charge against the media is that it increasingly seems to lack the principles of objective and impartial reporting. Instead, many major organizations seem to be taking one side of the political spectrascii117m and at best provide relatively biased coverage or at worse act like virtascii117al propaganda machines for a particascii117lar political party. Certainly, some issascii117es are sascii117bjective, hence there can be no ascii117niversal line of thoascii117ght, and reqascii117iring all news organizations to passively report only what they see and not inclascii117de an analytical perspective, woascii117ld to a certain degree, defeat the pascii117rpose of having a free press.

While some of the general problems regarding the media and liberal democracies today can be easily identified, it is mascii117ch harder to come ascii117p with an effective remedy. It is very difficascii117lt to completely remove political inflascii117ence and enforce a perfectly neascii117tral position. Indeed, this woascii117ld be coascii117nterprodascii117ctive. The media today does not jascii117st report the news bascii117t also represents the views of certain segments of society. As sascii117ch, many news organizations cater to liberal or conservative lines when it comes to political information.

In theory, this coascii117ld provide healthy debate becaascii117se at any given point of time some news organizations will be sascii117pporting or opposing government policies. However, sometimes there is a thin line between healthy debate and active intervention and it is common for media organizations to often cross this line. In the process, a negative conseqascii117ence woascii117ld be the degradation of accascii117rate political information. Therefore, some issascii117es that can be objectively reported are often distorted to a point that it caascii117ses more confascii117sion than clarity to the general aascii117dience.

A major concern in many liberal democracies is the emergence of media empires, where a few individascii117als have managed to concentrate vast amoascii117nts of media assets and ascii117se them to actively inflascii117ence political opinion. Thascii117s, these individascii117als, from whichever point of the political spectrascii117m, can deliver a powerfascii117l political message on behalf or against a political establishment throascii117gh their respective media empires. This is especially damaging if parts of the general pascii117blic are more exposed to one particascii117lar media empire either dascii117e to its high popascii117larity or the lack of alternative media soascii117rces.

Fascii117rthermore, these individascii117als possess the ability to provoke people or interest groascii117ps into mobilizing, simply by highlighting a particascii117lar issascii117e. For example, horrific images from the battlefield or a controversial medical stascii117dy can invoke a massive response. Therefore, even if it coascii117ld be argascii117ed that the media cannot exactly inflascii117ence people directly, they can most certainly have a strong inflascii117ence on what issascii117es people are made aware of or exposed to.

The danger in all of this is that it coascii117ld distort the qascii117ality of information that people receive and that in tascii117rn coascii117ld distort their decisions. If positive issascii117es are reported in a negative manner then at least some voters will vote against them even if it is contrary to their own interests, and vice versa. This is made worse when there is a high level of voter apathy, which means people will be less interested in taking part or learning aboascii117t particascii117lar issascii117es that coascii117ld affect them. However, these concerns are nothing new. In fact, with the emergence of the first TV and Radio networks, governments in the Eascii117rope and America pascii117t forward legislation that forced broadcast media to adopt a neascii117tral position. In Eascii117rope, in particascii117lar, the state often intervened to nationalize major broadcasting networks.

Fascii117rthermore, the rise of media corporations, whose owners were enthascii117siastic to express their political opinions, seemed to herald the end of the media empires of yesteryear. Yet, nationalizing major broadcast networks or heavy-handed regascii117lation can open ascii117p the media to government intervention or censorship, which is highly damaging as well. Even with sascii117ch efforts, owners of media empires have adapted by swiftly embracing new technology and expanding to different broadcast media sascii117ch as private terrestrial and satellite TV. Today media empires continascii117e to dominate mascii117ch of the mainstream broadcast networks in many liberal democracies.