Belinda Giles sent me the following email:
Dear Adrian
I am a university student in Western Australia, studying law/journalism. I am working on an opinion piece for the journalism component — the subject is ‘journalism is the lifeblood of democracy’. During my googling I came across your blog — ‘a blog about news’.
I have to say you are one of the few sources I have come across that is a proponent for the ‘anti’ perspective — that journalism is not necessary for democracy. As a result, I would be most appreciative if you could answer a few questions for my opinion piece?
Below are my replies.
How does a democracy actually function without journalism?
Many democratic institutions already function ‘without journalism’, especially at local level, (e.g. English councils) – and by journalism, I include both reportage (e.g. council reports) and ‘watchdog’ functions (e.g. holding to account, investigation).
The mythology of journalism stresses these vital civic functions, although there is a little evidence to support such claims.
Certainly newspaper journalism did play a part in filling an institutional vacuum in the rapidly urbanizing United States, but the concerns of the 20C with respect to journalism were not about preserving and enhancing that role, but mostly about the political power that ‘journalism’ placed in the hands of media proprietors…which tells you something about where the balance lay.
The development of government, bureaucracy, inspectorates and legislative oversight all contributed to reduce the role and scope of journalism as the ‘fourth estate’.
Incidentally during newspaper strikes in the mid-20C, parts of the US were without journalism for long periods (months) without any noticeable ‘democratic crisis’.
What are some alternative sources of political information, if not journalism?
(Political information is not the only necessity in a democracy. There’s also the requirement to organize around it – hence the old-fashioned newspaper campaign as a proxy.) I think sites like theyworkforyou.com are excellent sources of political information. So, too, are select committees.
Pressure groups, think tanks and NGOs are increasingly sophisticated information gatherers and they recognise the importance of combining robust data with campaigning agendas.
What would you say to the assertion ‘journalism is the lifeblood of democracy’?
Say journalists. But there are fewer of them and democracy seems to be surviving.
When considering the role of journalism in politics and democracy, how do you think commercial interests, legalities and the danger of journalism affect the ability of journalists to even fulfill this role?
I loved being a journalist, and many of my friends still are journalists and they risk much in pursuing stories in places like Afghanistan. But I think we often romanticize the role of journalists (the price of self-justification?).
Political journalism is largely at the level of intellectual gossip – who’s up, who’s down, who’s in, who’s out. As the old rhyme goes:
‘You cannot hope to bribe or twist (thank God!) the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there’s no occasion to.’
When it comes to campaigning, I’m a big believer in a civilian twist to Machiavellian ‘virtu’. Machiavelli thought citizens shouldn’t hire mercenaries to fight their battles. By doing so they made themselves slaves.
I think journalists are a little like those condottiere — swashbuckling myth-makers, and we citizen consumers? We’re a little like Machiavelli’s contemporaries who sold out their civic freedoms for security.
I think citizens should organize themselves and not rely on proxies.
In light of the concerns of journalism being/not being the lifeblood of democracy, do you think there is a future for it?
As long as there’s a need to represent the present and recent past as stories to tell us who we are, there is a future for journalism. Whether or not that is a very effective way to organize human affairs, I couldn’t say, but for the story-tellers it is an enjoyable way, and sufficiently so for journalism to remain attractive as a pastime if not as a profession.