University Honors awardee, Silliman University
Senior Student of the Year and Key Awardee, SU College of Mass Communication
In a culture of aristocracy, totalitarianism, and monarchy, public opinion — much more democracy — was unheard of in Europe up until the Renaissance.
Such was the divide between the rich and the poor that their difference in status was not only an economic problem but also a political one.
The nobles and ruling authorities had monopoly of the law, politics, and basically all kinds of information, while peasants and menial workers were left apathetic or ignorant, as they were busy working and trying to survive everyday living.
It was a time of horrible inequality, and one which eventually gave the world the concept of bureaucracy. For example, British political affairs in those times had a tradition of keeping all discussions as far as possible confidential from the public at large. Political participation meant that if the people wanted to know how and what the government was doing, they must apply to be participants, by passing certain standards such as a degree of political respectability and education. In other words, you can only participate if you are rich, educated, or both.
Fast forward to the late 18th century and early 19th century. Primarily influenced by the boom of the Age of Enlightenment, the people began to have a new sense of reason and individualism, and sought for higher forms of learning.
The regard for scholarship ascended, and there arose a ubiquitous hunger for knowledge. Because of this academic explosion, more people went to school, studied, and earned degrees.
Economically, it was also a beneficial time for the poor, as they were able to secure higher-paying jobs, and the margin between them and the rich grew small with the rise of the middle class.
As a result, more and more gained interest, and had time, to engage in political affairs, and their new awareness even caused them to question the status quo.
People then began to meet in public places, and thus, the mushroom, if not the birth, of coffee shops, cafes, and public squares all over Europe, where critical public matters were discussed and debated.
In his book The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, German sociologist and philosopher Jurgen Habermas observed that shift of public awareness as an all-inclusive and physical gathering of the masses, and its inverse relationship to exclusive political authority of that time.
He called it the “public sphere” and saw it as a crucial element for check and balance on the government.
Published in 1962, his book established the importance of public participation in democracy, and made popular the notion that public opinion begets political action. “Democratic governance rests on the capacity of and opportunity for citizens to engage in enlightened debate,” Habermas said.
Today, Habermas’s study has become a large influence on the media’s refocus to function in its role not only as mere information disseminators but promoters of political public participation.
He introduced the world to the profound, yet, still underrated truth that unless the people are intelligently informed of the affairs of the government, there will be no true human development.
According to Thomas Hughes, executive director of ARTICLE 19, a London-based human rights organization with focus on the freedom of expression and information, only those who are informed are able to participate meaningfully in public discussions that affect their lives. “Access to information and a free and independent media,” he said, “are crucial to ensuring governments are held to account for the promises they make and to safeguard development commitments.”
As watchdogs of the government, the media has been bequeathed the job to advance democracy and human development.
Sadly, however, it has been unable to uphold that task in the recent years.
Charles Lewis, president of the Fund for Independence in Journalism, and a Shorenstein fellow at Harvard University’s Center for Press and Politics, said the media has diverted from its goal of “serious journalism” or the pure, unrestricted presentation of relevant and important information.
For him, the media that we know today has become a product of capitalism.
News organizations no longer function as the people’s medium to information, democracy, and freedom, as they have turned into huge corporate traitors who, just like any business, primarily strive to keep annual profit margins high, and their investors happy.
The media’s waning commitment to journalism is further evident in the fact that they have been cutting back on editorial budgets and laying off reporters. “The net result of this hollowing process: there are fewer people today to report, write, and edit original news stories about our infinitely more complex, dynamic world,” said Lewis.
Not only does this change in priority betray the very pillars of journalism, it also causes a chain reaction that ultimately weakens democracy itself.
Because news organizations no longer function according to their job as champions of public participation and opinion, fewer and fewer people are informed of important political affairs.
The dwindling media attention on serious journalism, therefore, only reflects a much more heartbreaking effect — public apathy towards government activities.
Another more insidious result of the media’s shift in focus is the abandonment of their watchdog role.
As Lewis mentioned in his paper, this is not only true in America; it’s happening all over the world. Courageous professional reporters are becoming a scarcity, which means, there are fewer people who are monitoring those in power.
One particular instance of this outrage that Lewis cited was when Time Inc. had to eliminate 650 people from their company, including two of America’s preeminent investigative journalists, Don Barlett and Jim Steele, because of alleged financial constraints.
Time Inc. editor-in-chief John Huey told The New York Times they were “good but expensive” and could not “get other company magazines to take them on their budget”.
Yet, a few weeks later, it was reported that Time Inc. acquired exclusive photographs of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s daughter Shiloh for $4 million.
If we go back to Habermas’ concept of the public sphere, it seems that the human race has come full circle starting from Europe’s 18th century bureaucratic setting to today’s capitalist environment.
In both times, power to and of information are controlled by the rich and privileged who get their way simply because they have the wherewithal.
The ruling aristocrats represent the past, and the wealthy CEOs of media establishments today.
This emerging pattern is a clear indicator that unless we want to go back to being ignorant of the affairs of people we call our leaders, we must find a way to strengthen our access, as a public, to serious journalism, which proves to be the most worthy and useful of its kind.
Fortunately, it is not a job that concerned citizens fight alone. For centuries, the media might have been the only gatekeepers of information, as they were the only ones who had access to such information and the means to release it to the public.
Well, not anymore. Thanks to people who dedicate their lives and expertise to advance human development and democracy through journalism, there now exists independent media organizations free from any obligations from profit-centric corporations.
In Lewis’ paper, he mentions the Center for Public Integrity, the Center for Investigative Reporting, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, and the Romanian Center for Investigative Journalism — four examples of the many equally excellent organizations out there. They have all stepped up to the watchdog role that the mainstream media seemed to have forsaken because they believe that someone has to do journalistic investigation on abuses of power and public trust.
Of course, even with that new-found freedom to pursue any story they want, these organizations are still plagued with problems, especially financial.
However, with the blessing of the Internet, this has not been difficult. The Internet has enabled not-for-profit news organizations to operate at a lesser cost, and in “wider-ranging, global possibilities for previously-unimagined entrepreneurialism,” said Lewis.
Aside from its economic benefits, the Internet has, more importantly, allowed struggling independent media organizations to survive, and have consequently kept alive the fight for development and democracy through free information and public participation.
As Philip Meyer, one of the pioneers of computer-assisted journalism, said, “The only way to save journalism is to develop a new model that finds profit in truth, vigilance, and social responsibility.”
