Role of media in democracy: A critique
‘’The media is absolutely essential forthe functioning of a democracy. It’s not in our job to cozy up to power. We are supposed to be the check and balance on government.’’ — Amy Goodman, American journalist.
INTRODUCTION
Media plays an important role in today’s globalized world where a phone call, news on the television screen, information on social media applications and broadcast on the radio can connect hundreds of people across different states, countries within a fractions of seconds. In such a scenario, media not only has a stronghold upon its consumers but also, has the power of creating a herd mentality.
A free press in a democratic country is regarded as desirable because it is believed that media when free from the clutches of the government would work towards the welfare of the society as it would be honest.
Jawaharlal Nehru called, ‘’ media the watchdog of democracy.’’ This utopian statement indicates towards a repetitious cycle where through the medium of media people become politically active and have the power to question the authority which results in the authorities becoming more accountable, ultimately leading to an idealistic nation. Democracy is meaningless without a free, neutral and active media. Meritorious aspects of the media can be freedom of speech and expression, the inclusion of all classes, caste with no discrimination and equality for all. Ideally, newspapers and public affairs programs on radio and television inform, educate and engage the public.
POLITICAL ASPECT OF MEDIA
“If it were left on me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a movement to prefer the letter.” — Thomas Jefferson
For the past few decades, one can witness an enhanced interface between political and the common man. Media acts as a bridge between the people and the government and also a very powerful tool with the ability to make and break the opinion of the people. It has the capacity to evoke emotions, shape opinions, give rise to protests, and mobilize people into unions by instilling feelings towards a particular political agenda in people. However, in reality, democratic media is rarely neutral. It has two goals either to be anti-state or be prostate, depending on the sources from which it receives funding. Such media channels make the viewer vulnerable as he/she gets into the habit of feeding onto edited, unauthentic and bias information which is broadcasted not for the public good but for monetary and personal gains. Media organizations have become a mouthpiece of the government rather than criticizing the wrong actions of the governments. The spectators by watching repetitive media that are applauding the actions of the state develop a mob mentality which results in mental cohesion and provides the audience with a sense of validation, this is reason why cyberbullying, lynching and hate crimes take place against minorities because the majority feels that their point of view is being threatened and is being labelled as invalid.
The media can provide warring groups mechanisms for mediation, representation and voice so they can settle their differences peacefully.
Unfortunately, the media has sometimes fanned the flames of disharmony by taking sides, reinforcing prejudices, muddling the facts and peddling half-truths. “Peace journalism,” which is being promoted by various NGOs like United Nations debates, Amnesty International newspaper reports, aims to promote reconciliation through careful reportage that gives voice to all sides of a conflict and resists explanation for the violence in terms of innate enmities.
The media’s track record so far in new democracies, however, is uneven. In well-established democracies and the first world countries like the USA, media, in reality, has the power to question those in power and give coverage to both sided arguments whereas, in comparatively new democratic countries, the third world countries like India and Bangladesh media organization majorly express the viewpoint of the influential civil society members. There lies a disparity in the types of media that exist in a democracy.
RISE OF INTERSECTIONAL PLATFORMS
Media in contemporary times has become a puppet of the political parties and represents the narratives of the proletarians (bourgeoisie) who have the financial and social capital to influence the media. This the reason why intersectional digital platforms have come up which express the narrative of marginalized, downtrodden, weaker and oppressed sections of society, like Dalit, lower caste women and African tribes. These platforms aren’t supported by the mainstream media which has led to a divergence of two sets of perspectives, a majoritarian and a minority perspective.
CONCLUSION
Independent media strengthens democracy and can act as a catalyst for social and economic development. Positive effects of media can be only achieved in a democracy when those in the media industry are committed and honest towards their work. The biasness of media may turn a party into a popular party but it can be dangerous for democracy as the regime may turn authoritarian, where media can act like propaganda machines used during World War II by Nazi Germany. Democratic media can be ideal only when media becomes a resilient institution to fight malpractices.
REFERENCES
CORONEL SHEILA: The Role Of Media In Deepening Democracy
ADA GENERAL OF NEW MEDIA AND POLICY
DUTTA SAUMYA: SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF MEDIA AND INDIAN DEMOCRACY
