Is The Role Of A Journalist Changing In Our Society And Why?

In the Uk, we find ourselves in a media and press environment in which is self-regulated, unlikecountries like China that have specific rules that underpin their press regulation. It is thought amongst our media that a liberal democracy is how we should operate.

The competitive paradigm looks at pluralist (liberal democracy) media as ‘a public sphere’. Jurgen Habermas came up with this idea of having a space accessible to everybody in which decisions can be made.

The media is referred to as a 'Fourth Estate'. This is the idea that the press and other publishers act as a type of ‘watchdog’. Edmund Burke argued that established social classes would abuse their power and as result the ‘fourth estate’ was created.

Having heard the points of Habermas and Burke, the media slowly began to have a more influential role in the media as there was no manipulation from society. This continues to be achieved through private ownership which comes with no state ownership and as a result no influence from our government.

There are a number of factors that influence a news organisation. These consist of political, economic, cultural and technological. All these elements help shape what impacts Jounalism and all news organisations. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were vital ingredients in shaping what we know as the media industry today.  They achieved this through encouraging private enterprise and also helping the market regulate itself.

Having said all this, Mcnair argues that liberal democracies are sometimes forced to support government. He uses example such as newspapers supporting the gulf war and the second world war.

Technology has been of high speed growth in recent years and suddenly everybody finds their way to impact what is available for public eye. People no longer want to know what happened yesterday, but more that they want to know what is happening now. This is achieved through the intervention of social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc). Without the history of media and the journalism industry, our current view on the world of press and media might look a lot differently.

An uploaded picture or a football goal can now be seen within seconds of occurrence. With this technological shift comes expectation and demand for more and faster, resulting in yesterdays news no longer being sufficient in todays’ world. This coincides with busier working lives and longer shift patterns, resulting in a ‘non stop’ environment for the media. I conclude with suggesting that the world of press, as a result of being shaped by past events ,people and technological factors, has resulted in a non stop media environment, and the role of a journalist has become more important and demanding as ever.

 

 

Do We Need A Free Press? Is the answer just yes/no or is there something more to it?

A free press is vital, for the maintenance of a liberal democracy. It provides citizens, with the information and variety of opinion necessary for them to debate political issues openly and make their government accountable. Whereas, restrictions on media often indicate us about the government assaulting other democratic institutions.

 

According to Freedom house’s freedom of the press index, only 14% of the world’s citizens live in countries that enjoy a free press. In the rest of the world, governments as well as non-state actors control the viewpoints that reach citizens and brutally repress independent voices, who aim to promote accountability, good governance and economic development.

For instance, if we look at India, the freedom of the press is in danger because of the ownership of the newspaper industry and the predominance of some newspaper groups and chains. It is also suggested that the editors and journalists cannot have adequate freedom of collecting, disseminating and offering comments as they are under the pressure of the capitalist owners. This process of collecting and disseminating facts is not possible in the case of the newspapers, which depend to a large extent on revenge from advertisements (as the advertising interests cannot but influence the presentation of news and comments). Unless, this whole structure of ownership and control in the newspaper industry of press is changed, it is therefore suggested that the press cannot be really free.

I think , free press is necessary but till it remains in it's ethical boundaries!

Ian Hughes, truly said "The media are accused and blamed or praised and hailed, sometimes in almost the same breath, for their influence on the outcome of the democratic process. However, experience shows that when media becomes a mouthpiece for one particular political party or any personality related stories, they tend to be poorly researched or not factual. Opinion can be twisted to suit political-party paymasters: then their force for good distorts rather than reports, hides rather than reveals. Editors can and should have personal and professional opinions but factual reporting and political opinions must be clearly distinct."

Well, not only politically but media does misuse their freedom in general. In the past their have some cases like the phone hacking scandal and bribery of the police, in which its shown how a journalist has exploited his power by hacking 4,000 people’s phones. These are people from the parliament, royal families and teenage victims from the 9/11 case. Not only this, but the police was also bribed for 100,000 pounds for hacking and spying scandal.

In these circumstances journalists individually and collectively should shoulder the responsibility of maintaining the reputation of their profession. Journalists should often ask these questions to themselves- Are we fair? Are we thoughtful?

Can Young Voters Trust Who They Vote For?

Now more than ever the young vote counts, as was proved in the 2010 election where the Liberal Democrats received a major increase in their usual amount of seats.

My question is can young voters make an informed accurate decision on who they’re voting for this upcoming summer? I think not, unless you want to spend time to really dig deep into the parties. For the casual voter who has little interest in politics in day to day life, they will have a couple of ways to base their decision. One will be in the live debates shown across different TV platforms. Another will be from all the speculation in newspapers about promises and policies in the upcoming months.

There is one problem with the latter option, all these papers have political allegiance. Due to papers allegiances with parties it makes it hard for a casual voter to make the decision. With the Sun tearing apart Labours new policy while the Guardian pokes at Cameron’s latest gaffe’s, who is he meant to trust? And why are they to trust these media moguls? With phone hacking and libel claims being settled weekly they print media is hardly giving a good account for itself and is creating an unstable environment for democratic politics to be in. It creates an idea of us and them rather than informing the voter of the straight up facts of each party allowing them to make an informed decision. 

The television debates don’t offer much more than the papers. They’re set up in a way that by the end you only know which politician is the best orator. When you should be finding out which is the best leader for you, this is not helpful. Nick Clegg proved in last election debates that he was a brilliant talker, especially about policies.

But what Nick Clegg proved a year later was that he was only a good talker, and not much more. The whole of Nick Clegg’s election campaign was based around the fact the Lib Dems would not let University fees increase. Which made like a vote for Lib Dem seem like a wasted vote for the younger votes come one year later when University fees had been upped to £9,000.

Ultimately, the fact our views on TV and money for the papers is more important to the media than how we vote. Unfortunately this leaves young voters in a poor position. They are ill informed and left with no real idea on who will help them. 

On that day in May when we all decide who shall keep the country ticking for the next five years, there will be a shock. A shock that the turnout is low, especially amongst younger voters. Young people are disillusioned with politics, we don’t want to hear from Labour why the Tories can’t handle the debt. we don’t want to hear from the Tories why Labour put us in this much debt.  We don't want to know what we can do for you, rather what you can do for us.