Even though Nixon instigated successful policy change prior to the ’72 campaign for re-election, he never promoted them and favoured his manipulation of the media despite his feud with the free press. Discuss.
President Richard Milhous Nixon is widely recognised as the first American president who utilised the media and used television to address his country on a large scale. Nixon had a volatile relationship with the free press it was clear that he felt great distain for them and believed that they only ever showed one side of the story- and that was never his side. “Nixon's first major clash with the press came in 1952 when he ran as Dwight D. Eisenhower's vice-presidential running mate. On September 18, the New York Post incorrectly reported that wealthy backers had set up a secret fund for Nixon's personal use. Desperate to avoid being dumped by Eisenhower, Nixon turned the media against itself on nationwide television.” (Accessed: 10/01/10 from: http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/childs1/NixonandtheMedia.htm)
He later presented what is now known as ‘The Checkers’ Speech’ where he addressed the voters, using a lot of new tricks. He spoke to the voters with eye-contact and even drew on his family and his cocker-spaniel dog to reinforce his humble lifestyle. This did work and he grew in popularity.
What we must remember is that despite his anger against the press he also needed them and used them to his advantage. He was the first President to appoint a spin doctor, Herb Klein and in 1969 President Nixon formed the White House Office of Communications which was to serve as the media centre for his government. This was very clever as now he would control exactly what the media would have access to, and would clearly favour press conferences from his supporters rather than the liberal media.
In 1960, John F Kennedy beat Nixon to presidency and this might have been one of the controlling factors in mobilising his media managing arsenal. He had witnessed how staying cool in front of a camera whilst debating had won popularity for Kennedy during their live debates. Erika Tyner Allen said: “The Great Debates marked television's grand entrance into presidential politics. They afforded the first real opportunity for voters to see their candidates in competition, and the visual contrast was dramatic.... In substance, the candidates were much more evenly matched. Indeed, those who heard the first debate on the radio pronounced Nixon the winner. But the 70 million who watched television saw a candidate still sickly and obviously discomforted by Kennedy's smooth delivery and charisma. Those television viewers focused on what they saw, not what they heard. Studies of the audience indicated that, among television viewers, Kennedy was perceived the winner of the first debate by a very large margin.” (http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=kennedy-nixon)
In preparation for Nixon’s 1972 campaign for re-election he sought the help of the November Group. The agency was hired to manage the media for the President as well as his speeches. The agency expertly marketed Nixon as a successful world leader while smiting his opposition. They controlled the campaign posters which included the slogan: “President Nixon. Now. More than ever.” They also used other methods like recording short documentary-style campaign videos which have become popular with later Presidents like Bill Clinton.
The November Group also pioneered other methods like showcasing Nixon as a family man, and would include his wife a lot. He was also shown playing the piano for important figureheads, similar to Clinton’s saxophone showcase. This only proves how effective the group really were because their methods of spin are still being emulated today.
Nixon’s politics are nothing to be ignored. He passed some very important environmental policies and also was the one who withdrew troops from Vietnam. It is however quite curious as to why they were never really the subjects he promoted during his campaign.
Brooks Flippen explores this in his article: “Nixon’s administration’s major environmental accomplishments have been unjustly overlooked by historians as he describes the plethora of environmental issues faced: Overpopulation, off-shore oil drilling, the Alaska oil pipeline, the 70s energy crisis, the supersonic transport, DDT and other pesticides... Water pollution... The creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and reorganisation of federal environmental policy.”
There were quite a few other environmental changes Nixon also implemented, yet Nixon is not known for these. He did present himself as quite the environmentalist from 1969-70 so it does seem strange that he would not draw these policies more into his campaign for re-election.
Scott Dewey (California State University at Los Angeles) argues that: “In 1969-70 Nixon could not have stopped environmental reforms even had he wished to, and he was politically savvy enough to try to capture some credit for the inevitable. Yet, such reaction, poll-watching, and media manipulation were far from the long demonstrated record of environmental leadership of congressional democrats; though Nixon’s environmental advisors clearly deserve credit for their courage and persistence.
“Though Nixon still offered deceptive lip service to environmental goals after 1970, his private statements of hostility toward environmentalists and experimentation with blocking funding or enforcement if environmental programs were a dress rehearsal for the more overt acts of the Reagan administration.”
Dewey presents a very valid point because as we know Nixon to be a ‘tricky’ character it does seem that most of his environmental policies were pragmatic, yet he probably did not agree with them. He is a man of the stage and this was just one of the charades he presented to the public in order to gain more in the way of an electorate, although, it does seem odd that he does not play-up this fact because the 26th Amendment of the constitution enfranchised 18 year-olds with the vote in 1971 and the environment typically is a concern of younger generations.
November 3 1969 Nixon called upon the ‘silent majority’ to support him in his quest for ‘peace with honour’ in Vietnam; he was consequently slated by many news organisations who clearly thought that this was just another ploy from ‘Tricky Dicky’.
This then forced a counter attack from his running mate Vice president Spiro Agnew, who delivered a speech at Des Moines, Iowa. He said: “Every American has the right to disagree with the President of the United States, and to express publically that disagreement.
But the President of the United States has a right to communicate directly with the people that elected him, and the people of this country have the right to make up their own minds and form their own opinions about a Presidential address, without having the President’s words and thoughts characterised through the prejudice of hostile critics before they can even be digested.”
Agnew went further and gave examples as to why the press are unfair and are businesses that are there first and foremost to sell newspapers: “The networks made “hunger” and “black-lung disease” national issues overnight. The TV networks have done what no other medium could have done in terms of dramatising the horrors of war. The networks have tackled our most difficult social problems with a directness and immediacy that is the gift of their medium. They have focused the nation’s attention on its environmental abuses, on pollution in the Great Lakes, and the threatened ecology of the Everglades.”
This strengthened the support for Nixon because Agnew had presented flaws in what other news organisations were saying. It discredited them and actually forced the public to see that there were two sides of the discussion, not just the one presented to them in the press. It is a clever way to spin the events which showed grand misdirection; although, the discussion should have focused on Vietnam and the foreign policies that were being discussed the Nixon Administration had turned it away from what they were actually talking about and concentrated on the media who were portrayed as the controllers of media.
“The audience of seventy-million Americans gathered to hear the President of the United States—was inherited by a small band of network commentators and self-appointed analysts, the majority of whom expressed, in one way or another, their hostility to what he had to say.” (Vice President Agnew)
Patrick Buchanan, writing for the American Conservative in 2005 believes that the Des Moines speech has made its mark in history because it showed the holes in what news corporations showed the viewers. He also believed that it changed how the electorate thought whilst receiving the news. He said:
“What he had done was strip the false flag of neutrality from Big Media and expose it as a co-belligerent in the political wars, no longer entitled to the immunity from attack. Reed Irvine’s Accuracy came in to being to monitor the liberal press.
“Then beginning with The New York Times, newspapers yielded to the attacks on their fairness by adding conservative columns to prove to their readers they were unbiased.”
This is a very clear example of the power of spin and media management, and Nixon definitely knew that. By creating a storm around those papers that opposed him he made them look like the ‘Tricky’ ones and painted himself in as a pious leader.
Nixon not only relied on his spin doctor, the November Group and his running mate, he also had another operation. His Committee to Re-Elect President or CREEP as it was known was another organisation set-up primarily to raise funds for the campaign although they did do a lot more than that.
Buyingthepresident.org claimed that CREEP found a loophole in the law for ‘off the books’ contributions and raised as much as $60 million for the campaign. Other than finding these ‘dirty tricks’ for Nixon they were also sent out to dig up dirt on the opposition campaign. They harassed Muskie among others with prank calls, unwanted pizza deliveries and other cheeky stunts.
It would be quite ignorant not to mention Nixon’s demise, because after all of his clever management of the media we do inevitably see his ‘fall from grace’ in terms of the Watergate scandal.
A safe assumption is that Nixon was a man who as a politician reached great heights because he recognised that television was the best place to address a widespread audience. He also knew that by hiring the best people in PR and appointing himself a spin doctor he would become almost ‘untouchable’ by the media because those working alongside him would have had, even at a basic level the same sorts of training as the journalists who ‘conspired against him’. It was also a very intellectual move because they could always second guess the free media and use what they conceived as their own strengths against them.
Nixon’s manipulation of the media fed in to his ego and eventually fed into his denial as we saw when the news of Watergate actually broke. During his resignation speech which he had staged much like televised speeches which had come before he still seemed as though he still had a captivated audience.
“I have done my very best in all the days since to be true to that pledge. As a result of these efforts, I am confident that the world is a safer place today, not only for the people of America but for the people of all nations, and that all of our children have a better chance than before of living in peace rather than dying in war.
This, more than anything, is what I hoped to achieve when I sought the Presidency. This, more than anything, is what I hope will be my legacy to you, to our country, as I leave the Presidency.
To have served in this office is to have felt a very personal sense of kinship with each and every American. In leaving it, I do so with this prayer: May God's grace be with you in all the days ahead.” (President Richard Nixon - August 8, 1974)
Nixon seems to have been feeding himself his own spin over the years of his presidency and it is transparent throughout his address to the people of the United States.
One thing is definitely certain, the man who used a lot of expletives in private, who was very jaded and cynical certainly tricked a lot of people.
Bibliography
Accessed: 10/01/10 from: http://people.cohums.ohiotate.edu/childs1/NixonandtheMedia.htm
Accessed: 10/01/10 from: http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=kennedy-nixon
Nixon and the Environment by Brooks J Flippen Albequerque: University of New Mexico press 2000 (pg 510 The Journal of Southern History Vol 68 No2 May 2002)
Accessed Nov 17 2009: www.jstor.org/stable/3070006?origin=jstor-pdf&cookieSet=1
Defiance and Contrition: The Critical response of the media to Nixon Administration Animus by Scott Dewey of California State University at Los Angeles: Accessed: 17 Nov 2009 www.allacademic.com//metal/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/1/5/5/pages91559/p91559-1.php
Accessed: Nov 17 2009http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Agnew.html Agnew speech
Patrick J Buchanan, 2005, “Richard Nixon’s Revenge”
Accessed November 17 2009 from: www.amconmag.com/article/2005/feb/14/00006/
Accessed: 10 Jan 2010 http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/nixon.htm
Accessed: 14 Nov 2009 www.kennesaw.edu/pols/3380/pres/1972.htw
Accessed: 14 Nov 2009 www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/richardnixon
Accessed: 14 Nov 2009 www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1972/nixon-now
Accessed: 14 Nov 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/.../3697098.stm
Accessed: 14 Nov 2009
www.buyingofthepresident.org/index.php/the_hanna_project/election_year/1972_nixon_vs_mcgovern/
Fred Emery, Watergate: The corruption of American Politics and the fall of Richard Nixon (New York: Touchstone books)
Hunter S Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72 Flamingo. London 1994
Accessed: 20 Dec 2009 http://home.earthlink.net/~gfeldmeth/chart.nixon.html
Accessed: 16 Nov 2009: Jonathan Jones The Guardian Online, “Richard Nixon, Andy Warhol (vote Mcgovern),1972” www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2001/feb/10/art.warhol/print
www.nixonlibrary.gov/forresearchers/find/tapes/finding_aids/tapesubjectlogs/cdhw232.pdf accessed: 20 Dec 2009
Spin Control: The Whitehouse office of Communications and the management of presidential news John Anthony Maltease
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Spin+Control:+The+White+House+Office+of+Communications+and+the...-a012304067 COPYRIGHT 1992 Washington Monthly Company- accessed: 10 Jan 2010
Accessed 11 Jan 2010: Bush Vs. the Media: A la Nixon? http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/media_issues/58490/2#ixzz0cEjK6oPH
Accessed 11 Jan 2010: Nixon and the Media. Edited from: American Experience PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/37_nixon/nixon_politics.html
Sunday, 23 May 2010
Journalism Ethics... A personal dilemma or a caped crusade?
Given the many constraints on journalists, how can we talk of a free media? Discuss with reference to relevant legislation and guidelines.
Historical views on the media have emerged from such ideology as the fourth estate; it is the traditional ideal which many journalists who wish to enter the profession form their foundations on. It is the ideal that the profession is founded on high morals which are used to regulate those that control our state through news and investigation.
“The eighteenth century claim that the press was entitled to its own independent standing in the political system, as the Fourth Estate, has become an ideal which continues to influence the attitudes of those working in the late Twentieth century news media as well as politicians and citizens.” (Schultz, 1998:15)
Schultz (1998) talks of the ‘Fourth Estate’ which is a principle applied to the media as an entity whose job it is to regulate those that govern the country. It implies that journalism is a very noble profession, entrusted with telling the rest of the world about heinous crimes and reporting for justice. She also suggests that this is a trait which has been carried through to the present day and a reason why many seek to enter the profession in the first place.
Although the foundations of the free media are built on those of high morals, it is safe to protest that the freedom of the media has been compromised in present times. For example the introduction of certain laws which seek to protect the individual rather than provide knowledge to the masses.
A free press can be defined as a press not restricted or controlled by government censorship regarding politics or ideology.” (dictionary.com, 2010) However, more recently there is more evidence to suggest that the press has been restricted and in some cases controlled.
The rise of laws like the Freedom of information Act 2000 has enhanced opportunities to find stories because anyone (not just the journalist) can request information.
“The Act gives the public a general right of access to information held by public authorities. The Act also requires public authorities to have an approved publication scheme, which is a means of providing access to information which an authority proactively publishes. (ICO.co.uk, 2010)
However, requests have to be very precise and can take time to process which is very difficult considering the increased pressures on journalists surrounding deadlines. The Act itself seems like a positive, but in, practise it is just as difficult to secure this information and can result in the story trail going dead.
There are also valid reasons for withholding information, which are known as exemptions from the right to know. However, if exemptions are made, then it is even more difficult for the press to be ‘free’. How can the press be free if there are exceptions made? This must mean that the press can never truly be ‘free’ because it is written into British law and the press is still controlled by or censored by government.
Many times when Freedom of Information requests are made, the information can come back as PDF forms that do not include a ‘search bar’. This means that there could be pages of information that will have to be thoroughly read and without being able to navigate quickly this could be incredibly time consuming. The company’s supplying the information know this and will also try to bury certain things deep in the document, hoping that the journalist will not have the time to look through it all.
However, the right to information does not necessarily mean a right to publish information. Frost (2000) argues that: “When we talk about a free media we are not necessarily talking about the media’s right to publish anything they like, but that people, including journalists, should have a right to spread information and ideas which can be justified morally in order to support the public’s right to know – in other words, information published in the public interest, not merely information to sate the public’s curiosity or desire to be entertained.” (P42)
Frost (2000) implies that many elements of the media hide behind the public interest guise. Evidence does suggest that hiding behind the public interest defence rarely works. In cases such as Max Mosley suing the News of the World, the public interest defence was used. It was quite rightly ignored too, no one really knew who this man was until the News of the World broke the story.
The British press has its own regulatory body, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC).A body which is made up of editors of national, local and regional press and magazines. (pcc.org.uk, ND) It has been argued that, although it sets out guidelines, it has little or no power to actually prosecute or even fine those wayward journalists and so many choose to ignore it. According to McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists (2007), “[The PCC] Codes of conduct attempt to encourage or enforce ethical standards in the media.” (P445)
They have no real power to fine journalists which in itself does not seem like a real deterrent. One of the better features of the PCC does seem to be that it contains guidelines which are reinforced by law in the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 1998.
Stricter privacy laws seem to be the biggest threat to free media. Many people can use the guise of right to privacy as a way of gagging the press from publishing certain articles. Crucial information can go unpublished because the media is afraid of being sued.
A case was reported online at Telegraph.co.uk: “Media organisations in the UK acceded to a request from Buckingham Palace not to publish the pictures, but they appeared in the German press...The Queen is said to be increasingly angry about press intrusion and the use of telephoto lenses to capture members of the Royal family in private situations.” (Singh 2010)
The Royal Family are considered ‘fair game’ when it comes to reporting because of their standing in Britain. People are interested in the Royal Family because they are ‘national property’. However, by the UK media pandering to their requests are they in effect jeopardising free media? It could be argued that they are because they are in essence controlling what is printed about them. The media has been compromised because they are in effect accepting that they are not to report certain stories because they have been asked not to. This again goes against the ideals set out in the Fourth Estate because they are adhering to pressures from governmental factors.
Karen Sanders (2003) says:
“Privacy is a necessary good for all human beings, however famous and powerful. A less extreme view considers that there is a trade-off between fame and power on the one hand and reduced privacy on the other. This view holds that there is a price to be paid by those who court publicity or wield power. What might the reasons be for this?” (P86)
Karen Sanders (2003) believes three different reasons why the privacy guise could be ignored. Self-immolation, those who seek publicity ‘invade’ their own privacy. By placing their own private lives’ on the record they cannot complain when the media delves deeper. Integrity, those who have power must uphold a certain standard of public behaviour. So, we are entitled to know if their private behaviour contradicts their public conduct. Hypocrisy, when a person who is guilty of a private vice and publically expounds a contradictory set of values should be exposed as a hypocrite.
Libel laws are biased towards the claimant in the UK, where the defendant is seen as guilty until proven innocent. This presents a lot of difficulty for the press because it is harder to prove your innocence when it is easy to damage people’s reputations.
Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones successfully sued Hello! Magazine for publishing pictures of their wedding. In 2005 the Court of Appeal stated that photographs of the wedding portrayed aspects if the Douglases’ private life and fell within the protection of the laws of confidentiality, as extended to cover private or personal information. It is also important to recognise that there is no real privacy law in Britain but it is a development in case law which has led to there being more constraints in journalism. The judges themselves use each other as a benchmark on ruling for later cases.
Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 states that: “Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers….”
Yet, Article 8 contradicts the notion of Article 10 which casts a grey area on the reportage, “When the Human Rights Bill was before parliament, the media were worried that it would give the opportunity to wealthy and powerful villains to get last-minute injunctions against the publication of exposés on the ground that such publication would therefore contravene article 8.” This again means that justice is essentially held by those who shape the law rather than those who wish to report on it, which in turn adds to the constraints on a truly free media.
In response, the Government amended the Act to introduce a provision that applies if a court is considering whether to grant ‘relief’ (principally an injunction) which affects the exercise of the right to freedom of expression.
“If the journalist is not present when the application is made, the court must not grant an injunction unless it is satisfied the person seeking the injunction has taken all practicable steps to notify steps to notify the journalist or that there are compelling reasons why the journalist should be notified.” (McNaes, 2007:428)
This clearly seeks to provide a protection on free media but it does not serve as well because there will still be biased judges making the call on whether there is a public interest in particular stories anyway.
According to McNae’s (2007), Libel law exists to protect the reputation of the individual from unjustified attack. In civil law it is a tort- that is, a civil wrong for which monetary damages may be claimed.
Samson (2010) argues that libel laws should change and be similar to those in the US. Samson believes if the ‘burden of proof’ had to be shifted to the claimant then it would deter Libel tourists.
“A libel defendant is guilty until proven innocent, resulting in a disproportionate number of libel cases both from British citizens and "libel tourists" who sue their critics in London. Libel tourists know that forcing the defendant to prove his innocence may lead to a retraction of the alleged libel and discourage other writers from publishing similar statements – known as the "chilling effect" on free speech.” (Elizabeth Samson, 2010)
This also means that a lot of publishers will just back down without trying to prove that they were right because of the huge costs they might have to take-on if they are disproven. This can only be seen as a massive hindrance on free media because media outlets cannot just take a chance with such high stakes.
The Terrorism Act 2000 has also constrained journalists. Under the act police can seize material which reveals journalists’ sources. This can result in potential whistle-blowers staying silent. People would be unlikely to speak out about certain events if they were no longer anonymous. Consequently, journalists cannot write credible material without ‘proof’ thus the Act restraining the media from doing its job.
“It is a matter of personal principle that a reporter does not reveal his source of confidential information. The journalist’s job is to discover and record news. Where ever he looks he will find people with vested interests trying to prevent him from doing so.” (McNae’s 2007: 332)
Material can be seized without notifying the writer which goes directly against the ideal of the Fourth Estate. It is a direct constraint on free media because there is no defence for the journalist. How can they regulate those that govern us if the police can just seize research? Failure to comply with the Act can also mean that the journalist can be tried for Contempt of Court which can mean a jail sentence of up to two years imprisonment. This adds to the constraints on free media because certain events which may come to light can be ignored because without a source willing to go on the record, there is no proof and without proof a journalist cannot write his articles.
One could also argue that the Contempt of Court Act hinders the right of free media because publications that hold information on specific cases must hold on to their knowledge until after a trial. If the press was truly free, they could choose when they want to publish stories without time constraints.
In effect, it would be hard to conclude that there is a truly free media in the UK because laws that are there to protect journalism are also the obstacles that hinder its progression. It could also be noted that the foundations on which the noble profession was built on are also flawed in the sense that the Fourth Estate is an ideal. The most basic definition of an ideology is: The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
Ideology behind journalism seems to have prophesised that those wishing to be part of it are always truth-seeking and looking for the moral high-ground; which is correct if we look to events like the Watergate scandal. However, policies and legislation has done little to provide us with the intention of making the job of journalism easy, so it would seem that the journalist is forever pushing against the hand of the law and there is no sign of it letting up.
Bibliography
Books
• Sanders,K. (2003) Ethics & Journalism. Sage, London.
• Frost,C. (2000) Journalism Ethics and Regulation. Pearson, London.
• Harcup,T. (2007) The Ethical Journalist. Sage, London.
• Branston,G. Stafford,R. (1996) The Media Student’s Handbook. Third Edition. Routledge, London.
• Randall,D. (2000) The Universal Journalist. Second Edition. Pluto Press, London.
• Schultz, J. (1998) Reviving the Fourth Estate: Democracy, Accountability and the Media. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Davies,N. (2008) Flat Earth News: An Award-winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda in the Global Media. Random House, London.
• Welsh, T (et al.) (2007) McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists. 19th Edition. Oxford University Press, UK.
• Kovach, B & Rosenstiel, T. (2001) The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople should know and the Public should expect. Three Rivers Press, New York.
• Currah, A. (2009) What’s happening to our news: investigation into the likely impact of the digital revolution on the economics of news publishing in the UK. Reuters Institute for the study of Journalism, London.
Websites
• Freeman,H. (2009) Celebrity scoops are not always in the public interest. The Guardian [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/05/celebrity-interviews-hadley-freeman [Accessed: 21/03/2010]
• Gaulin, P. (2007) Are Ethics Missing in Citizen Journalism? [Online] Available at: www.associatedcontent.com/article/221308/are_ethics_missing_in_citizen_journalism.htm [Accessed: 12/03/2010]
• Singh, A. (2010) Kate Middleton wins damages from paparazzi agency. The Telegraph [Online] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/7488676/Kate-Middleton-wins-damages-from-paparazzi-agency.html [Accessed: 11/03/2010]
• Samson, E. (2010) The Freedom to speak Truth to Power. The Guardian [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/apr/20/libel-law-tourism-reform [Accessed: 26/04/2010]
• Hanson, J. (2010) Chaos Vs Order:The root of Ideology. Big Think [Online] http://bigthink.com/ideas/19011 [Accessed: 10/05/2010]
Journals
• Papandrea, M. (2007) Citizen Journalism and the Reporter’s Privilege. Minnesota Law Review [Online] Vol.97. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=932681 (Social Science Research Network) [Accessed: 12/03/2010]
• Witschge, T. Journalism: A Profession under Pressure? Journal of Media Business Studies [Online] Available at: http://eprints-gro.gold.ac.uk/2128/1/Witschge_Nygren_Journalism_as_profession.pdf [Accessed: 16/03/2010]
• Nardi, A. (et al.) (Dec 2004) Why we blog. The Blogosphere. Issue 12, Vol. 47. Pp41-46 Publisher: ACM [Accessed: 16/03/2010]
• Salter, L. (2005) The Communicative structures of Journalism and Public Relations. [Online] Available at: http://jousagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/6/1/90
[Accessed: 26/04/2010]
Legislation/Guidelines
• The Freedom of Information act 2000. (http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/freedom_of_information_guide.aspx)
• The Press Complaints Commission: Code of Practice.
• The Human Rights Act 1998; Articles 8 & 10
• The Terrorism Act 2000
• Contempt of Court Act
Historical views on the media have emerged from such ideology as the fourth estate; it is the traditional ideal which many journalists who wish to enter the profession form their foundations on. It is the ideal that the profession is founded on high morals which are used to regulate those that control our state through news and investigation.
“The eighteenth century claim that the press was entitled to its own independent standing in the political system, as the Fourth Estate, has become an ideal which continues to influence the attitudes of those working in the late Twentieth century news media as well as politicians and citizens.” (Schultz, 1998:15)
Schultz (1998) talks of the ‘Fourth Estate’ which is a principle applied to the media as an entity whose job it is to regulate those that govern the country. It implies that journalism is a very noble profession, entrusted with telling the rest of the world about heinous crimes and reporting for justice. She also suggests that this is a trait which has been carried through to the present day and a reason why many seek to enter the profession in the first place.
Although the foundations of the free media are built on those of high morals, it is safe to protest that the freedom of the media has been compromised in present times. For example the introduction of certain laws which seek to protect the individual rather than provide knowledge to the masses.
A free press can be defined as a press not restricted or controlled by government censorship regarding politics or ideology.” (dictionary.com, 2010) However, more recently there is more evidence to suggest that the press has been restricted and in some cases controlled.
The rise of laws like the Freedom of information Act 2000 has enhanced opportunities to find stories because anyone (not just the journalist) can request information.
“The Act gives the public a general right of access to information held by public authorities. The Act also requires public authorities to have an approved publication scheme, which is a means of providing access to information which an authority proactively publishes. (ICO.co.uk, 2010)
However, requests have to be very precise and can take time to process which is very difficult considering the increased pressures on journalists surrounding deadlines. The Act itself seems like a positive, but in, practise it is just as difficult to secure this information and can result in the story trail going dead.
There are also valid reasons for withholding information, which are known as exemptions from the right to know. However, if exemptions are made, then it is even more difficult for the press to be ‘free’. How can the press be free if there are exceptions made? This must mean that the press can never truly be ‘free’ because it is written into British law and the press is still controlled by or censored by government.
Many times when Freedom of Information requests are made, the information can come back as PDF forms that do not include a ‘search bar’. This means that there could be pages of information that will have to be thoroughly read and without being able to navigate quickly this could be incredibly time consuming. The company’s supplying the information know this and will also try to bury certain things deep in the document, hoping that the journalist will not have the time to look through it all.
However, the right to information does not necessarily mean a right to publish information. Frost (2000) argues that: “When we talk about a free media we are not necessarily talking about the media’s right to publish anything they like, but that people, including journalists, should have a right to spread information and ideas which can be justified morally in order to support the public’s right to know – in other words, information published in the public interest, not merely information to sate the public’s curiosity or desire to be entertained.” (P42)
Frost (2000) implies that many elements of the media hide behind the public interest guise. Evidence does suggest that hiding behind the public interest defence rarely works. In cases such as Max Mosley suing the News of the World, the public interest defence was used. It was quite rightly ignored too, no one really knew who this man was until the News of the World broke the story.
The British press has its own regulatory body, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC).A body which is made up of editors of national, local and regional press and magazines. (pcc.org.uk, ND) It has been argued that, although it sets out guidelines, it has little or no power to actually prosecute or even fine those wayward journalists and so many choose to ignore it. According to McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists (2007), “[The PCC] Codes of conduct attempt to encourage or enforce ethical standards in the media.” (P445)
They have no real power to fine journalists which in itself does not seem like a real deterrent. One of the better features of the PCC does seem to be that it contains guidelines which are reinforced by law in the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 1998.
Stricter privacy laws seem to be the biggest threat to free media. Many people can use the guise of right to privacy as a way of gagging the press from publishing certain articles. Crucial information can go unpublished because the media is afraid of being sued.
A case was reported online at Telegraph.co.uk: “Media organisations in the UK acceded to a request from Buckingham Palace not to publish the pictures, but they appeared in the German press...The Queen is said to be increasingly angry about press intrusion and the use of telephoto lenses to capture members of the Royal family in private situations.” (Singh 2010)
The Royal Family are considered ‘fair game’ when it comes to reporting because of their standing in Britain. People are interested in the Royal Family because they are ‘national property’. However, by the UK media pandering to their requests are they in effect jeopardising free media? It could be argued that they are because they are in essence controlling what is printed about them. The media has been compromised because they are in effect accepting that they are not to report certain stories because they have been asked not to. This again goes against the ideals set out in the Fourth Estate because they are adhering to pressures from governmental factors.
Karen Sanders (2003) says:
“Privacy is a necessary good for all human beings, however famous and powerful. A less extreme view considers that there is a trade-off between fame and power on the one hand and reduced privacy on the other. This view holds that there is a price to be paid by those who court publicity or wield power. What might the reasons be for this?” (P86)
Karen Sanders (2003) believes three different reasons why the privacy guise could be ignored. Self-immolation, those who seek publicity ‘invade’ their own privacy. By placing their own private lives’ on the record they cannot complain when the media delves deeper. Integrity, those who have power must uphold a certain standard of public behaviour. So, we are entitled to know if their private behaviour contradicts their public conduct. Hypocrisy, when a person who is guilty of a private vice and publically expounds a contradictory set of values should be exposed as a hypocrite.
Libel laws are biased towards the claimant in the UK, where the defendant is seen as guilty until proven innocent. This presents a lot of difficulty for the press because it is harder to prove your innocence when it is easy to damage people’s reputations.
Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones successfully sued Hello! Magazine for publishing pictures of their wedding. In 2005 the Court of Appeal stated that photographs of the wedding portrayed aspects if the Douglases’ private life and fell within the protection of the laws of confidentiality, as extended to cover private or personal information. It is also important to recognise that there is no real privacy law in Britain but it is a development in case law which has led to there being more constraints in journalism. The judges themselves use each other as a benchmark on ruling for later cases.
Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 states that: “Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers….”
Yet, Article 8 contradicts the notion of Article 10 which casts a grey area on the reportage, “When the Human Rights Bill was before parliament, the media were worried that it would give the opportunity to wealthy and powerful villains to get last-minute injunctions against the publication of exposés on the ground that such publication would therefore contravene article 8.” This again means that justice is essentially held by those who shape the law rather than those who wish to report on it, which in turn adds to the constraints on a truly free media.
In response, the Government amended the Act to introduce a provision that applies if a court is considering whether to grant ‘relief’ (principally an injunction) which affects the exercise of the right to freedom of expression.
“If the journalist is not present when the application is made, the court must not grant an injunction unless it is satisfied the person seeking the injunction has taken all practicable steps to notify steps to notify the journalist or that there are compelling reasons why the journalist should be notified.” (McNaes, 2007:428)
This clearly seeks to provide a protection on free media but it does not serve as well because there will still be biased judges making the call on whether there is a public interest in particular stories anyway.
According to McNae’s (2007), Libel law exists to protect the reputation of the individual from unjustified attack. In civil law it is a tort- that is, a civil wrong for which monetary damages may be claimed.
Samson (2010) argues that libel laws should change and be similar to those in the US. Samson believes if the ‘burden of proof’ had to be shifted to the claimant then it would deter Libel tourists.
“A libel defendant is guilty until proven innocent, resulting in a disproportionate number of libel cases both from British citizens and "libel tourists" who sue their critics in London. Libel tourists know that forcing the defendant to prove his innocence may lead to a retraction of the alleged libel and discourage other writers from publishing similar statements – known as the "chilling effect" on free speech.” (Elizabeth Samson, 2010)
This also means that a lot of publishers will just back down without trying to prove that they were right because of the huge costs they might have to take-on if they are disproven. This can only be seen as a massive hindrance on free media because media outlets cannot just take a chance with such high stakes.
The Terrorism Act 2000 has also constrained journalists. Under the act police can seize material which reveals journalists’ sources. This can result in potential whistle-blowers staying silent. People would be unlikely to speak out about certain events if they were no longer anonymous. Consequently, journalists cannot write credible material without ‘proof’ thus the Act restraining the media from doing its job.
“It is a matter of personal principle that a reporter does not reveal his source of confidential information. The journalist’s job is to discover and record news. Where ever he looks he will find people with vested interests trying to prevent him from doing so.” (McNae’s 2007: 332)
Material can be seized without notifying the writer which goes directly against the ideal of the Fourth Estate. It is a direct constraint on free media because there is no defence for the journalist. How can they regulate those that govern us if the police can just seize research? Failure to comply with the Act can also mean that the journalist can be tried for Contempt of Court which can mean a jail sentence of up to two years imprisonment. This adds to the constraints on free media because certain events which may come to light can be ignored because without a source willing to go on the record, there is no proof and without proof a journalist cannot write his articles.
One could also argue that the Contempt of Court Act hinders the right of free media because publications that hold information on specific cases must hold on to their knowledge until after a trial. If the press was truly free, they could choose when they want to publish stories without time constraints.
In effect, it would be hard to conclude that there is a truly free media in the UK because laws that are there to protect journalism are also the obstacles that hinder its progression. It could also be noted that the foundations on which the noble profession was built on are also flawed in the sense that the Fourth Estate is an ideal. The most basic definition of an ideology is: The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
Ideology behind journalism seems to have prophesised that those wishing to be part of it are always truth-seeking and looking for the moral high-ground; which is correct if we look to events like the Watergate scandal. However, policies and legislation has done little to provide us with the intention of making the job of journalism easy, so it would seem that the journalist is forever pushing against the hand of the law and there is no sign of it letting up.
Bibliography
Books
• Sanders,K. (2003) Ethics & Journalism. Sage, London.
• Frost,C. (2000) Journalism Ethics and Regulation. Pearson, London.
• Harcup,T. (2007) The Ethical Journalist. Sage, London.
• Branston,G. Stafford,R. (1996) The Media Student’s Handbook. Third Edition. Routledge, London.
• Randall,D. (2000) The Universal Journalist. Second Edition. Pluto Press, London.
• Schultz, J. (1998) Reviving the Fourth Estate: Democracy, Accountability and the Media. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Davies,N. (2008) Flat Earth News: An Award-winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda in the Global Media. Random House, London.
• Welsh, T (et al.) (2007) McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists. 19th Edition. Oxford University Press, UK.
• Kovach, B & Rosenstiel, T. (2001) The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople should know and the Public should expect. Three Rivers Press, New York.
• Currah, A. (2009) What’s happening to our news: investigation into the likely impact of the digital revolution on the economics of news publishing in the UK. Reuters Institute for the study of Journalism, London.
Websites
• Freeman,H. (2009) Celebrity scoops are not always in the public interest. The Guardian [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/05/celebrity-interviews-hadley-freeman [Accessed: 21/03/2010]
• Gaulin, P. (2007) Are Ethics Missing in Citizen Journalism? [Online] Available at: www.associatedcontent.com/article/221308/are_ethics_missing_in_citizen_journalism.htm [Accessed: 12/03/2010]
• Singh, A. (2010) Kate Middleton wins damages from paparazzi agency. The Telegraph [Online] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/7488676/Kate-Middleton-wins-damages-from-paparazzi-agency.html [Accessed: 11/03/2010]
• Samson, E. (2010) The Freedom to speak Truth to Power. The Guardian [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/apr/20/libel-law-tourism-reform [Accessed: 26/04/2010]
• Hanson, J. (2010) Chaos Vs Order:The root of Ideology. Big Think [Online] http://bigthink.com/ideas/19011 [Accessed: 10/05/2010]
Journals
• Papandrea, M. (2007) Citizen Journalism and the Reporter’s Privilege. Minnesota Law Review [Online] Vol.97. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=932681 (Social Science Research Network) [Accessed: 12/03/2010]
• Witschge, T. Journalism: A Profession under Pressure? Journal of Media Business Studies [Online] Available at: http://eprints-gro.gold.ac.uk/2128/1/Witschge_Nygren_Journalism_as_profession.pdf [Accessed: 16/03/2010]
• Nardi, A. (et al.) (Dec 2004) Why we blog. The Blogosphere. Issue 12, Vol. 47. Pp41-46 Publisher: ACM [Accessed: 16/03/2010]
• Salter, L. (2005) The Communicative structures of Journalism and Public Relations. [Online] Available at: http://jousagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/6/1/90
[Accessed: 26/04/2010]
Legislation/Guidelines
• The Freedom of Information act 2000. (http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/freedom_of_information_guide.aspx)
• The Press Complaints Commission: Code of Practice.
• The Human Rights Act 1998; Articles 8 & 10
• The Terrorism Act 2000
• Contempt of Court Act
Life and Soul
I recently won first prize for my Special Study creative project; I have pasted in the rationale and some photos for your viewing pleasures. It is a little over-indulgent but I think it is good to be egotistical from time to time... Especially, if you want to emulate the great authors of the New Journalism movement.
The project is entitled: 'Life and Soul' It is based on my excessive partying style through references to Capote's In Cold Blood, Thompson's Hell's Angels, Wolfe's Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test and a few others.
Life and Soul
Capote’s In Cold Blood was my main influence from the beginning. I found it interesting how he managed to deliver personality and voice to the deceased Clutter Family through documentation and interviewing people who knew them. Most poignantly, I felt Capote’s interpretation of Nancy Clutter was very cunning because he only had her diary and through that he encouraged his readers to see her as an accessible character. The interviewees portrayed her as someone always willing to help the community, and someone involved in local church groups but her diary cast some doubt on whether she was as sure of herself. From this I decided to use my diary to portray the ‘truth’ behind the life and soul.
Nancy Clutter’s diary prompted me to consider myself more; Capote describes her constant changing of handwriting and pen colour to signify that she was still growing into her own person. This is likened in my work to the constant change in hair colour and styles because throughout my teens I am still striving to find out who I am.
There is a recurring theme of narcissism throughout the New Journalism texts. The journalists tended to place themselves inside the narrative as a central protagonist. I felt that this was very commonplace amongst them because they had eccentric personalities. Although what they are reporting on are all events or people much more extraordinary the journalist still shines through as the main character of interest.
The journalists in this genre quickly judged their peers but seldom looked at themselves. I felt that it was important for me to lay this all bare on screen but have kept my personal criticisms inside the diary as a metaphor for hiding from my own thoughts.
The main collage itself depicts imagery of how I would start my evenings, even in groups of friends I am clearly the ‘central protagonist.’ I also wanted this to be the initial focal point for my project because this is the person I let others see and analyse. I am always the ‘life and soul’ and I am always or at least I always appear to be enjoying the experience. This is important because how I look is apparently brash and outgoing; you would immediately know that I like rock music and partying because of the way I dress and my numerous tattoos. This links in to status life, and how important it is to establish who we are dealing with, and a convention that is prevalent in the New Journalism texts, it helps us to visualise and associate a person with a stereotype we might already be familiar to.
Through, immersing me into the thought processes behind partying I felt it was necessary to include a diary. An evident reason for the New Journalists immersing themselves into certain sectors of society or topics was to find the unknown truth.
My project works well together because it incorporates the various elements behind a lifestyle. The board tackles my egotism, it is a wall of images of me having fun, and it is the exhibitionism. My guestbook signifies the journalist who will immerse themselves into a topic for a period of time, yet can leave at any point like an extended holiday. No matter how involved in the scenario, they will always be an outsider... It is covered in bubble wrap because these are the thoughts that cushion the impact; they are the positive aspects of being the ‘life and soul.’ The diary is made to look aged because it is seldom opened, I have used this to show that no matter how much you have interviewed or documented on a person, they can still hide from you and therefore, the crusade of the New Journalist can be considered almost as fictional as those who write without being involved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)