This essay will examine the role that journalism plays in the regulation of politics and markets in a free economy based model, such as that found in the UK, the United States and a multitude of other nations. It will achieve this by looking at how the UK press regulates politicians through the coverage of their policies, speeches and behaviour, as well as the political leaning of the media. This essay will also look at how newspapers as a business model have influenced what content is published and to what extent. This essay will look to what extent commercial pressures undermine the ethical decisions made by the UK press by analysing known ethical dilemmas.
Democracy is defined as a form of government in which the people exercise the authority of government. (Merriam-Webster, 2020) The idea was first recorded in 508-507BC during the Athenian democracy led by Cleisthenes and since then has evolved to become perhaps the most important aspect of our society. The role of journalism is described as an open medium in which to inform the people, for that reason journalism is an essential component in democracy. Gregory and Stuart, Paul and Robert (2004) define a market economy as “an economic system in which the decisions regarding investment, production and distribution are guided by the price signals created by the forces of supply and demand.” In essence, the consumers demand, or often in the case of the media the supplier created demand, dictates what is published.
The role of journalism in a market economy is to regulate industry. According to Jacobini (2008), journalism means information and that the press has to explain, teach, manage, establish and maintain lessons – this is how they regulate industries. The ideal form of journalism acts as the fourth estate – the other three being the branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. Although the fourth estate is not considered an official aspect of the political system, it wields significant indirect social influence through its presentation of ideas, thoughts, opinions and facts. This being said however does not mean that facts equal ‘the truth’. Medium (2017) writes that facts require intellect, the ability to connect the dots, the ability to discern patterns, the ability to aggregate and summarise them into statements of cause and effect.
However, in recent years the monopolisation of media has led to what the 2018 Democratic Audit has referred to as ‘semi-democracies’ (Dunleavy, Park & Taylor, 2018). This refers to societies, much like the UK’s and the United States, where elections are held but are heavily influenced and electorate opinions swayed by state power-holders who have monopolised the media, such as the Murdoch family’s News Corp, who owns News UK and Ireland, which publishes some of the highest circulated newspapers and the Barclay brothers Press Holdings.
Many believe that to have a liberal democracy there are aspects within the media system that need to be addressed. The Democratic Audit suggests that the media system should be diverse and pluralistic working to foster free competition for audiences and attention. It also suggests that the accountability of media producers should be high, with them taking into serious consideration the effect that their output has on citizens and public opinion. (Dunleavy, Park & Taylor, 2018)
It’s believed that for media to be truly democratic that media pluralism is essential. Media pluralism is defined as a plurality of voices, of analyses, of expressed opinions and issues. (Reporters Without Borders, 2016) Reporters Without Borders (2016) considers media pluralism essential for citizens to be able to confront ideas, to make their own informed choices and to conduct their life freely. In recent years the UK press has shifted from being one of the best-developed systems for media pluralism following the five components of a free press, a publicly owned broadcaster, a few private-sector broadcasters, and social media, to a more concerning media-sphere due very much to broadcaster alignments. The majority of the UK press back the Conservative party, with the Murdoch and Barclay press machines aligning Conservative. The typical left-leaning, Labour backing media outlets of Trinity Mirror and the Guardian have a significantly lesser readership in terms of circulation numbers. (Digital News Report, 2019)
A study conducted by Loughborough University analysed to what extent the UK press ran positive and negative coverage of different political parties in the first week of the 2019 general election. It was found that the labour party had been overwhelmingly targeted with negative coverage, while in certain publications positive press was reserved exclusively for Conservatives. (Deacon, D, Goode J, Smith D, Wring D, Downey J & Vaccari C. 2019). The major media tend to have a right-wing political bias as the media acts as a commodity with the bottom line of making a profit. The right-wing, open market approach to economics appeals to those trying to maximise profits and that’s where finical factors and political factors align when it comes to journalism, press organisations, what is effectively reported and how it is reported.
Media organisations are in the simplest terms businesses with the main purpose of producing a profit. Profitability is what keeps a newspaper open and continuing to report. This probability is generally obtained through advertising. Without access to substantial advertising, even the most popular papers will subside to folding. The ideal example is the Daily Herald, a staunchly left-leaning, pro-labour, pro-union paper. Chomsky and Herman (1988) note that with almost double the readership of The Times, the Financial Times and The Guardian combined it could not survive on the free market due to alienation of advertisers. The main way in which the press generates profit is through advertising. The business of the media is to sell audiences to advertisers. Chomsky and Herman (1988) stated further that many companies will always refuse to do business with ideological enemies and those whom they perceive as damaging their interests – anti-union firms would not advertise in a pro-union paper.
The financial factors behind a media organisation can also greatly sway what they put out and how they put it out. In a market economy, the press operates as independent, self-funded enterprises to make a profit. The exception being for state-run media such as the BBC, who however are required to remain unbiased.
Whilst stories may be newsworthy, media organisations need to consider the cost vs gains of running with stories. The relationship with advertisers often tends to outweigh the ethical obligation of media organisations to report the truth. Organisations can choose to report partial truths, omit aspects of the story or just not run it at all. This reinforces the point that reporting of facts does not always equal ‘the truth’. Chomsky and Herman (1988) discuss this by stating that censorship is largely self-censorship. They comment that reporters and commentators adjust their work to meet the ideologies and requirements of the media organisation they work for.
The news in all aspects is seen as a commodity. Jacobini (2008) states that it is ideally produced for sale to increase the profitability of a media company. This teleological ethical idea focuses on maximising the final benefits, without consideration of how information is passed on to the reader and the consumer.
News organisations are faced with avoiding negative reporting on large advertisers that bring in a substantial amount of money (McManus, 2009). In 2015 the Daily Telegraph was found to have misled readers by omitting information whilst reporting on the scandal by HSBC whereby the bank, a major advertiser with the paper, was found to have been advising wealthy customers on how best to avoid tax. This lead to the resignation of the papers chief political commentator Peter Osborne who described the incident as a fraud on the Telegraph’s readers. Osborne (2015) Osborne claimed the paper deliberately suppressed stories about the banking giant to maintain the high valued advertising account with the paper. It was also claimed that there was a pattern that could be seen elsewhere in the paper’s reporting, including the coverage of protests in Hong Kong the year prior. The paper was accused of putting the interests of the international bank above the interests of its readers raising the ethical question again of ‘the truth’. In this instance, the Telegraph used teleological ethical reasoning to argue that the overall survival of the advertising account was more beneficial and ethical in the long run of the paper than reporting the true ‘truth’ of the bank’s behaviour and operations following the bank placing the advertising account ‘on hold’ with the Guardian News and Media group. (Guardian. 2015)
As Champagne (2005) argues, the most prevalent contradiction within journalism is that the practices that adhere to journalism ethical codes are often not profitable. Newspapers business models have been greatly affected by the de-commoditisation of the media through the rise of freely available news via the internet. This has led to the business model previously used by newspapers to come under pressure to continue to grow in both profitability and readership. McManus (2009) suggests that due to this more emphasis is placed on making profits and getting clicks than on actually reporting the news which has, therefore, sacrificed the quality of the content a media organisation is outputting. The commercialisation of the news according to McManus (2009) dilutes the reliability of the news. The commercialisation of the news has been defined as any action intended to boost profit that infers with a journalists or news organisation’s best effort to maximise public understanding of those issues and events that shape the community they claim to serve – in simple terms, anything which undermines the truth to turn a profit.
Whilst the media continues to be shaped and lead by financial means, the explosion of social media means that now anyone can act as the fourth estate. It is no longer only journalists and media organisations that are reporting the news. Individuals with a smartphone can directly report instantaneously to their social feed within a few swipes. It is through this that the general public has become weary of the media and the term fake news came about. Individuals are turning away from traditional media forms, not trusting that they are unbiased and reporting the full truth.
The press has always been and will continue to be one of the regulating factors within the idea of a free market. Businesses rely on them for advertising and promotion and the public relies on them to keep informed and to be educated. Whilst many argue that self-regulation through governing bodies such as IPSO is not the best way for the industry to be regulated, it can also be regulated that governmental regulation and laws restricting further what can and cannot be published goes against the idea of the press within a free market and the idea of freedom of speech within a modern democracy. The press’ job is to question, challenge and regulate industries, the government and influential people. Whilst the press within the UK fits somewhat into the ideal set out by the Democratic Audit, the monopolisation of the media and the lack of political leaning competition means that the press in the UK remains somewhat unbalanced. It perhaps is that the interferences of a nanny state, defined as a government regarded as overprotective or as interfering unduly with personal choice (Dictionary, 2020) is what has to lead to this, as in an ideal free market the industry would balance out and regulate itself.
2020-3-23-1585006685