The Media: A Fourth Branch or A Whole Other Tree?

I begin with a video (Notice the Cameo at the end)

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

And what a time for campaigning it has been. This election season has been full of juicy media coverage, especially with the economic and foreign policy situation that our country finds itself in today. Additionally the possibility and now the obvious reality of the nation's first African-American president provided the media fuel for fiery media coverage. But, as the title of this blog suggests, the question remains, does media service as a check on government, in essence a "fourth branch" or its own "system of government with its own goals and objectives? Without understanding the American Media both in the context of everyday life and our elections it is difficult to answer this question at all.

Leighley presents the mass media in the form of a model that plays one (or more) of five distinct roles. (My commentary is in bold following each idea, all of the following is based on Mass Media and Politics, Pg. 9-12):

1. Reporters of Objective Fact- This is when the media presents the news with no mission or agenda, the reporter only presents the news in an objective and unbiased way, they simply report the facts. This would be a whole other tree model, not checking anything, just showing the facts. This is difficult as one will always see the "facts" differently.


This video would be disputed by some, if not most as cruel and biased, but this (web)reporter is just reporting the "Unbiased Facts".

2. Neutral Adversary- Questioning government without taking a position. Leighley explains that under this model "officials must carry on within full view of the press, which will question the motives, interests, and consequences of their actions." This would be a Fourth Branch model, acting as a check on government. This allows the mass media to "limit the ability of elected officials to pursue their self-interest to the detriment of public interest." (Pg. 10)

3. Public Advocate- This is when the media questions the government in the name of the public good. Not only do they question government but they take action to get the people involved as well. They must remain "financially self-sufficient in order to be free from the influence of special interests." (Pg. 10) This would also be a Fourth Branch Model, as it acts as an independent check on government.

4. Profit-Seeker- This is when mass media is obligated to its share-holders and is only in the business to make a profit. They give the people what they want, but only if that will increase their profit. This is a whole other tree model, they are not acting as a check on government, unless it is to their financial advantage.

5. Propaganda- This is when mass media is used to "support and advance the interests of those in power." (Pg. 12) This could be considered a fourth branch model as the news is being used as a function of government. For our purposes this will not be considered a fourth branch model as it does not act as a check on government. The media is a "tree" that stands there and propagandizes on behalf of the government.

Each of these models is significant in being able to understand what the goals and objectives of a specific mass media operation is. While the limitation of five categories might be oversimplification it allows one to clearly understand the argument. The media's role is defined by the perception of its viewers. If the people view the media as a poor check on government, it is in effect a poor check on government. James Fallows article "Why Americans Hate the Media" presents the idea that Americans feel that:

While movies do not necessarily capture reality, they suggest a public mood- in this case, a contrast between the apparent self-satisfaction of the media celebrities (newscasters) and the contempt in which they are held by the public...In the short run these challenges to [media] credibility are a problem for journalists and journalism. In the longer run they are a problem for democracy.

Fallows is arguing that the public perception of journalistic credibility is negative and this creates a problem for democracy. It is important to note that this article is almost 12 years old (prior to the creation of the blogosphere which changed the media game entirely, we'll get to that later.) but it still makes a clear point that media is only what the public perceives it to be.

Our Founding Fathers however had their own ideas of what role the media should play, and it seems our Founders ideas (In this case Thomas Jefferson) are close to where Fallows places the ideas of Americans:

The interposition of the people themselves on the side of government has had a great effect on the opinion here. I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro' the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them. (Letter to Edward Carrington, Paris, Jan. 16 1787)

Lets assume for a moment that in the mind of Thomas Jefferson the word newspapers could be replaced by any other form or ability of a citizen to question government. In other words a blog, television program or Obama's latest and greatest idea would be a sufficient fulfillment of Jefferson's vision of the role of the media. He couldn't necessarily imagine anything other than a written document/newspaper critiquing government but to paraphrase a modern Jefferson:

"And were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without blogs or blogs without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

But do blogs provide the credibility and information that Fallows suggests Americans are seeking? Before we can decide if blogs are credible enough to make the cut, we need to see that Americans are actually using blogs to gain information (for our purposes political information). The 2006 Pew "Election 2006 Online" Internet survey showed that 15% of Americans used the internet as their main source of news gathering and 20% got their information from blogs. This places the blogosphere as a significant source for those searching for political information, however a blogger is not responsible to anyone else in transmitting information. Therefore it would seem that "Modern Jefferson" might be incorrect as unlike newspapers, a blogger has no one to report to and no responsibility to check their facts. This is very much along the lines of the argument of Cass Sunstein in his article "Neither Hayek nor Habermas" in the Public Choice (2008) Journal. He Presents an argument of Federal Court of Appeals Judge Posner then refutes it:

"The newest mechanism is the blogosphere. There are 4 million blogs. The Internet enables the instantaneous pooling (and hence correction, refinement, and amplification) of the ideas and opinions, facts and images, reportage and scholarship, generated by bloggers." I (Cass Sunstein) believe that Posner's argument is wrong, but in away that provides a great deal of illumination about the operation of the blogosphere" (Public Choice Journal 2008, pg. 88)

This article goes on to show how Sunstein's argument is true in that just because the blogosphere is vast and open we are still left with a "Very diverse range of claims, perspectives, rants, insights, lies, facts, non-facts, sense, and non-sense." (Pg. 89)
While one might consider these various ideas as a check on the facts (as Judge Posner does) it is not on the same level as a Journalist who has a boss to report to and (or should have) a responsibility to their readers and viewers. Kovach and Rosenstiel explain:

In the new century, one of the most profound questions for democratic society is whether an independent press survives.

The answer will depend on whether journalists have the clarity and conviction to articulate what an independent press means, and whether, as citizens, the rest of us care.
This book is intended as a first step in helping journalists articulate those values and helping citizens create a demand for a journalism connected to the principles that spawned the free press in the first place.

Their idea of the purpose of journalism is made clear with 9 "rules" that journalists must follow to "provide the people with the information they need to be free and self-governing." But does news media really follow anything close to the ideas suggested here? In an article by Eric Boehlert he provides a critique of the media's coverage of Bush's War on Iraq. The areas in which he shows how the media failed in their coverage of Iraq (an extremely important issue) are clearly against the 9 rules that Kovach and Rosensteil suggested:

As Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler later wrote, the MSM's performance in 2002 and 2003 -- its inability and refusal to demand sharp answers to difficult questions about prewar intelligence -- likely represented their most crucial newsroom failing in nearly half a century. "How did a country on the leading edge of the information age get this so wrong and express so little skepticism and challenge?" asked Getler. "How did an entire system of government and a free press set out on a search for something and fail to notice, or even warn us in a timely or prominent way, that it wasn't or might not be there?" The single-word answer is, timidity.

Looking back, bigfoot journalists conceded they failed to do their jobs during the run-up to war. ABC's Ted Koppel admitted, "If anything, what we've been criticized for, and probably more justifiably, is that we were too timid before the war." Dan Rather agreed: "We did not do our job of pressing and asking enough questions often enough." They weren't the only ones disappointed. A majority of Americans thought the news media could have done a better job informing the public about Iraq and the stakes involved in going to war, according to an August 2005 survey conducted by the McCormick Tribune Foundation in Chicago.

Boehlert's article shows how the mainstream media failed all of the 9 rules that Kovach and Rosensteil suggest in covering Bush's declaration of War on Iraq. So we can't seem to trust the journalists, and the blogs aren't (always) reliable, where can we go for information? Perhaps a Toquevillian understanding of the blogosphere can place a bit more credibility in the hands of the bloggers:

In order that an association among a democratic people should have any power, it must be a numerous body. The persons of whom it is composed are therefore scattered over a wide extent, and each of them is detained in the place of his domicile by the narrowness of his income or by the small unremitting exertions by which he earns it. Means must then be found to converse every day without seeing one another, and to take steps in common without having met. Thus hardly any democratic association can do without newspapers.

The Toquevillian understanding of the purpose of newspapers is not necessarily to transmit information but rather to have people converse about the important issues without standing face to face. This sounds exactly like the function of a blog. Perhaps a blog, while not always factually reliable is able to take on the responsibility of being the "fourth branch." Perhaps reporting to a boss, as I suggested previously, is not the best way to guarantee integrity in media reporting. Using the film "Outfoxed" as an example, Fox News station bosses seem to have an order to create a very specific type of news cast with very specific types of goals. This video from Outfoxed's website shows how Fox News utilized the same attacks on Obama that they did on Kerry, carrying on their direct orders of smearing the Democratic candidate for president.



Using this video as an example of a news organization presenting what seems like fact, in this case that Obama is, based on polling, viewed as the most liberal Senator in Congress. Do Americans really trust the media when it comes to their presentation of polling? Surely Americans know better than that... But take Hardy and Jamieson's article "Can a Poll Affect Perception of Candidate Traits" suggests that the medias use of a few simple poll's can change the entire perception of a candidates trait, in the case of this study that President Bush is stubborn. In their conclusion Hardy and Jamieson explain that:

A main intention of this essay is to sketch the relationship between poll results and candidate evaluation, specifically attribute assessment. We believe that this relationship has a unique and important role in political campaigns. We suggest that poll results may prime character traits through agenda-setting. (Public Opinion Quarterly Vol. 69 No. 5 pg. 740)

Using the 2008 election as an example we see just how hard the McCain campaign tried to ascribe the characteristic of domestic terrorist to Obama.


McCain took advantage of the fact that the idea of ascribing a characteristic to a candidate via poll or an onslaught of ads can be quite successful. Obama did this as well in making sure to, as was our advice as a class, establish the argument Mccain=Bush, and he did this well. This is an example of an ad from the Obama Campaign:


And for a video from 2004 that shows all of the different names that Bush and Kerry called each other is below (and in a fun format!)

This Land! | Funny Jokes at JibJab

So who do we have to act as this Fourth Branch and act as a check on power and keep our candidates for President in check. Perhaps, if every American read Unspun they would understand the point that Jackson and Jamieson are making:

Spin is tolerated and even admired in some circles. In Washington, a good spin doctor is lauded...But we believe voters and consumers need to recognize spin when it is used against them...or they risk going into the voting booth with false notions in their heads about the candidates. (Unspun pg. viii)

The attempt to spin the facts in the ads shown above, utilize tactics such as quoting a source out of context and misconstruing facts. These are the areas in which Jackson and Jamieson want to educate Americans to watch out for. But should that be what our media stands for? Shouldn't the media act as that fourth branch and unspin the "spun" issues? Why can't we trust them? Perhaps McChesney in his book The Problem of the Media can give us some insight:

The concept of journalism as politically neutral, nonpartisan professional, even "objective," did not emerge until the twentieth century. During the first two or three generations of the republic such notions for the press would have been nonsensical, even unthinkable. Journalism's purpose was to persuade as well as to inform and the press tended to be highly partisan. A partisan press system has much to offer a democratic society- as long as there are numerous well-subsidized media providing a broad range of perspectives. During the nineteenth century, newspapers became purely commercial. The press system remained explicitly partisan, but it increasingly became an engine of great profits as costs plummeted, population increased, and advertising- which emerged as a key source of revenue- mushroomed. (The Problem of the Media Pg. 58)

McChesney's explanation makes sense. The press has trouble staying on target if they know that it will effect their ability to provide entertaining and profitable coverage. If a story may be very important to a voting public, but it doesn't create an entertaining story, it won't make the news. I mean why else would they keep this nut job (below) on the air if it weren't for his high level of viewership (thus turning high ad revenue) and perhaps the fact that he draws (or creates) a pretty intelligent crowd? (Note: Foul Language)





Perhaps, O'Reilly uses his condescending attitude and arrogance as a way of drawing in viewers and keeping them entertained. However entertaining he might be, one cannot ignore the role that soft-news programs (for argument's sake Bill O'Reilly goes here), late-night talk shows, and The Daily Show/Colbert Report play in acting as a source of news for Americans. Matthew Baum presents the argument that those that watch soft-news programs (Daytime Talk Shows, Entertainment Tonight, and Extra are some examples) tend to be well informed about foreign issues, and he explains that:

Where America's foreign policy was once the domain of a fairly small "foreign policy elite," the soft news media appear to have, to some extent, "democratized" foreign policy. This represents both a challenge because leaders can no longer count on communicating effectively with the American people solely through traditional news outlets. (Sex, Lies, and War Pg. 106)

In other words, soft news outlets have changed the game. We can see that this year's presidential candidates made sure to appear on late-night talks shows like Letterman and Leno as well McCain and Obama making appearances on Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show. This is likely because these programs attract a different type of viewership. (The invention of Tivo might change the types of viewers that view each program as one can easily TIVO Letterman, catch The Daily Show and watch the TIVOd Letterman episode with ease). However, Peterson in his book Strange Bedfellows suggests that Late-Night talk shows damage democracy with their cynicism:

While genuine satire arises from a sense of outrage, the topical jokes heard in mainstream late-night monologues are rooted in mere cynicism. Unlike satire, which scolds and shames, this kind of comedy merely shrugs. Unlike Colbert whose appearance at the Correspondent's Dinner evoked a democratic revivalist, Jay Leno, David Letterman, and Conan O'Brien are evangelists of apathy (Strange Bedfellows, Pg. 10)

It seems that both soft-news and late night talk shows have their flaws, Soft-News only provides knowledge on a select few hot-button issues, and late night talk shows turn politics into a joke. But what about our friends Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, are they our saviors? The Project for Excellence in Journalism provides us some insight as to the value of The Daily Show. In addition to its popularity the article points out that :

Stewart has always insisted that his show isn’t journalism and given its comedic core, its blurring of truth and fiction, and its ignoring of many major events, that is true in a traditional sense.

But it’s also true that, at times, The Daily Show aims at more than comedy. In its choice of topics, its use of news footage to deconstruct the manipulations by public figures and its tendency toward pointed satire over playing just for laughs, The Daily Show performs a function that is close to journalistic in nature—getting people to think critically about the public square. In that sense, it is a variation of the tradition of Russell Baker, Art Hoppe, Art Buchwald, H.L. Mencken and other satirists who once graced the pages of American newspapers.

Peterson in Strange Bedfellows would point out that the satire of The Daily Show is very different from the cynicism of a late night talk show. This is an important difference in evaluating the role of the Daily Show as a check not only on government, but the media as well. Whether or not Jon Stewart admits it, his television show might just be the fourth branch we are looking for.

Blogs however, play this important role of acting as a check on government and the media as well. For our purposes let us assume that YouTube is a form of media or a place for which a person can go for information. (Note: I am not trying to make a political statement by discussing Israel, but using this is a case study shows just how powerful blogs can be.) The Israel Defense Force has been using YouTube to increase their positive PR during the current war in Gaza. The IDF has been posting videos from aerial drones showing terrorists loading rockets in trucks and then the Israeli Air Force attacking. This is an effort to show that they are not attack civilians, but rather terrorists are using civilians as human shields and that the IAF is accurate in pinpointed attacks. Here is a video as an example:



However, early this morning, YouTube flagged these videos for removal as inappropriate. However, after significant blogger pressure the videos were placed back on YouTube, only if one certifies that they are 18. The point however is that a huge organization like YouTube/Google had made a decision and after the blogosphere got wind of what had happened they were able to create enough of a stir to have the videos replaced. Therefore, it would seem that if an issue came up in government and bloggers created a significant stir, the blogs would then begin to act as a check on government. Politicians who are much more accountable to their citizens than YouTube is to its consumers will very likely make policy changes based on the stir created in the blogosphere. Sounds pretty fourth branchy to me...

In Gillmor's We The Media he discusses how through the use of various internet technologies anyone can produce their own news coverage or critique of government. While he notes that:

One of the main criticisms of blogs is that so many are self-absorbed tripe. No doubt, most are interesting only to the writer, plus some family and friends. But that's no reason to dismiss the genre, or to minimize the value of people talking with each other. What excites me in this context, however, that the growing number of blogs written by people who want to talk intelligently about an area of expertise is a sign of something vital. Blogs can be acts of civic engagement. (We The Media Pg. 139)

Much like Toqueville, Gillmor sees value in people interacting about issues that are important to the everyday lives of Americans, and taking part in civil engagement. Perhaps this is the solution to the problem with the media today, who it seems is just another tree. While we may have The Daily Show to check up on the media and government here and there, if Jon Stewart doesn't recognize his responsibility we can't rely on him to be a check on government.This is what makes the blogosphere unique. Instead of relying on the media to act as a check on government, we must look inward, to the individual blogging "journalist" to be that fourth branch and ask those questions that need to be asked. The mainstream media is focused on making the story that gets the viewers to maximize profits. Even Fox News which is focused on a specific agenda, is playing to a target audience and knows that by continuting to focus their coverage on this agenda, they will maintain their viewership and by connection ad revenue. In looking at media coverage of the 2008 election one can clearly see that the media did not act as a fourth branch and provide targeted, thought provoking coverage. Rather, they provided the same bickering and bantering of the past elections and let the important issues fall by the wayside.
An example of bickering:




The blogosphere saw this as an oppurtunity and seized the moment. Perhaps the 2008 election will serve as the ultimate turning point in media coverage. Maybe, just maybe, the media will realize their mistakes and make a change for the better. But lets be honest, they never will.