Democratic theory and public journalism practice

1. Democratic theory and public journalism practice JDD JMS3

2. Democracy • ‘Demos’ = people. • Form of government in which the people rule. • Lincoln: “Government of the people, by the people and for the people.” • Four basic elements central to all notions of democracy: • Participation; • Equality; • Representivity; • Accountability.

3. There is no society where each of these elements is perfectly present. How does one evaluate the extent of democracy in a society? • 4 elements as tests of democracy: • To what extent is political influence evenly distributed among people in the society? • To what extent are government decisions subject to popular control? • To what extent do the people who make the decisions reflect the views and/or identity of the people on whose behalf the decisions are made? • To what extent is the right to, opportunity to and desire to influence political decision-making evenly distributed in society?

4. South African democracy • We are a representative democracy. • People do not participate directly in taking most of the decisions that affect them – we hand over this decision-making right to our representatives. • Audit of a representative democracy requires us to ask certain questions...

5. 1. Participation • People should play an active role in some way in governing or making decisions or choosing who should make decisions. • Not good enough simply to say that whether or not people become involved depends on their own personal preferences. • Also depends on: • whether people think their participation can make a difference; • access to information; • the ability to assess and process information; • the time and resources to become involved.

6. Problem of scale • Athens small, although Plato thought it too large – 5040 ideal • Democracy works best in small polities, where citizens can gather and listen, if not speak, to each other. • Problem of faction (Madison): • “Mobilisation of a majority or minority around a common interest or passion that went counter to the common good is the ‘disease of democracy’.” • Other obstacles: • “The trouble with democracy is that is takes up too many free evenings.” Oscar Wilde

7. Representative democracy seen as an answer to the obstacles to democracy – wisdom of the few surpassed that of the many. • Elect representatives – delegate decision-making to a minority. A check on internal obstacles to democratic life. (Does this mean all decisions should be made in this way?)

8. Audit for participation? What are we looking for? • Channels and opportunities for participation are available to people (regardless of whether or not they use them); • How extensively, regularly and effectively people actually do participate in politics in some way? Should govt/ press actively foster participation?

9. 2. Accountability • Leaders have to answer to the people in some way for the decisions which they make. • One mechanism is elections – if held regularly then those in power will want to make sure that they fulfil their election promises. • Does the extent of viable opposition affect accountability?

10. We have institutions which seek to ensure that civil and political liberties are advanced and protected: • The public prosecutor • Investigates any aspect of government’s conduct which is thought to be illegitimate or corrupt. • ICASA • Free press. Right to freedom of expression in the Constitution. • ICASA promotes radio and TV broadcasting which caters for all languages and cultural groups in SA. • Monitoring and complaints committee – can complain about any broadcasting service or practice.

11. Constitution provides for a number of other institutions to support democracy: • Commission for gender equality • The Youth Commission • Commission on the Restitution of Land Rights • Human Rights Commission • Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Linguistic and Religious Communities

12. 3. Representivity • We give responsibility for making most political decisions – to our elected ‘representatives’. • Problems: • When you elect someone to ‘represent’ you, do they know exactly what your views are on all issues? • What happens when two people with totally opposite views elect the same representative? What does the rep do? • Our national reps are voted for by millions of people. What does the concept of representation really mean is that case? Party list system (versus constituency system) makes it worse. • What does ‘representivity’ mean? That our representatives represent our views? Or does it mean our elected institutions ‘look like’ or ‘mirror’ us (gender, ethnicity, colour, class, etc.)?

13. Some would argue that representivity has nothing to do with either being like or representing the views of. • Instead, representatives chosen because of trust in their ability to make up their own minds. (Lippmann) • Rulers represent their own views and their constituents can remove them if they don’t like what they have done over a five year period.

14. Majoritarianism as a test for democracy is problematic. Which of the majority’s views are going to be taken into account? (Majorities are actually a shifting mass of interests and views.) • Some groups are a permanent minority. What if the majority votes for only the majority languages to be represented? Majorities don’t always come up with decisions that are just. • In SA certain decisions are placed out of reach of majorities: Constitution states what no-one may do (hang people, curtail freedom of speech). • Will of majority not a good definition of democracy.

15. 4. Equality • People have an equal right to play a role – class, wealth, intelligence, education, etc. do not determine who plays a role and who doesn’t. • But, although rich and poor have an equal right to vote or stand for office, it is often harder for poor people to make use of these rights. • Being poor means less access to information, education and resources, feeling less confident or articulate to speak in public, and to exercise one’s rights in general.

16. Do we have some belief in the fundamental equality of people? Can’t talk about democracy if you also want to limit participation to certain categories of people. • In many societies vast socio-economic differences between people are thought to make it difficult for everyone to equally exercise their rights to participate. • Literacy, transport, gender, education – creates unevenness in participation.

17. The wealthy have more influence: • Media favour news and views that reflect the interests and concerns of those who advertise in them. Advertisers interested in an audience that has the money to buy their products – so they advertise in media that is targeted at a market with money. • Is participation hampered? And by what factors? • Is SA less democratic for the poor than it is for the middle or upper classes? • Is SA more or less democratic for black people than for white people?

18. Arguments about exclusionary structures have moved from legal, economic and social barriers to more refined and subtle modes of exclusion (cultural, psychological and linguistic) • To overcome inequalities, participatory structures would have to be introduced in the workplace and in any public or private space, including the home.

19. Models of democracy Basic distinction between protective (minimalist) and developmental (expansive) models of democracy • Protective models • Core value - personal liberty. • Based on the Hobbesian (Thomas Hobbes) view that individuals are incorrigibly self-interested – govt should allow as much freedom as possible within a basic set of protective laws. • Developmental models • Moral imperative to be concerned with collective problems, to participate knowledgeably in self-governance, and to work towards expanding the capacity of every citizen to realise greater potential. i.e. Goes beyond the protection of individual rights.

20. Teleology, deontonlogy • Teleological model of democracy evaluates the outcome of democratic procedure not in terms of how well the rules were followed (deontological), but in terms of the intrinsic goodness of the outcome itself (how well does it fulfil the community’s moral imperatives).

21. Lambeth on public journalism • Listen to the stories/ ideas of citizens and protect press freedom to choose what to cover; • Find alternative ways to frame stories that stand the best chance to stimulate citizen deliberation and build public understanding; • Take the initiative to report on major public problems in a way that advances public knowledge of possible solutions; • Pay continuing and systematic attention to how well and how credibly the press is communicating with the public.

22. Public journalism: background • 1988: first public journalism campaign launched by the Ledger-Inquirer in Columbus, Georgia • Since then more than 400 public journalism campaigns in US. • Across newspapers, television, radio and the Internet, either separately or collaboratively. • Majority of campaigns confined to local and regional newspapers. • Not just campaigns – altered daily coverage of politics by focusing on the issues and perspectives of ordinary citizens.

23. Conversation/ deliberation • “The conversation of journalism.” Killenberg and Dardenne • Focus on the central function of journalism: the communication of ideas. • People seen as interested in the deliberative process of society – therefore journalists to serve as conduits for ideas that appeal and are relevant to the public debate. • Notion of conversation as a basic human practice – includes the art of listening and responsibility for understanding the other.

24. But, “journalists often dominate the public sphere with monologues because there are no shared meanings, no common ground, and no reasons to respond for those who are culturally impoverished and incompetent to communicate in their alienated and decimated environments.” • So, does the assumption of equality in conversation offer false hope? • But, once this lack of equality is recognised, it places additional responsibilities on journalism to initiate and lead those conversations in “unconventional and creative forms and languages that capture the attention of the inattentive and challenge the imagination of the disenchanted”.

25. Examples of public journalism campaigns • “We the people” (Madison, Wisconsin) • Began in 1992 as a one-time presidential election effort; • Currently an ongoing cycle of four projects a year to inform citizens and increase public deliberation about elections and issues; • Techniques: town-hall meetings, candidate debates, interactive civic exercises (eg. citizen jury on the local budget or on development plan); • Public radio and television partners.

26. Taking back our neighbourhoods (Charlotte NC) • Covering elections from the standpoint of citizen concerns; • Purpose: pinpoint the sources of violent crime in Charlotte and encourage the community to respond with solutions; • Intensive reports on high-crime neighbourhoods and the formulation of ‘needs lists’ for each neighbourhood to offer area residents and agencies some concrete ways to help.

27. Facing our future (Binghampton, NY) • Identifying community problems through newspaper surveys, call-ins and focus groups; • Formed citizen teams to devise solutions to these problems, reporting in depth on the relevant issues and encouraging local leaders and citizens to work together to map out the road ahead.

28. Pew Centre for Civic Journalism http://pewcentre.org http://www.pewcenter.org/doingcj/pubs/cjis/index.shtml http://www.pewcenter.org/doingcj/pubs/stop/index.shtml http://www.pewcenter.org/doingcj/pubs/pubs_toolbox.shtml http://www.pewcenter.org/doingcj/pubs/ctc/index.shtml http://www.pewcenter.org/doingcj/pubs/tcl/index.shtml http://www.pewcenter.org/doingcj/pubs/cases/index.shtml

29. Public journalism network • http://www.pjnet.org/

30. Vision 2010 http://www.savannahnow.com/features/vision2010/ Vision 2010 – a public journalism project on education.

31. Jay Rosen’s PressThink http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/ “Today we say media instead of "the press." But it's a mistake. The press has become the ghost of democracy in the media machine, and we need to keep it alive.”

32. The Echo Chamber Project http://www.echochamberproject.com/about “The Echo Chamber Project is an open source, investigative documentary about how the television news media became an uncritical echo chamber to the Executive Branch leading up to the war in Iraq. By developing collaborative techniques for producing this film, then this project can potentially provide some solutions for incorporating a broader range of voices and perspectives into the mainstream media.”

33. “Democracy and the next generation” http://www.asne.org/ideas/goodideas/24.html The Kansas City Star initiated a multi-year youth advocacy project called "Raising Kansas City" in 1995. "Democracy and the Next Generation," encouraged young people to participate in the democratic process through such projects as televised town hall meetings with major candidates, creation of classroom curricula, polling, editorial writing and a 16-page guide The Star created for first-time voters.

34. “What endangers teens” http://www.asne.org/ideas/goodideas/26.html “The project represents an effort to illuminate the immense health risks that confront teen-agers. From the typical - smoking, drinking, drug use - to the tragic - suicide, murder, auto accidents - the dangers facing teens are often a matter of public health. Yet such behavioral issues are never addressed as such. "A World of Risk" is unique in that it includes the work of teen-age reporters, photographers, illustrators and editors. The project included a health survey of teens, discussions and seminars, and a continuing life on-line, where the series and links are posted.”

35. Critiques of public journalism • Theodore Glasser: Two separate, related areas of confusion and controversy: • Press responsibility: what are the consequences of a press wedded to a strictly procedural role? • Political power: what will convening the community accomplish?

36. A strictly procedural role for the press? • “A detached, but not disinterested press. The role of the referee… a fair-minded participant in a community that works. No interest in the final scoreline other than that it is arrived at under the rules. The referee doesn’t make the rules… they are agreed on by the contestants. Journalists bring to the arena of public life knowledge of the rules – how the public has decided a democracy should work.” • Buzz Merritt (Public Journalism and Public Life)

37. The activist role for the press is “non-partisan and apolitical”. • “Press should create the capacity for a community to discover itself, including its problems and the ways to solve them. I don’t believe journalists should be solving problems. I think they should be creating the capacity within a community for solving problems.” • Jay Rosen • Glasser: This is a liberal view of democracy… and a deontological/ “procedural” role for the press. This reflects liberal democratic theory which views democracy in terms of what is right to do and generally not in terms of what is good to achieve.

38. Liberalism assigns a priority to individual liberty and deals with the “common good” as a mere by-product of the free choices individuals make. • But, John Rawls (leading liberal theorist) tempers his liberalism with a “thin” theory of the good, a set of principles designed to guard against the erosion of certain “pre-eminently desirable” values. • This is what distinguishes liberalism from libertarianism: the idea that a properly ordered society (a just society) cannot be understood solely in terms of process or procedure. Influence of communitarianism?

39. Liberalism requires an independent and prior conception of the right(principles concerning what justice is), but this requirement does not preclude complementary conception of the good (principles concerning what justice demands). • However, public journalism does not offer even a “thin” theory of the good. Can its constricted sense of fair-mindedness promote social change? • Isn’t is problematic that the press “doesn’t help make the rules” (i.e. define the democratic process)? Is there just one way to organise a democracy? • Also, what should a newsroom do when communities act intolerantly?

40. When Rosen call on the press to develop a “vision of the community as a better place to live”, is it a vision of only better means to unknown ends? Doesn’t public journalism want to embrace any ends at all? • Public journalism in disarray as a normative theory – sheepish, equivocal, and inadequate claims about the authority of the press to set a public agenda • An agenda-setting role? Or a procedural role only?

41. Public journalism substitutes the community’s judgement for the judgement of journalists: • It confuses community values with good values as though the former always implies the latter; • It calls on the press to relinquish its responsibility to lead the community; • It downplays or disregards a powerful, although complex, agenda-setting role played by the press; • Deprives the press the opportunity to set forth clearly and convincingly, its politics – to defend its values and how and where they coincide with, or depart from, what it understands to be the expressed or implied values of the community.

42. Need fully articulated newsroom agenda, or journalists and the public are cheated out of what they need most from the press: a candid account of why some issues receive more attention than others • Without an intelligible and defensible political agenda, journalism lacks meaning and order – it lacks coherence • James Carey – “journalism can present a coherent narrative only if it is rooted in a social and political ideology, an ideology that gives consistent focus or narrative line to events, that provides the terminology for thick description and a ready vocabulary of explanation.”

43. What will convening the community accomplish? • Since public journalism is preoccupied with procedure, difficult for journalists to join forces with any part of the community associated with political or “partisan” interests. • Partners limited to “foundations, broadcasters, universities, civic groups” and other politically benign organisations. (Excludes political parties, trades unions, professional associations, social movements, special interest groups.) • Fear of advocacy isolates public journalism from the very centres of power that are likely to make a difference.

44. Public journalism appeals to a republican ideal (“orienting people to common goods beyond their private ends”) which locates politics in a common discussion open and accessible to all interested citizens… • Attractive to people who prefer a diffusion of power consistent with a deliberative democracy. • But, on most issues in most communities a very different kind of democracy prevails… • Power typically resides where resources, usually wealth, serve to obfuscate, even circumvent, public debate.

45. Focus groups, town meetings, salons and other attempts to convene the community might bring about only the illusion of reform. • Worse, public journalism might become a technique of co-optation or legitimation that creates a false sense of participatory involvement without challenging entrenched elite interests. • A contrived and artificial response to the need to cultivate citizenship? • An ad hoc venue for discussion, a temporary site for a debate managed by and too often only for the press?

46. What are these public debates intended to accomplish anyway? Are they an end in themselves? Or what extrinsic value do they have? Prepare citizens for elections, maybe? But, democracy requires constant and continuous renewal. • Citizens active in community affairs through the associations and groups, which can sustain democracy in 2 ways: • Strengthen the affective ties among individuals with shared interests, values, customs, and traditions – sense of belonging; • Enable individuals to position themselves collectively – they can develop into the very publics whose opinions matter more than the untested, often unfounded and private concerns of individuals.

47. Assumption of a single, over-arching public sphere which stands open and accessible to everyone ignores relations of dominance and subordination. • Nancy Fraser: “The goal of participatory parity can be better achieved today through a plurality of competing publics.” • A unitary general public sphere? (People reaching across their social and ideological differences to establish common agendas and to debate rival approaches?) • How about a “multiplicity of publics”, “sphericules”, “subaltern counter-publics” - invites participation through the “development of distinct groups organised around affinity and interest”. (Curran’s organised public sphere.)

48. Small and relatively homogenous groups (often the very groups public journalism is disinclined to engage) enlarge the opportunities for participation by setting aside a space for people whose identities and interests might have been ignored or slighted. • People have an opportunity to express themselves on topics and in ways that might not be welcome elsewhere (training grounds for agitational activities directed toward wider publics).