The 'watchdog' role of news media

Reading: Gurevitch, Michael (1995) ‘The Crisis of Communication for Citizenship: In And Out of the Ashes’ in Blumler and Gurevitch (eds) The Crisis of Public Communication.  London: Routledge 

This week we will examine the watchdog or ‘fourth estate’ role of journalism in more detail, exploring the ways in which political elites have tried to secure favourable media reporting without direct control of the media, and journalists’ responses.  The key question is whether this tussle between journalists and politicians ends up serving the public interest (e.g. by informing voters) or not, and therefore whether it is democratically functional.  Does this even matter in the contemporary digital media environment?

In this week’s reading, Michael Gurevitch notes problems with this model of the press that became apparent when he was writing in the mid-nineties:

“This is not to allege that occasions when people, politicians and the press have engaged in ‘open, critical debates about the abuses of power’ (Bennett, 1993) have been entirely lacking.  Our democracies do have their better moments and their better days.  Nevertheless, the political communication process now tends to strain against, rather than with the grain of citizenship.  While politicians often behave as if planting ever more clever messages in the media could be a miracle cure for their power predicaments, journalists often deploy disdain, scorn and shock-horror exposure as ripostes to their threatened autonomy.  Meanwhile, the voter is left gasping for ‘civic-ly nourishing air’ – not expecting to be given it and surprised when it is offered.  Our civic arteries are hardening” (Gurevitch 1995: 203)

Q1a. According to Gurevitch’s critique, what is the problem with politicians’ communication?

Q1b. And what is the problem with journalists’ responses?

Q1c. And what is the outcome for citizens?

Q1d. Finally, how does this differ from the ideal of the watchdog model?

Here is an example from the recent UK General Election 2017 - consider how this illustrates Gurevitch's assertions: https://www.channel4.com/news/election-campaign-how-open-is-it

 

In the section headed ‘CRISIS CONSEQUENCES’, Gurevitch outlines five components of crisis – 1) depoliticization, 2) cynicism, 3) presentation of politics as a game, 4) exclusion of the public, 5) media taking the role of surrogate opposition.

Q2. Why are these problematic for the proper functioning of democracy?

Q3. Do you think Gurevitch’s criticisms are still relevant to contemporary political communication?

In light of these arguments, do you think these examples of news reporting constitute ‘open, critical debates about the abuses of power’?

Dutch journalists questioning the US Ambassador to the Netherlands
Sun campaign for stamps celebrating Brexit
Reporting of claims of corruption by South African President Jacob Zuma
Reporting on the corruption offences of the heir to the Samsung fortune