Political Pressures on the Press

Journalism, or media, is a power apart from being a social institution. Often it is referred to as the ‘fourth estate’ or the ‘watchdog’ of society, putting weight onto the claim of media power. The ‘fourth estate’ discussion defines power as something an individual holds and the press ‘democratically’ then holds institutional power that is on par with the government, parliamentary, and the judiciary, since it has the ‘banal power’ to influence and shape the sense of reality, society, politics, and economy (Phelan, 2012, p.80). Despite this theoretical pedestal of power that journalism is placed on, it is often, if not always, threatened by overwhelming pressures and influences, both internal and external. Political pressure is the major external force that impedes the autonomy in journalism.

In ‘The Post’, Editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks) comments, “We have to be the check on their (the government’s power. If we don’t hold them accountable, I mean, my God, who will?” (1:02:00 – 1:02:07).
In this essay, I will critically assess the role of the government as an agent of pressure on journalism, if and how the media plays out its role as the fourth estate in society, and how the two social institutions – journalism and politics – collude to form the pragmatic system of communication in place today.

One of the most essential needs for proficient journalistic practice is autonomy. Professional autonomy alludes to two aspects – one, the ‘latitude’ that journalists are equipped with in terms of ‘operational duties’, i.e. freedom to pick and choose the stories to cover, to edit, and other reporting-related actions, and the second is the editorial latitude which encompasses the extent of the right of journalists to take part in or influence decision-making apart from operational duties (Reich and Hanitzsch, 2013, p.136). However, this autonomy is not always guaranteed.

When considering the influence of politics, it is vital to first consider the concept of ownership. According to Reich and Hanitzsch (2013, p.149), journalists that work under government-owned organizations feel they have less autonomy than their privately-owned counterparts. Quoting Kelley and Donway, Curran (1991, p.84) establishes the political pressures that the press faces when it is ‘licensed, franchized, or regulated’, since it must deal with issues that confront the interests of the powerful. Government control and interference in the media and its production stems from the high visibility that journalism provides into the workings of the state. It is a form of risk management but can also work in favour of the politicians in power by strategically puppeteering it to meet or propagate their agendas (Casero-Ripollés et al., 2014, p.27).

Political parallelism is the relationship between the media and politics wherein the media reflects the views of political groups, making a bridge in order ‘define the political communication system’ (de Albuquerque, 2018). Much like a business deal, the two sides arrive at a point of mutual benefit when negotiating power. Barrat (1986) wrote about the editorial influence of such relations with the state, claiming that this relationship is one of the ‘subtle’ means by which information output is controlled.

In the movie The Post (Spielberg, 2017), Editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and publisher Katharine Graham (Meryl Streep) discuss the coverage for the Nixon wedding over lunch, when Bradlee says, “And we can’t have an administration dictating to us our coverage just because they don’t like what we print about them in our newspaper.” This is followed by a pregnant pause and Graham chuckles (15:46 – 16:00). This interaction subtly puts into the spotlight the extent of state interference in matters even as trivial as soft entertainment and the frustrations of the journalists at this threatening of professional autonomy.

Censorship is one of the key facets of government control, with the state controlling what you can and cannot print or discuss in the media, and access is yet another concept under this umbrella. Journalists are highly dependent on the state for information and regulating this outflow gives the government command over the media. By not allowing total transparency, the state creates a sense of ‘hunger’ or ‘starvation’ in the journalists, rendering them more susceptible to manipulation. The government also uses organized ‘leaks’ or ‘controlled releases’ which is born from the negotiated arrangement with journalists and is a highly preferable route of news management (Barrat, 1986, pp. 74-75).

The state also provides selected materials, like videos, press releases, conferences, images, and other resources to the media as a ‘news subsidy’. This subsidy not only works as a method of limiting the journalists’ freedom in expression when reporting official matters or incidents but also provides a large incentive to the news organizations in the form of reduced costs of production and increased economic benefit (Casero-Ripollés et al., 2014).

In a scene from Shock and Awe (Reiner, 2017), journalist Warren Strobell (James Marsden) drops a New York Times paper down in front of Jonathan Landay (Woody Harrelson) that has an article backing the U.S government’s claim of Iraq holding nuclear weapons by linking it to their purchase of aluminium tubes (46:42). At 47:36 – 47:50, Strobell, when watching a U.S personnel on primetime news talk show explaining the significance of Iraq invasion, comments to Landay, “Lucky for him someone leaked that to the Times.” Landay replies with, “He avoids pesky nuisance of being arrested for revealing classified information.” And Strobell follows the remark with, “One can only wonder how Judy Miller and Michael Gordon got that information.”

This flow of events and the subsequent interaction shows how the government, for their advantage, use the media to further their political agendas. Exclusive soundbites and pre-arranged negotiations to reduce costs enable propaganda-like publishing even on such grave topics.

Funding also pushes major pressure on journalism from the state. With money on the line, journalists and their editorial higher-ups hesitate to go against the manipulation of official information and governmental control of press. This sort of funding impacts the market negatively as well. With the state funding certain groups to make them stronger, non-funded bodies are undermined, thus rendering the market weak and consequently suffocating the diversity of opinion circulating in the live market (Dragomir, 2017).

Barrat (1986) also introduces the use of laws, policies, and ‘D-notices’ as a way of leashing the journalists. Journalists that are ‘disobedient’ or do not abide by the necessary policies as put in place by the state to regulate news circulation find themselves, their careers, and their livelihoods threatened by being marked a felon, a court case, or oven isolation and disbarment from reporting.

A prime example of this threat comes through in The Post (Spielberg, 2017). The New York Times gets sued by Nixon’s government due to their critical publishing of the Pentagon Papers that put the state under threat and were immediately barred from reporting on political news (52:22 – 52:50). When Bradlee receives copies of the original Pentagon Papers, he works with his team to sift through the detailed information to draft an article that exposes the government while still not revealing everything. A conversation between Anthony Essaye (Zach Woods) and Bradlee highlights the risks of this action (1:10:02 – 1:11:00):-
Anthony: “They will argue that this a violation of the Espionage Act. That’s a felony, Ben.”
Bradlee: “That’s only if the documents we print could damage the U.S government.”
…..
Anthony: “Can you honestly tell me that that is enough time to make sure that not on single military plan, not a single U.S soldier, not a single Aerican life will be put in harm’s way?”

While the government takes many measures to ensure that information release is monitored on all fronts, there are many instances where such minute control is difficult to manage. In such cases, they turn to ‘spin-doctoring’ – suggesting to a journalist a certain angle on a piece of information that will inevitable be discussed in the media to corner the report into a politically desirable shape (Dader, 2014). It is widely agreed that such a method is frowned upon, but the act persists, mainly because journalists are incited through the labels of ‘exclusivity’ and ‘scandal’ and, for a saleable story, reporters almost always take the bait.

In Shock and Awe (Reiner, 2017), Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary of the U.S, held Pentagon briefing regarding the impending invasion of the U.S into Iraq in 2002 on the claims that Saddam Hussein has gained access to nuclear weapons and is threatening to distribute them to terrorists (41:40 – 42:09). Interspersed with this clip are scenes of journalists Warren Strobell (played by James Marsden) and Jonathon Landay (Woody Harrelson) interview two anonymous U.S government and Pentagon officials who deny these very claims and stress the ‘shoddy research’ and ‘no trace of nuclear weapons in Iraq’ (39:03 – 41:39, 42:10 – 43:20).

Such dealings between the two put many facets of society in a disadvantageous position. For journalists, the obvious negative impact is the major lack of autonomy and editorial freedom, and the increase is in manipulation and bias. The audience no longer has a clear window into their government’s operations and the media’s proceedings and are more susceptible, and are very commonly, misled, misinformed, and sidelined by the biased or negotiated news releases (Gordon, 2000). Further down the line, the governing bodies lose trust, and political parties burn through valuable resources to curry media favour, weakening competition and, as such, democracy at large.

Wolfganag et al.’s study (2018) shed light on journalists’ perceptions of autonomy from governmental pressures and highlighted that media personnel highly value public opinion as it allows the journalists to fulfil their primary role as the fourth estate and watchdogs of holding the powerful accountable. Prioritizing public voices allows an efficient discussion on democratic matters and public proceedings, further permitting the news medias to present a balanced overview of the state of society. However, this sort of pluralism is more theoretical than pragmatic, and the current agreement of politics and press is consistent.
Government interference in media practices can sometimes be justified to reduce a volatile competition in the market and ensure the smooth running of the information output (Curran and Seaton, 2010).

However, as detailed above, journalism faces more obstacles within this cooperation than any significant positive. Bardoel and d’Haenans (2008) venture on the concept of co-regulation due to the very flexible and changing domain of technology and rapidly advancing society. This proposed co-regulation, or shared responsibility, brings into the discussion the concept of ‘media governance’ wherein the media is held accountable by the public as a form of regulation. The rise and domination of technology in the modern era has allowed a higher level of transparency to the public and permitted journalism an increase in freedom of press. The meshing and meddling of various and plentiful sources on the internet may pose problematic in many ways but it provides a semblance of balance and accountability that the journalists have craved for.

To conclude, it is apparent that journalism as an agency has always and continues to face significant pressure from the external powerhouse of governments and politics. Yet, technology and a more educated audience and well-equipped throng of modern-day journalists, a common ground is being steadily dug out. In the opening scene of Shock and Awe, a quote by Bill Moyers is worded – “There is no more important struggle for American democracy than ensuring a diverse, independent, and free media.”




 
Bibliography

• Bardoel, J. and d’Haenens, L. (2008) ‘Reinventing public service broadcasting in Europe: Prospects, promises and Problems’, Media, Culture & Society, 30(3), pp. 337–355. doi:10.1177/0163443708088791.
• Barrat, D. (1986) ‘The social context of media production’, Media Sociology, 1, pp. 58–102. doi:10.4324/9780203136317-6.
• Casero-Ripollés, A., Izquierdo-Castillo, J. and Doménech-Fabregat, H., 2014. From watchdog to watched dog: Oversight and pressures between journalists and politicians in the context of mediatization. Blanquerna School of Communication and International Relations, (34).
• Curran, J. (1991) ‘Mass Media and Democracy: A Reappraisal’, in Mass Media and Society. London, London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 82–111.
• Curran, J. and Seaton, J. (2010) Power without responsibility Vol 7. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
• Dader, J. (2014) ‘Journalism and the political powers’, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social # 069, pp. 637–660. doi:10.4185/rlcs-2014-1028en.
• Dragomir, M. (2017) ‘Control the money, control the media: How government uses funding to keep media in line’, Journalism, 19(8), pp. 1131–1148. doi:10.1177/1464884917724621.
• Gordon, M.T. (2000) ‘Public Trust in Government: The US media as an agent of accountability?’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(2), pp. 297–310. doi:10.1177/0020852300662006.
• Phelan, S. (2012) ‘MEDIA POWER, JOURNALISM AND AGENCY’, in Scooped: the politics and power of journalism in Aotearoa New Zealand. Auckland, New Zealand: AUT Media, pp. 80–95.
• Reich, Z. and Hanitzsch, T. (2013) ‘Determinants of journalists’ professional autonomy: Individual and national level factors matter more than organizational ones’, Mass Communication and Society, 16(1), pp. 133–156. doi:10.1080/15205436.2012.669002.
• Shock and Awe (2017), Directed by Rob Reiner, Available at: Amazon Prime Video (11 November 2024).
• The Post (2017), Directed by Steven Spielberg, Available at: Apple TV (11 November 2024)
• Wolfgang, J.D., Vos, T.P. and Kelling, K. (2018) ‘Journalism’s relationship to democracy: Roles, attitudes, and practices’, Journalism Studies, 20(14), pp. 1977–1994. doi:10.1080/1461670x.2018.1547123.