Does media quality actually affect the quality of democracy?
How does media performance across countries?
Lawrence Sung
Nov 11, 2019
Discussion
I came across this chart while searching up media neutrality: It got me thinking--is there even such a thing as unbiased media? To that, I say no. Every human being grows up in a different set of circumstances and is exposed to unique stimuli that contribute to the development of a person's personality and beliefs. Over time, those solidify as one constantly uses them as a framework through which one interprets the environment around them. Thus, no matter how hard people try to be neutral when disseminating information, there will always be a slight bias towards one region of the political plane (I prefer not to use the spectrum notion since it generalizes too many political traits) because of the built-up habit of using one's belief system and personality to analyze the world.
Is this bad? Absolutely not. In fact, I think that this is great for democracy! With the notion of media neutrality gone, news agencies are free to express their own opinions about the world around them. Furthermore, the power of interpreting the media no longer is in the hands of the media themselves; rather, the democratization of media will allow the people the chance to interpret both sides of the news, for once, and will grow the public's ability to think for themselves. Thus the common people will be liberated from the vices of a monotonous press.
Yes it does. Media is at the core of democracy, because to make effective decisions, the people need all of the facts. If the state restricts or alters media, it is no longer a democracy, because people are not voting based on what they believe is right, they are voting for what the state wants them to vote for.
I definitely agree with this as well. I think the prevalence of fake news and partisan media outlets (cf. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc.) is evidence of this. Because journalism and media play such a large role in American politics, it solidifies itself as authority and a standard of truth. When news is fake, skewed, or partisan, it alters the standard of truth. This goes on to impact the consumers, who are also the electorate. As a result of this, people become polarized in their political beliefs and no longer vote along the lines of what is actually true.
Media guides the direction of democracy. In a government system where every citizen has a voice, media is the bridge that allows citizens to be somewhat informed. At the same time, media is such a flawed medium because it is predominated by appeals to what will increase viewership, like tragic events or heated, pathos-driven debates. Barely any citizens are experts on a given issue, yet we are given the power to indirectly decide our country’s direction on it. With a lack of facts and expertise, we rely on our experience and memory. While there is an undeniable validity to this form of decision making, doesnt something seem wrong?
I think this is an interesting and accurate analysis of the pros and cons of the use of media. In particular, I think social media is a good "case study" of this. Social media has been known to galvanize revolutionary political events (cf. Arab Spring, March for Our Lives, etc.) by helping movements gain traction and involving people, especially youth, in politics. But social media is probably the worst culprit when it comes to spreading false information and further polarizing certain political strands of thought. Many of those engaging in "political discourse" on social media may not have the facts or expertise to make the claims that they do.
Do you think social media on balance has done more harm than good for further political discourse?
@Felicity Wong I think that social media has been a double edged sword. On one hand, it has exposed many young people to political discourse and events that they otherwise would have been oblivious to. On the other hand, it leads to people solely relying on the medium for information regarding current events and the state of the world.
At the end of the day, the common person isn't going to read in depth reports or complex analyses regarding the most prevalent political issues; it's just not feasible. Therefore, I believe that the introduction of social media, although it has garnered public interest towards political events, has hurt the integrity of politics and fact-based discourse.
@Alan Gao That's interesting and I see the point that you are making. However, do you think it's even realistic to expect that people are going to read in-depth reports or complex analyses? I think social media has been more helpful than harmful when it comes to introducing discourse to people who otherwise would not engage in it. Without social media, those people who would not take the initiative to understand and educate themselves about a topic because it is not on their phone screen are those who are likely to 1) not vote at all or 2) vote as an uninformed electorate. Both are bad, as electorate engagement is one of the most pressing issues in today's democracy. Without social media, I think these people are just as likely to vote based on an uneducated or polarized opinion.
What do you think about this?