Theories of Democracy and American Journalism:
Creating an Active Public[1]
David S. Allen
Illinois State University
Introduction
If there is any one idea that can be said to be at the heart of
American journalism, it is democracy. It is through the idea of
democracy that the press justifies many of the privileges and
responsibilities granted to it. What Walter Lippmann wrote in 1922
still seems to be true:
[P]ractically everywhere it is assumed that the
press should do spontaneously for us what primitive
democracy imagined each of us could do spontaneously
for himself, that every day and twice a day it will
present us with a true picture of all the outer
world in which we are interested (p. 203).
For all the rhetoric that surrounds the press's democratic mission,
however, journalists seem to have little idea of what democracy
actually
means. They often offer broad platitudes in praise of democracy,
but
rarely do they offer explicit definitions. Of course, in this
regard,
journalists are really no better or worse than other members of
society.
Political theorists have recognized that democracy is not a unified
theoretical concept, but rather a diverse set of ideas about how to
structure society. As political theorist David Held notes, democracy
in
its most simplistic form means "rule by the people" (p. 2). Moving
much
beyond that definition, however, becomes a difficult task. Who are
the
people? What is meant by rule? How much participation is required
or
allowed? The theory that one elects to follow depends to a great
degree
on how one answers those questions.
If political theorists are correct in arguing that there are many
varieties of democracy--and there seems to be few who are willing that
challenge that argument--then we must return to the original
question:
How do journalists define democracy? It is a question for which
there
does not appear to be an easy answer. For example, Herbert Gans has
noted that American journalists are tied to the ideals of the
Progressive movement, or what he calls "altruistic democracy" (pp.
43-45). Still, Gans seems to be identifying less a theory of democracy
or a way to structure society and more an ideology or dominant
belief
system (p. 68).
This paper is an attempt to begin the discussion of what theory or
theories of democracy are at the heart of American journalism.
Underlying this paper is the belief that without a clear understanding
of the democratic principles that guide the practice of journalism,
we
cannot possibly understand the press's role in the realization of
democracy. This paper highlights four theories of democracy and
discusses their implications for the practice of journalism. There are,
of course, more than four theories of democracy. It is hoped that
the
exploration of these theories will serve as the starting point for a
broader discussion of the connection between theories of democracy and
the practice of journalism.
The Importance of Democratic Theory
If theories of democracy are to aid in the practice of journalism,
those theories must have some practical applications. In many
respects,
those applications are already present in the judgments and
decisions
editors and reporters make on a daily basis. Theories of democracy
are,
of course, not discussed in any formal way in newsrooms across the
United States. Still, it is important to realize that the ideas that
stand behind many current-day practices have links to theories of
democracy. These theories, much like the practices themselves, often go
unquestioned in the hectic pace of day-to-day journalism.
This paper will focus on four modern theories of democracy and attempt
to demonstrate their relevance for understanding the practice of
journalism. The four theories that will be addressed in this paper are:
competitive democracy, pluralist democracy, deliberative democracy,
and
participatory democracy. All tell us something about the formation
of
public life in the United States and the press' role in that
formation.
Understanding the relationship between the press and public life is
central to understanding the importance of democratic theory. James
Carey calls "the public" the "god-term" of American journalism. As he
writes:
The press justifies itself in the name of the public: It exists--or so
it is regularly said--to inform the public, to serve as the
extended
eyes and ears of the public, to protect the public's right to know,
to
serve the public interest (Carey, p. 5).
J rgen Habermas has called the press the public sphere's preeminent
institution, giving life to the rational public discourse so important
to the formation of democracy (1989, p. 181). Still, while there is
much discourse about the press-public connection, there is little
discussion of it in terms of democratic theory. This paper suggests
that the link to democratic theory can be found by looking at the
distinction between an informed public and an active public. As Carey
suggests, current press practices are closely aligned with the idea
of
an informed public. An informed public can be defined as a group of
people who are isolated and inactive, but nonetheless informed about
political life by society's institutions. Individualism, not
community,
is at the core of an informed public. It is concerned with
protecting
the rights of individuals to receive information. The citizen in an
informed public achieves her or his goals in relative isolation,
requiring only the aid of information-providing institutions.
An active public, on the other hand, assumes a very different type of
citizen. At its center is the creation of community. It requires
or is
constituted by citizens who are active in political life, who
possess a
shared sense of community. Definitions of an active public can be
found
in the work of scholars such as John Dewey and Herbert Blumer. As
Blumer wrote in 1946:
The term public is used to refer to a group of people (a) who are
confronted by an issue, (b) who are divided in their ideas as to how
to
meet the issue, and (c) who engage in discussion over the issue (p.
46)
An active public, then, has developed or is in the process of
developing avenues that will make that sense of community a reality.
Acting is primarily a social activity and a central part of political
life, requiring other members of society to make that action
relevant.
As Hannah Arendt writes, a life without speech and action "is
literally
dead to the world; it has ceased to be a human life" because it no
longer has ties to community (p. 176).
Of course, most theories of democracy are neither entirely based on an
informed public nor an active public. Still, the informed-active
distinction serves as an effective way to organize the discussion of
various theories of democracy. As such, the four theories that will
be
the focus of this paper can be placed on a continuum, as in Figure
A.
The theories can be viewed as providing an increased emphasis on public
participation as one moves along the continuum from an informed to
active public. In that regard, both the competitive and pluralist
theories are forms of what some might call elitist theories of
democracy.
Figure A
Theories of Democracy
Informed-Active Public Continuum
Informed Active
Public Public
Competitive Deliberative
. .
. Pluralism . Participatory
. . . .
. . . .
.......... ...............
. .
. .
Elitist Community-based
Theories of Theories of
Democracy Democracy
That is, the emphasis is less on public participation by citizens and
more on the administration of society by qualified elites or
organizations. The major question for society is how those elites are
elected or those organizations formed. On the other hand,
deliberative
and participatory theories are community-based theories, attempting
to
find ways to involve the public in decision-making. The major
question
is what kinds of avenues need to be created to allow members of the
public to participate in their own governance.
What follows is a brief description of the four theories in Figure A.
Each will highlight some of the basic assumptions made by various
theorists in that area.
Competitive
Competitive democratic theory is an attempt to reconcile democratic
theory with the realities of modern life. The roots of the theory can
be traced to the work of Max Weber and Joseph Schumpeter. Working
separately, they painted a picture of modern society where social forces
have become so overwhelming that they leave little chance for
participation by citizens. They tell of a time when political
participation amounts to little more than, as Held puts it, "choosing
decision-makers and curbing their excesses"(p. 143).
Weber's critique of society concentrates on the rationalization of
capitalist production. Weber argues that as modern society has
progressed, life has increasingly been rationalized, that is, turned
over to scientific procedures that emphasize the role of experts and
technology. The growth of the bureaucracy accompanied this process,
spreading not only to the government but also to industry and
political
parties. Agreeing with Marx, Weber found the bureaucracy to be
inherently undemocratic because bureaucrats were no longer responsible
to the electorate (Held, pp. 147-148). Thus, rationalization
created a
tension among modern people: it freed people from the "mysterious
incalculable forces" of premodern society and, in turn, meant that
people could "master all things by calculation" (Weber, p. 139).
Weber was bothered by the impractical nature of
the role of experts and technology. He believed that in modern society,
the best that could be accomplished was the election of powerful,
wise
leaders. In the words of Gerth and Mills:
For Weber, the universal franchise, the struggle for votes, and the
freedom of organization had no value unless they resulted in
powerful
political leaders willing to assume responsibility rather than
evade it
and cover up their deeds behind court cliques and imperial bureaucrats
. . . (p. 38).
Where would those leaders come from? One of the areas was from within
the ranks of journalism (Hardt, p. 165). The press, in Weber's
eyes,
was to play more than a formative role in the creation of a just
society, it was also to adopt a leadership role (Weber, pp. 96-99).
Weber, who worked as a journalist, viewed newspapers as playing an
increasingly important role in social and political change in society
and fretted over the press's fascination with sensationalism and
commercialism (Weber, p. 98).
Schumpeter brought many of Weber's ideas together into an actual theory
of democracy. The Austrian-born economist popularized many of
Weber's
ideas and his writings provided the foundation for many studies by
social scientists in the post-World War II years (Held, pp. 164-165).
First and foremost, Schumpeter set out to put aside once and for all
the
idea that democracy means "the people" rule. The only real meaning
of
democracy for Schumpeter was "that people have the opportunity of
accepting or refusing the men who are to rule them" (Schumpeter, pp.
284-285). In his view, classic democratic theory granted an
"altogether
unrealistic degree of initiative" in political affairs and virtually
ignored the question of political leadership (Schumpeter, p. 270).
For Schumpeter, democracy is reduced to little more than citizens
deciding who will govern them. It is through voting, and the
competition for votes between political elites, that government
generates its legitimacy. His theory calls for high-caliber po
liticians, a well-trained bureaucracy, competition between rival leaders
and parties, and a society that will support differences in opinion
(Held, p. 176).
In the end, competitive democratic theory emphasizes an informed public
in the sense that it gives less responsibility to citizens. It puts
the
responsibility to inform and legislate in the hands of a certain
community--a community of elites.
Pluralist
While competitive theorists seek to put power in the hands of elected
elites, pluralist theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms.
For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are perhaps best illustrated in the work of Robert Dahl,
who focuses his work on interest or pressure groups. For Dahl, these
factions are viewed as being the key to the proper functioning of
democracy as we know it. It is the diversification of power among thest
theorists envision modern democracy in broader terms. For
pluralists,
democracy is more than simply selecting leaders. Modern,
pluralistic
democracy envisions the give and take between numerous groups and
organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are st theorists envision modern democracy in broader
terms. For pluralists, democracy is more than simply selecting leaders.
Modern, pluralistic democracy envisions the give and take between
numerous groups and organizations in society.
These ideas are publicly formulate their ideas about the very issues
upon which they might someday vote. Barber's hope is that through
interaction with other members of the community, new ideas and options
will be constructed.
William M. Sullivan has also called for a new public philosophy
emphasizing "active citizenship and enlightened discussion" (p. xii).
The goal for Sullivan is to revitalize civic association by
strengthening what he calls "intermediate structures" (p. 225).
Sullivan writes:
The process must invite the enclaves of neighborly cooperation out
from their present defensive position on the periphery of our public
life, to join in a larger effort to transform the mainstream
institution into vehicles and expression of citizenly fellowship (pp.
224-225).
One way of achieving that goal might be through the creation of what
Sara Evans and Harry Boyte call "free spaces," or "settings between
private lives and large-scale institutions where ordinary citizens can
act with dignity, independence, and vision." For Evans and Boyte,
it is
important to note that these so-called free spaces are not a place
where
citizens merely increase their knowledge, but rather a place where
they
transform that knowledge into action (p. 17).
Of course, the utopian nature of participatory democracy can be
questioned. But Evans and Boyte attempt to show through an historical
examination how free spaces have functioned in the United States.
And,
as Sullivan notes, the fact that some social movements have
continued to
emerge in modern society "is evidence of the civic republican
spirit"
(p. 221).
Democratic Theory and Journalism
The descriptions of four basic theories of democracy, brief as they
are, are intended to highlight some of the assumptions behind the
generic term democracy. Adopting the assumptions of a certain theory
can influence how society is viewed and ultimately the practices of
institutions within society. As Barber notes, each theory of political
life assumes a starting point, and that starting point is central to
determining where we end up (p. 26).
The following is an attempt to offer some suggestions as to how the
various theories might influence the practice of one of the central
institutions in democracy--the press.
Elitist Models
Elitist models differ from community-based models in the primary
respect that they adopt different views on the role of citizens in
society. Elitist models have little faith that people can or want to
participate in public affairs. In that regard, the individual
citizen
is often viewed as being isolated from the community, frequently
acting
in only his or her self-interest.
Those assumptions are often at the foundation of many developments and
practices within the industry. The idea of the isolated individual
can
be seen in the work of the Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute
of
Technology (MIT) and its attempt to create the "Ultra-personal
Newspaper," or what some have called "The Daily Me" (Brand; Conniff).
The project is driven by the desire to provide individuals with
personalized information--information that caters to the needs of
individuals, but does little to promote the formation of community.
Theories of democracy based on the idea of an informed public provide
the justification for such developments.
Many current press practices reflect on that view of the citizen.
Perhaps foremost among them is the press's professionalization
movement.
In many ways, this movement is an attempt to separate the press from
the public. The press is put forward as reporting on a community,
but
remaining apart from that community (Hallin). The press collects
information as the public's representative, passes that information
along to society, but then separates itself from how that information
is
used (Tuchman, pp. 90-91). As Ted Koppel recently told members of
the
American Society of Newspaper Editors, "Our role as journalists is
to
hold up the light. I am most uncomfortable with the notion that we
should consider the consequences of what we report" (Davidson).
The idea that the press should stand apart from the public, leading
unmotivated citizens, has a long history in modern press theory.
Perhaps the clearest articulation of this idea can be found in the
social responsibility theory of the press, a theory that had its roots
in the work of the Commission on Freedom of the Press (commonly
referred
to as the Hutchins Commission) in 1947. Following in the steps of
Progressive reformers, social responsibility theory puts its faith in
educated, enlightened individuals to lead society. The development
of
that elite can be achieved through the professionalization of
journalism
(see Peterson).
This pessimistic view of society is evident in the writings of some of
the members of the Commission. Zechariah Chafee, Jr., at one point
concludes that "men are animals" and that "the public will never live
up
to the kind of newspaper which this commission would like to have"
(quoted in McIntyre, p. 147). And William E. Hocking, perhaps the
philosophical guiding force of the Commission, notes that it has become
apparent over the years that citizens "do not know what they want in
any
socially reliable way" (quoted in McIntyre, p. 148).
Hocking clung to the idea that in the press could be found the answer
to the problem. As Hocking writes, since the public might not know
what
to expect from its press, it is up to the press to provide
instruction;
"the press can educate demand" (p. 199). Theodore Peterson, in his
articulation of social responsibility theory, notes that it is not so
much that people are no longer rational, but rather that they are
"lethargic." As Peterson writes, "Because of his mental sloth, man has
fallen into a state of unthinking conformity, to which his inertia
binds
him" (p. 100). Or as one journalist of the 1940s put it, "The
public
prefers not to think" (Miller, p. 2).
Elitist theories question the rationality of citizens and provide the
justification for a professional institution--the press--to take up
the
duties and responsibilities of the public. The primary purpose of
the
press is not to activate citizens, but rather to inform them about
the
day's events. Knowledge about an issue comes to replace political
action. Being informed becomes the highest level for a citizen to
attain.
Also contained in elitist theories is the justification for focusing
press coverage on important people and institutions in society. If
democracy is truly little more than the competition between elites, be
it national or local organizations, it is only natural for the press
to
focus its attention on those elites. Various studies of journalism
have
noted American journalism's focus on elites (Bennett, pp. 69-102;
Fishman, pp. 85-108; Gans, pp. 8-38; Tuchman, pp. 82-89). Under elitist
theories of democracy, informing voters about the actions of those
groups would seem to be the primary role for the press to play in
society.
In that regard, the press's fascination with horse-race coverage of
elections might also find support in these theories. In elitist
theories, members of the public are not expected to participate in the
substantive discussion of issues, but rather to make decisions about
who
they would like to hold power for the next several years. Voting is
put
forward as the essential element of democracy. In that context,
focusing on elites through stories about who is doing what to whom and
who is winning the political battles inside the "beltway" is a
logical
way to organize news coverage. The goal of the press in elitist
theories is to provide the necessary information to citizens so that
they will be able to make educated decisions at the ballot box and
nothing more.
The difference between the two kinds of elitist theories is, in the
end, a matter of degree. Rather than the press focusing on elites
such
as politicians as in competitive democratic theory, pluralist
democratic
theory turns its focus to groups and institutions within society
that
are not necessarily governmental. Still, the primary function of the
press remains the same--to provide information to citizens who are
generally not living up to expectations.
Community-based Models
Gans has argued that there are at least two reasons why journalists
support what has been termed here as elitist theories of democracy:
(1)
journalists fear that an empowered audience will threaten their
autonomy, and (2) that "cultural democratization" will force journalists
to pay less attention to upper and upper-middle-class sources (p.
248).
As portrayed in Figure A, elitist theories tend to be more
supportive of
maintaining the status quo of an informed public. As such, the
question
that is foremost for the citizen is: Of what benefit is this
information
to me? If the discussion of democracy and the practices of the
press
begins at the other end of the continuum, the question changes. The
question that is at the center of community-based theories of
democracy
is: Of what benefit is this for activating the community?
Under community-based theories, the Media Lab's experiments with the
personal newspaper would be viewed with skepticism. The goal of a
press
operating under community-based democracy would be to allow
individuals
to share information and to aid in the formation of an active
community.
From that perspective, an individualized newspaper is of little help in
attaining that end. It does not serve to bring people together, but
rather to isolate them.
The role of the press under theories linked with an active public would
vary. In deliberative democracy, the press reserves a powerful,
institutional presence in society. However, its goal is not merely
informing citizens, but rather finding creative ways to activate them.
Citizenship is not seen as replacing institutions or
representatives,
but providing direction to the decisions that are made by those
institutions and representatives. On the other hand, participatory
democracy is an attempt to find a way to give citizens more voice in
the
operation of society's institutions and businesses. The citizen's
role
is not that of an advisor, as in deliberative democracy, but rather
that
of an active participant. Both, however, take seriously the need
for
the press to find ways to not only inform citizens, but to activate
citizens. The press needs to identify ways that it can aid in the
creation of those "free spaces" discussed by Evans and Boyte.
What role does the press play in securing these free spaces? Attempts
have been made to create a sense of community. As might be expected
because its basic ideas are often viewed as being less radical, more
examples of deliberative democracy exist than participatory democracy.
Examples that could be considered as forms of deliberative democracy
are
the naming of local citizens to the editorial board of the Ventura,
Calif., Star-Free Press or the Charlotte, N.C., Observer's
"consumer-oriented campaign news." At the Star-Free Press, the
public
members of the editorial board provide input on various issues, but
the
editor and/or editorial page editor retain control over the final
decisions (Stein, p. 20). The Observer has attempted to find ways to
involve readers in shaping the paper's political coverage, especially
in
the types of stories that are selected. A "citizen's agenda" was
put
together based on the responses of 1,000 residents. Those responses,
along with the input of a citizen's panel were then used to guide
coverage (Public Life and the Press, pp. 7-9).
Each of these efforts, and others like them, aid in the creation of a
deliberating public. They break away from the horse-race mentality
and
aid in the creation of active citizens. While clearly a step
towards
the development of community, the efforts fall short of meeting the
needs of a participatory democracy. Perhaps the largest distinction
between the two can be found in the role of the institutional press.
Under participatory theory, the role of the press is not to retain
final
control over opinions or ideas that are ultimately printed, nor is
it to
select representatives who reflect public opinion. In that regard,
the
Charlotte Observer when it conducted its preliminary poll used to
create
the "citizen's agenda" was measuring individual opinion, not public
opinion, as defined by Blumer and Dewey. True public opinion can only
be created when citizens are able to come together, debate issues
and
listen to others' ideas. Asking someone whether they favor the death
penalty is not the measurement of public opinion, but rather it is
asking someone for his or her individual opinion. It ignores the fact
that most people's opinions change when they are exposed to counter
arguments and ideas. Truly public opinion, then, can only be created
through a freewheeling discussion.
A press that is looking for the creation of true public opinion is less
concerned about the control of ideas and instead focuses on the
creation
of avenues that will allow that public opinion to develop. The
Star-Tribune's efforts in Minneapolis, Minn., to create neighborhood
discussion groups, or what some have called salons, can be viewed as
an
attempt at participatory democracy (Public Life and the Press, pp.
18-19). The newspaper's main mission is activating and energizing the
discussion among citizens. Other than suggesting possible
discussion
topics, which apparently the groups are under no obligation to
follow,
the newspaper does not get involved in controlling the discussion or
the
results.
It seems clear that some elements of participatory democracy would
call for the press to surrender at least some editorial control. For
example, John Keane's call for a public service media entails that
"communications media should be for the public use and enjoyment of all
citizens and not for the private gain or profit of political rulers
or
businesses" (p. 127).
The Star-Tribune's attempt, however, demonstrates that perhaps there
are avenues short of giving up complete fiscal and editorial control.
Other avenues that would aid in the creation of community are
available
as well. As journalism professor James Lemert writes, the American
press does a very poor job of providing what he calls "mobilizing
information" (Lemert, pp. 243-249). In other words, the press is very
good at telling its readers what action the city council has taken,
but
it is very poor at telling citizens what the council is going to do,
what citizens can do about it, or how to go about it. Such minor
shifts
in the focus of reporting, what might be called changing from
reactive
to proactive journalism, could provide an important spark for the
formation of community life.
Conclusion
It is a common complaint that attempts to put theory into practice can
often be a frustrating, if not futile, endeavor. Journalists need
to
realize that many of their practices already have links with
democratic
theory and, because of that link, the connection between theory and
practice cannot be ignored. Still, the basic question of what
journalists mean by the term democracy goes unaddressed. Before the
press can begin to address the problems of the day, it needs to
address
a basic question: What role is the press supposed to play in
society?
If the answer is informing citizens, current practices with links to
theories of democratic elitism might be adequate. However, if the
press's role is viewed as activating as well as informing citizens, more
innovative strategies are needed. A press based on the idea of
community would take seriously a suggestion made by Dewey in 1927. The
great problem for democracy, Dewey wrote, is not ignorance, but
rather
the lack of opportunities for public deliberation (pp. 208-210).
Dewey's
concern continues today.
References
Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press).
Barber, B. (1984). Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics
for a New Age (Berkeley: University of California
Press).
Blumer, H. (1966). "The Mass, the Public, and Public Opinion," in
Reader in Public Opinion and Communication, 2d ed., eds. B. Berelson
and M.
Janowitz (New York: Free Press): 43-50
Bohman, J. (1994). "Complexity, Pluralism, and the Constitutional
State: On Habermas's Faktizitat und Geltung," Law and Society Review,
vol. 28, no. 4: 897- 930.
Brand, S. (1987). The Media Lab: Inventing the Future at MIT (New
York: Viking).
Carey, J. (1989). "The Press and the Public Discourse," The Center
Magazine, vol. 20, no. 2: 264-282.
Cohen, J. (1989). "Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy."
In The Good Polity, eds. A. Hamlin and P. Pettit (New York: Oxford):
pp. 17-34.
Conniff, M. (1993). "Future Tense," Editor & Publisher, Oct. 16: 3,
39.
Dahl, R.A. (1956). A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press).
----- (1967). Pluralist Democracy in the United States: Conflict and
Consent (Chicago: Rand McNally).
----- (1985). A Preface to Economic Democracy (Cambridge: Polity
Press).
Davidson, J. (1994). "Newspaper editors ask: after you report the
genocide, then what?" Chicago Tribune, April 17: 14.
Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and Its Problems (Chicago: Swallow
Press).
Evans, S.M., and H.C. Boyte (1986). Free Spaces: The
Sources of Democratic Change in America (New York:
Harper & Row).
Fishkin, J.S. (1991). Democracy and Deliberation: New
Directions for Democratic Reform (New Haven: Yale
University Press).
Fishman, M. (1988). Manufacturing the News (Austin: University of
Texas Press).
Gans, H.J. (1980). Deciding What's News (New York: Vintage Books).
Habermas, J. (1995). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a
Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. W. Rehg (Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press).
----- (1992). "Further Reflections on the Public Sphere, in Habermas
and the Public Sphere, ed. C. Calhoun (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press):
421-461.
----- (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere,
trans. T. Burger (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press).
Hallin, D.C. (1985). "The American News Media: A Critical Theory
Perspective," in Critical Theory and Public Life, ed. J. Forester
(Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press): 121-146.
Hardt, H. (1979). Social Theories of the Press (Beverly Hills, Calif.:
SAGE).
Held, D. (1987). Models of Democracy (Stanford, Calif.:
Stanford University Press).
Hocking, W.E. (1947). Freedom of the Press: A Framework in Principle
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Keane, J. (1991). The Media and Democracy (Cambridge, Mass.: Polity
Press).
Lemert, J. (1984). "News Context and the Elimination of Mobilizing
Information: An Experiment," Journalism Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 2:
243-249, 259.
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public Opinion (New York: Free Press).
McIntyre, J.S. (1987). "Repositioning a Landmark: The Hutchins
Commission and Freedom of the Press," Critical Studies in Mass
Communication, vol. 4: 136-160.
Miller, W.J. (1947). "What's Wrong With The Newspaper Reader?" Nieman
Reports, vol. 1, no. 1: 2.
Peterson, T. (1956). "The Social Responsibility Theory of the Press,"
in Four Theories of the Press (Urbana: University of Illinois
Press):
73-103.
Public Life and the Press: A Research Report (1994). New York: New
York University, Project for Public Life and the Press.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1947). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, 2d ed.
(New York: Harper & Brothers).
Stein, M.L. (1994). "Paper praises citizen editorial board members,"
Editor & Publisher, April 30: 20.
Sullivan, W. (1986). Reconstructing Public Philosophy (Berkeley:
University of California Press).
Tuchman, G. (1978). Making News: A Study in the Construction of
Reality (New York: The Free Press).
Weber, M. (1958). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, eds. H.H. Gerth
and C. W. Mills (New York: Oxford University Press).
[1] Research for this project was supported by a grant from The Projec
t on Public Life
and the Press, The John S. and James L. Knight Founda
tion, and the Kettering
Foundation.
|
