The state of the fourth estate

“If people are informed they will do the right thing.”

Without freedom of the press, democracy is on shaky ground. In countries where the press is overtly and obviously controlled – China, Russia, North Korea, Syria, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia are some of the worst examples according to Reporters sans frontières – the state controls society through some form of autocratic rule. There is no pretence – citizens’ rights and their very existence are at the state’s pleasure.

The free press enables the transparency needed for democracy to operate successfully. They critique the state, hold them to account – that is their important role. One of the major actions China took when asserting control over Hong King was to shut down the free press – to silence dissenting voices. It’s Orwellian, it’s chilling, and it’s brutally effective.

A brief tangent - Universities are expected to be the critic and conscience of society (in New Zealand, if they do not perform this function they are unable to be called universities under the Education ACT) but arguably it is a function they have generally abandoned – criticising your corporate sponsors (including the state) is seldom allowed and stops the bureaucratic promotion train.

Forced to ignore universities, we are left with the free press as a bulwark against those who seek to bastardise democracy. I say “a” bulwark, it is really “the” bulwark – the last line of defence.

The state of the fourth estate.

Free, as in the “free” press, means able to operate independently. Independent journalism is journalism free from influence or control by corporations or governments. It is important to realise that the majority of media organisations are either state funded (dependent on the state) or privately owned (dependent on corporations). Neither model is inherently good or bad, it is about control of the editorial function. The BBC is state owned. Reuters is owned by Thomson Reuters Group. Both have a reputation (at least historically in the case of the BBC) for quality, unbiased journalism.

What is important is how much control is exerted over the editorial function that ultimately influences the production of journalism. The red arrow marks the place where democracy is, or is not, enabled/defended. Individual journalists may, or maybe should, maintain the highest ethical standards but the editorial function ultimately controls what is published and what is not. And, equally importantly, who is hired and fired.

It is difficult to assess the independence of the editorial function as control can be subtle. Most media organisations have policies that trumpet their balanced, fair reporting. But, in many cases, how much the state, the profit motive, funders, large corporate advertisers and political agendas influence the editorial function is impossible to gauge – at least directly.

If we look from the other end of the process, starting with society, I think we can induce the overall health of the editorial function. I live a long way from the US or UK, but what I hear and read from (what I consider) balanced sources makes their democracies look, at the best, sick. So much so, their democracies have become games played with money and dark money – the media (the editorial function) is used as a pawn in the power landscape.

How about New Zealand, where we still see ourselves, wrongly in my view, as an egalitarian paradise. Inequality is rife. Climate change action has all but been shouted down. Racism and sexism are becoming normalised. The untaxable wealthy use their money to manipulate the political landscape through vast donations to political parties. You would have to have rose-tinted spectacles to call our democracy healthy. In fact, as I argue, New Zealand, along with most western countries, are living in plutocracies.

And the fourth estate in New Zealand?

There are shining lights in terms of journalists (I think of John Campbell, Anusha Bradley and Charlie Mitchell) but many seem to have strayed into believing their opinions are more important than writing balanced accounts (they aren’t). From the outside, it appears that the pressure for profit along with significant advertisers exerting editorial pressure is pushing private media companies into running clickbait and opinion pieces at the expense of journalism. The ranks of journalists have also been decimated (where I live the local newspaper has halved its journalist ranks), further impacting on journalism quality.

State owned and funded media in New Zealand is a positive. Radio New Zealand provides solid journalism (mostly) and operates without state interference (despite what the looney right say). Television New Zealand, through key appointments and commercial imperatives seems to operate more like a privately owned organisation.

There is an argument levelled that the media have never been independent in democracies in the way we would like to believe. From William Randolph Hearst through to Rupert Murdoch’s long, grubby, inveigling fingers – media barons have directed what is and isn’t news. Public opinion treated as malleable substance. It’s hard to dismiss.

The question society and citizens need to grapple with is – how to free the editorial function in order that it can be truly independent. A truly free press is in the best interest of society as a whole – the status quo, and those benefiting from it, would be genuinely held to account. The result would be higher quality journalism, a better informed public and so on – a virtuous civic cycle.

The first step? Admit we have a problem.

Photo by Peter Lawrence on Unsplash