The media is, without doubt, both a political and economic institution. However the roles that it plays within the American political system are broad and uneven. One of the most consistent roles that the media has played within the political world is that of watchdog: monitoring the actions, policies, and words of politicians and political elites. The reality is that most of what occurs in politics takes place largely out of view. Investigative journalism helps to make American politics more transparent, expose corruption and lies, and generally keep politicians honest. This is one of the major reasons the media is often referred to as the 4th estate in American politics, an unofficial but necessary institution within our political system. However the media's watchdog track record has been...well...inconsistent.
First, take a couple minutes to skim through some of the efforts by various media outlets to act as a watchdog during the 2012 national conventions:
The media as watchdog of the Republican National Convention:
- Edited clip of various news sources fact-checking of Paul Ryan's speech at the Republican National Convention created by the Obama campaign
- Fact Checking the speech by factcheck.org, run by the Annenberg Policy Center (great resource)
The media as watchdog of the Democratic National Convention:
- CNN evaluating the claim that Obama saved the U.S. auto industry, and that Romney advocated letting it go bankrupt.
- Democratic Disinformation at DNC from fackcheck.org
Next, read the first webpage of an interesting report from Pew Research Center for the People and the Press about public opinion regarding the media's use of the watchdog role.
- How would you evaluate the effectiveness of the media as a watchdog?
- Are there any media outlets that do a particularly good or bad job fulfilling the watchdog role of the media?
I'd say the fact that the media CAN BE a watchdog already makes it an effective watchdog. For example, even if we go a few years with no politicians being exposed, no one in DC is going to forget about Wiener's wiener being all over the place. I do think events like that have an effect on how these people conduct their business (at least they take pains to hide it better).
ReplyDeleteI don't think any major news networks go as far as they should with their investigative reports. As one of the readings mentioned, you're not going to get the corner office (or even an assignment) by exposing everything in your path. So I think a lot of stories get buried for the sake of not sticking the network's neck out. The standard for proof is set so high that I think a lot of reporters know they'll either get the spotlight or the dumpster, most often choosing the former so they can live to fight another day.
On a side note, I love how Colbert and Stewart are often the watchdogs of the watchdogs, calling out the mainstream media for their subpar reporting.
After looking at the articles and videos above, it's difficult to say that any media group does a particularly good job at serving as a watchdog for the American public.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the media as a watchdog, I think it's imperative to remember that each media outlet has its own leanings and agenda in mind. While it isn't always true that partisanship rules these fact checks (for example, CNN clarified Romney's position to remove the negative connotation in the Op-Ed title), bias in the media is everywhere. And, unfortunately, most Americans won't seek out sites like FactCheck.org to evaluate the claims being made by candidates and politicians in speeches. Instead, they will go to their preferred news outlets and take the evaluation from that source as their own (or base their own evaluation off of this view).
As a result, what is said in speeches sometimes isn't even checked by the media. Or, those who believe in the claims of certain speeches won't seek out information that would lead them to believe otherwise, especially if they sympathize with the political figure who made the speech.
It's extremely ironic as well that in the Pew Research Center survey, the majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all believe that while the media serves its role as a watchdog and prevents politicians from doing otherwise undesirable activities, they fall short on their role outside of being a watchdog. This seems counterintuitive, especially the part that reads "Two-thirds (67%) say that news reports are often inaccurate, and even greater percentages say that news organizations tend to favor one side (76%) and are often influenced by powerful people and organizations (75%)". If reports are inaccurate or one-sided, how are they serving as an efficient lookout for those reading these reports?
Perhaps I'm more of a cynic when it comes to the media and politics, but in most cases, it just doesn't seem like the media really serves a thorough, accurate role as the public's watchdog.
Asurinak raises a great point about truth seeking websites like the mentioned FactCheck.org. This reminds me of the concept introduced in class regarding the Public Communication orders. In the “Informational Order” there are many available news mediums, and the average viewers probably feel fatigued enough by the journalism they are consuming to use legitimizing resources after reading an article. I believe arguing otherwise would be an institutional bias because we have learned to do such fact checking in our personal endeavors within higher education.
ReplyDeleteIn conventional news resources like CNN, one can easily see how citizens in the United States find watchdog qualities in the press. For example, CNN (known to be a liberal leaning network) is seen challenging invalid statements made by UAW President Bob King regarding Mitt Romney saying, “let Detroit go bankrupt”. CNN takes a stand against a statement that makes the conservative opposition look bad to maintain a sense of dignity in the way information is being consumed. Therefore, network news may even contribute to the mentioned fatigue of news consumption and resultant lack of independent fact checking. If viewers often see clips like this then they may feel safe in the hands of whichever news network they are loyal to.
I remember that Anderson Cooper has a segment on his program called “Keeping Them Honest” referring to the uncovering of invalid statements made by politicians. Whether or not his efforts are doing the job for an agenda, this type of installment certainly encourages viewers to adopt the belief in the press as a watchdog tool.
Ostensibly, the media is a critical component of democratic transparency; as the prompt touched on briefly, the vast majority of Americans view politics as "remote," and are therefore connected to politics solely through the mass media. Mainstream media's efficacy in the role of political "watchdog" must be closely scrutinized, however. Given that the prevailing purpose of all mainstream media is to turn a profit, too few Americans are wise to the necessity of questioning the often insidious motivations behind network news reports. The very existence of terms like "liberal-leaning" and "conservative-leaning" are indicative of the major media outlets' shortcomings in this watchdog role. Though major news networks would inarguably deliver [more] propaganda and censorship if they were state-sponsored - as in other countries - it is imperative to consider the political agenda of the top financial contributors behind mainstream American media. These factors inarguably influence both the quality and accuracy of news as consumed by the American public. As the U.S. Government learned quickly during the Vietnam War, unfettered access by the public to explicit accounts of happenings abroad - especially during times of war - can prove counterintuitive to popular support. One need only consult alternative media outlets' coverage of the Iraq War to recognize how ineffective and exclusionary even CNN often was in their coverage. The label of "effective" with respect to contemporary American media's role as a watchdog is controversial at best.
ReplyDeleteThough addressing the topic of FOX News seems analogous to "beating a dead horse," it is a particularly revealing example of the financial/political reciprocity and subsequent public influence of a major media outlet. FOX, a subsidiary of the former News Corporation under the monopolistic purview of Rupert Murdoch, is ultimately subservient to Murdoch's political agenda. Considering his exorbitant financial contributions to Republican interest groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce itself via News Corp., it stands to reason that the network would propagate coverage that is so often punctuated with an obvious conservative bias. The bipartisan divide in the U.S. has not left liberal media unaffected, however. CNN is just as guilty of selling media that panders to the interests and ideals of the current presidential administration - albeit with a markedly less obvious profile.
The media is an industry and understandably dependent upon capital, but this is exactly why its influence on dominant ideology is dangerous in a democracy. In a post-Citizens United nation where the top income earners may exert undue political influence through corporations to serve their interests, and while a vast majority of Americans report still obtaining their news from television, the dominant ideology is ultimately being established by the wealthy elite. Alternative media can be very effective for establishing true political transparency, but if enough of the public came to rely upon alternative sources, the financial requisites for reaching a broad audience via television would eventually result in the same watered-down or skewed reporting we currently consume.
The media's main and only goal it possesses is to simply fulfill the necessary requirements to raise public awareness about the current political affairs and to further educate the public about the major issues at hand. In this case, their way of successfully satisfying that notion is through political coverage of the democratic and republican perspectives, though greatly failing in my opinion to create clear-cut effectiveness resulting in meaningful results for people to distinguish what is and isn't important to know about the true and false claims that are made that are given in the conventions. In the end, people believe what they want which is how it's always going to be and the various news media organizations will presumably have their own bias towards political leaders, in the process conflicting, to a degree, with what political leaders think needs to be done in contrast to what the news networks portray in terms of what is flawed and inconsistent in relation to the politicians and their beliefs. This stance is largely the reason why being a proficient watchdog brings about the many complications and disparities of actual effectiveness in the first place.
DeleteAnd yes all media is reliant on their assets, which to me creates the influx of power and greed amongst themselves. The media is very diverse, ranging from state media, private media, general public media and so forth. So the many different forms of media also generates more inbalance with regards to the growing of globalization, ultimately deregularizing media as a whole. It's just extremely difficult for a media network in general to keep a consistent steadiness of the numerous malfeasances that take place in everyday affairs. Though to help aid the efforts to successful "watchdogging" everyone must be held accountable for their governance and a certain trust and support must take place at a high level in order to grow towards building unquestioned biased relationships between the media and the people.
My initial reaction to whether or not the media is an effective watchdog for the people and of the government is neither yes or no; it's more of an "it's complicated." I am always suspicious of television news sources, because while people are more receptive to images and more visually stimulated by it, it's easy to not think critically of it. So often we associate what we see with the truth and what is true because seeing is believing, supposedly. But what's never asked is what isn't being seen? If a clip is edited, why? If someone is being interviewed, who isn't asked to come to the table? A small group of people make these choices every day, and they don't necessarily reflect what certain communities are interested in hearing/seeing. It's difficult for a news media outlet to break out of the dominant ideology of what is considered important, what is considered news worthy, and even what is considered controversial. Controversy, political correctness, and dissent have become dirty words, and everything gets muddled. It's incredibly exhausting and frustrating. However, there are the small victories of the media as a watchdog that let me believe that it's possible. With Wikileaks and Snowden, I have to wonder how often journalists are shedding more light on hidden issues and the public would never know.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Robert in the first comment that sometimes the news sources that we think are the watchdogs, actually aren't. Instead satire and satirical commentators become the watchdog not only of what should be the watchdog but of the government itself. There are two audiences that I have experienced for The Colbert Report and for the Daily Show with Jon Stewart: those who watch as a source of news knowing that it's satire, and those who watch Colbert, specifically, as a serious conservative news source (because they don't know what satire is). I am perfectly fine with both, because it means that they are so good with satire that some people can't even tell the difference. To me, they have been the better watchdogs also.
I agree with Carolyne, the media as a watchdog is very “complicated” due to a few reasons I will discuss. I think the current status of our media is based more off entertainment instead of informing the public. Stories almost seem selected based on their sexiness and ability to go viral instead of their value to the public. They’re meant to outrage us instead of inform us. Topics that are boring such as how we overuse medical treatments or do unnecessary x-rays that cost millions a year are less covered. Instead, we hear about the Obamacare website or talk about John Boehner’s tan.
DeleteI think CNN did a great job covering the event by laying out both sides. NYT should have gone with the original topic to be fair, but it’s more about outrage than informing. I agree with the Pew research findings on how people feeling about the media. Often, this means that the perception of a topic is worse than the reality, an effect that is widely known in the media today.
I think that the media can be both effective and ineffective as a watchdog. I agree with Carolyne that "it's complicated." There are many shady things going on in Washington everyday, and it is nice to know that some of these politicians can't get away with it like most of the others do. Also, FactCheck.org and other websites make sure that politicians cannot take advantage of the public who might not be up to date on certain information or know all the statistics. I think that is when the media plays an effective role as a watchdog. However, I feel as though the media focuses too much on sex scandals or personal family issues. Although this is the news that sells, I think that there are more important things the media should focus on as a watchdog.
ReplyDeleteI think that biased news like Fox News and MSNBC do a poor job as a watchdog, because they are so focused on reporting positive news for their party and negative news on the opposing party. The news becomes what they want it to be rather than the truth. I also agree with Robert and Carolyne that The Daily Show with John Stewart and The Colbert Report do a good job as acting as the watchdog. I feel like through their humor, they are able to call out both politicians and other media sources.
For most people the media has a powerful influence on the decisions that they make. The media can be a tool that helps people shape how they may view the world and, what political stances they may take. With that being said, I believe that most people see watchdog journalism to be effective based on their own political ideologies. As we have noted before, most news reports that we hear are often inaccurate and, they tend to be bias. So with that being said, the question I pose is, do we want concrete news or are we okay with half-truths? I find that depending on people’s political ideologies most people are not willing to accept the truth, we have become okay with inaccuracies if they coincide with personal beliefs .We have grasped onto a McDonalization concept of life, meaning that we want things quick, fast, and in a hurry similar to a fast food chain. When it comes to the media being an effective watch-dog, one may argue that since we adopted this notion of wanting things in an instant, the media is an effective watchdog for the sole purpose of delivering inform quickly.
ReplyDeleteMe personally, I think that the media has not been effective as a watch dog considering that, I believe that it’s hard to accurately deliver a story when you are approaching it in the McDonalization manner. For an example, if we look at the missing Malaysia Flight, we want to hear more updates although there is little to no concrete evidence but, because this is something that is trending it has more power and is gaining more media converge. But on the other hand I believe that the media can be effective like some on my classmates mentioned due to the fact that we have some programs that try to uncover inefficiencies in the media, the problem that we face is there are far more people reporting inaccurate news compared to people trying to get the truth out.
1. I believe that the media is both effective and ineffective at watchdog reporting. The reason I believe it is effective is because the media does play an effective role in keeping politicians and Washington in line, meaning that if the politicians want to keep their popularity rating high, or increase it they will need that media’s assistance in doing so. One of the quotes that I like a lot that comes from our reading of The Watchdog Role of The Press is, “Power corrupts. Keeping a democracy healthy, therefore, requires institutions that monitor the actions of political elites” (Lance Bennet, William Serrin). From this quote is where I gained my opinion on the watchdog style of reporting to be an effective style of reporting. But on the contrary it can be used as a negative tool of propaganda that the media can use to hurt a politicians campaign or reputation, and could therefore be received as a lie by the public.
ReplyDelete2. I think that biased media stations such as MSNBC and FOX do a terrible job at watchdog reporting because they are both so heavily invested in the in the interests of the left and right wing parties. So whenever they do a watchdog report they are doing in a manipulative manner so that whichever wing they are on will come across as the more “fair” wing.
1. The Media as a watchdog is at best an optimistic view, and at worst a view that can lead to subtle indoctrination. Within the American political experience, particularly in the era of 24/7 news cycles and the blurring of objective information and entertainment the news no longer serves the role of portraying the story from a removed position. With the merging of economics into the news room it is only good business practice to ensure that the material being broadcasted is something that will earn the attention of the average viewer. For the most part the American public lacks the political know how that would be required to spot out discrepancies between theory, history and current political actors and the story put forth by the media, resulting in a news practices that have been likened to the practices of fast food restaurants. Within the U.S especially the presentation of current events has been either sensationalized to increase both subscriptions and viewers or it has avoided delicate topics to avoid the loss of these. Another particularly troubling aspect is that the Media exists within a for profit structure, having to compete on the open market against rival interests. The affects of this on American Politics have only increased Cold War mentalities, as corporate news has altered terms such as "Socialist" into boogieman terms, placing limitations on the amount of possible political and economic discourse in the country, rendering the Democrats as a centrist party seen as a left party, and obfuscating how far right American republicans are on the world level.
ReplyDelete2. The era of news as a watch dog is over, having been done away with in favor of profit margins. Even though I am an avid watcher of Vice news the style of their media is not fast enough for it to act as a watchdog, instead it serves a more post event, what happened type of coverage.
First and for most, there are multiple sources of media and because there are so many options, it can dilute the media’s effectiveness as a watchdog. These media outlets are competing for viewers or subscribers to stay in business. Viewers can get distracted from the vast options of the media. However there is a big portion of the media that does a great job of keeping an eye on our government such as The Washington Post, NY Times, Politico and the Internet to name a few.
ReplyDeleteThis past summer the media played a major role during the Edward Snowden’s revelations. It provided and explained how massive the program is and how it affects everyday citizens. The Internet had a major role in the Arab Spring movement and displayed what was going on in different protest through out the region.
The world is becoming more connected each year with the help of the Internet. More organizations are popping up to hold governments and its officials accountable of there actions. One example is the Sunlight foundation that is made up of different nonpartisan and nonprofit organizations. Its sole goal is to increase transparency and accountability of all branched of the US government. The more people become Internet and Political Internet literate, the more effective media outlets can be as a watchdog.
The technology revolution has significantly increased the media's effectiveness as a watchdog. Contemporary technology has allowed news and information is reaching exponentially more individuals at exponentially inclining speeds. As more eyes and ears are paying attention to political actors statements, they are far more hesitant to promote illegitimate or misleading statements. This becomes significant vis a vis partisan-leaning news outlets. Thousands of journalists with instantaneous access to internet fact sources (e.g. factcheck.org, etc.) are anticipating their statements. Whether the network believes it is politically or financially prudent to bring an error or incorrect statement to light, the mere deterrent effective is why the media is such a powerful watchdog.
ReplyDeletePolitically-leaning news outlets are more likely to act on an opposing party’s misleading statements.
Edits*
DeleteSecond sentence: Omit* (Contemporary technology has allowed)
It should read: "News and information is reaching.."
Third sentence: actor's*
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. I think with the greater amount of media and constant coverage, the media is fitting the role of watchdog, for there is literally always someone watching or tweeting. The media is effective at constant patrolling for news, which could be viewed as a branch of its watchdog power. There is always someone to look out for political scandal. However what's more interesting to me is the pew research showing the importance journalists, especially among young people. Yet two thirds say that news reports are inaccurate and tend to favor one side. How can society want journalists, but reject what they're reporting? It's a new phenomenon that seems to be emerging as media grows.
ReplyDelete2. Honestly I think each media source is watching out for different events or issues that will bring news to whatever side they lean towards. Therefore many of the major media outlets could be seen as effective watchdogs. As someone mentioned earlier, each station has its own agenda, therefore its difficult for me to even assess which media outlets are effective watchdogs.
I'm finding it difficult to say yes or no with any conviction. I think that at times, it can be an effective watchdog, especially when news programs have segments specifically designated to take this role. Someone mentioned Anderson Cooper's "Keeping Them Honest," which is a perfect example of this. Also, Rachel Maddow's "Debunktion Function," in which she fact checks circulating news stories and even "Ms. Information" in which she goes back and corrects any false information she mistakenly reported. I believe Chris Matthews has a "Rewrite" (or something along those lines) segment which he responds to misinformation reported in other news or stated by politicians or other public figures. (Apologies for my primarily liberal references). The point is, many programs are making an effort to keep the news correct. However, this says nothing about the choices of news stories covered, which I think is deeply influences by the companies that fund these programs and their interests and ties in politics. While I believe there is definitely a lot of misinformation in the news, I would argue that it is the omissions are most noteworthy in this discussion.
ReplyDeleteWhile evaluating the media as an effective watch dog, I would argue that they do an effective job if you are watching the right channels and reading the right content online or in the newspapers. From my experience, CNN, as demonstrated in the links provided, do an especially good job at using factchecker as a watchdog throughout elections. Fox is way too far to the right, while MSNBC is way too far to the left, and those stations can be frustrating to watch, especially during election season. CNN do their best to factcheck everything, so after each debate, I made sure to tune in to Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper to see what they have to say.
ReplyDeleteFactchecker.org is also a very useful tool to look at, especially during the RNC / DNC as well as the debates, because without factchecker, the candidates could fool voters so easily. The only problem is that the majority of the American people only watch the convention of their own party and then watch the channels and read the papers that lean toward their personal views, so they never have the opportunity of hearing the real facts or exploring the opposing side. Let's face it, both candidates usually lie or at least skew the facts.
I agree with some of the other comments here about Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart doing a great job at being watchdogs because even people who are not into politics watch those shows and they do a great job exposing the lies in a comedic way.
I think that with the way the media has evolved over the years into a competitive arena with many different possible outlets, it is in most cases effective as a watchdog. There are so many different choices for the American public to turn to that in order to keep viewership they must be always on the lookout for the next big story, which in turn enables them to be watchdogs. Things like twitter and other social media have also helped the media become more effective watchdogs. There are now more ways than ever to gather information and disseminate it, other than the traditional ways of newspapers and nightly broadcasts. News can come fast and from many different sources.
ReplyDeleteCable news channels like FOX and MSNBC are really bad at fulfilling the watchdog role on their own, but they are extremely tough on the other side. If we watch both of them then they actually when combined form pretty good watchdogs because they are both out to get as much bad news on the opposite party. Sources like pbs and cspan are better and more impartial. I trust them more as watchdogs because they look at both sides of a story.