Journalism, Journalism Education, and Democracy

Abstract

Many institutions want to be seen as contributing to the democratic community, and educational ones are no exception. Whether they would actually carry out what Alexander Meiklejohn called its primary task is another question, for schools, like other big institutions, are often nervous about politics of any kind. Perhaps for that reason, universities rarely teach anything stronger than political science, and administrators become nervous if students are too actively interested in controversial issues. Journalists are to some extent the exception, for political news is their lifeblood. Also, they have long believed that one of their obligations is to involve the members of the body politic in politics. As they see it, democracy rests on an informed citizenry, and journalism's task is to do the informing. However, the deadline and other commercial pressures under which journalists work keep them so busy that they rarely ask whether the information they supply is what an informed citizenry needs, or whether they can do much to create such a citizenry in the first place. News audiences may be declining in size, but they were always more interested in keeping up with the news than in being or becoming informed, except perhaps on Election Day. True, even if the news audience is not fully committed, journalists are essential in many ways to the survival of democracy, which is why dictators seek control of the news media the moment they take power. As Michael Schudson and others have pointed out, journalists not only keep people up-to-date on what the political institutions that represent them are doing for and to them, but also their mere presence reminds public officials that their performance is being watched and reported to their constituents. The journalists are not always successful in carrying out theso basic democratic tasks because politicians know how to behave when reporters are present or wait until they are gone. They also have political and rhetorical devices that journalists cannot cope with. More important, there are limits to what journalists can do. For example, in order to fill their news pages and programs, they must have a reliable and steady supply of news, and thus they must rely on public officials who have the authority, power, and resources to produce newsworthy events and statements. As a result, much of the national news is of the top-down variety, reporting what the White House and other high-level officials want people to know. In fact, much of the day-to-day national news consists of reports on what the government does, and, if journalists can get the story, on what government does wrong. The economy is usually relegated to the business section. Although its high-level officials have the authority, power, and resources to influence government; elect candidates; buy access to them; and obtain favorable legislation, they do not have to provide information to reporters. Even the major lobbies that translate their clients' economic power into political power rarely get into the news. As for the citizens, what they do politically is almost never news, except on election day, and even then, the half of the country that does not vote is for all practical purposes ignored. Otherwise, citizens are mostly newsworthy when they protest in ways that threaten or enrage the police. Polls are, of course, a regular vox populi, but the news media do little more than summarize them and report some highlights. Thus, news does not often travel from the bottom up. Some other journalistic shortcomings in carrying out the profession's democratic obligations have become glaringly apparent since November 2000. The news media worked hard to cover the post-election maneuvering, but they also wanted it to end as soon as possible. In order to be able to secure their steady and reliable supply of news, they needed the transition between governments to begin and the new White House to be in place on schedule. …