Democracy in its purest form was designed to be a balanced system. Separate judiciary, executive and legislative institutions of government are not enough. Thus the freedom of speech exists to create another institution — the press. The press was designed as a watchdog; it was there to pay the price of eternal vigilance to guarantee freedom. It was to be the eyes of the public into the workings of the government.
The system worked reasonably well for many years. The early United States and later the U.K. were good examples. Of course there were faults in the implementation of democracy at these times. Slavery, disenfranchisement of women and minorities and other issues faulted these early democracies, but the balance of the system itself was maintained.
Mass Media:
The press had for many years practiced its role in earnest, with great vigilance; the watchdog of democracy was truly thus, it bared great teeth and helped maintain the balance of the democratic system. But at the advent of mass media, this began to change and the balance was tipped.
Mass Media is a business and just like any other business its main goal is to make money and create value for its shareholders. This however affects more than the business-world as this specific business also happens to be a pillar of the democratic system.
The economics of Mass Media under a free-market economy mean that as time progresses more media outlets belong to a fewer stake-holders. It is the economy of scale, and it affects Media just like any other business which can scale well. However I am not here to make the crank case that our minds are being controlled by back-room deals by media-barons who want to tell us what to think. The problem arrives without any conspiracy by the basic tenants of big business.
Perfectly reasonably, Mass Media wants to make money just like any other business. The Media’s business model is based on revenue from advertisements and (to a lesser degree) subscriptions. This means they are relying on circulation and ratings — these are both basically the same thing — it means ‘how many people view this media’. It all collapses to a simple equation of Ratings => Revenue.
Thus from the lowly reporter to the high-ranking manager the employees of Mass Media gear towards this goal. “Ratings!” they chant in the boardrooms. “Ratings!” they call out in the newsrooms. Well then, it is a long known open-secret of the trade, perfected to an art by William Randolph Hearst in the late 20th and early 21st century, the best emotion to elevate ratings is… fear. The new equation driving Mass Media thus became: Fear => Ratings => Revenue.
Now on their own there is only so much fear the media can strike into our hearts before the population loses its trust and ratings drop sharply. The problem is not media on its own… To understand what is going on we first have to evaluate yet another pillar of democracy…Politicians:
Politicians are the ‘main ingredient’ of two of the core institutions of democracy. They are the core of both the Legislative and the Executive branches of government. While they may (or may not) have the best interest of the people in mind, their vision of that ‘best interest’ varies greatly from one politician to another. To push forward one’s views, one requires power. To gain power in the democratic system, one requires voters. To garner voters in the democratic system, one has to appeal to the masses…
In the ‘Getting Elected for Dummies’ book, the first chapter lists the ‘Means of Garnering Voters’. There are several means listed under that heading: “Inspire Your Voters” or “Woo Your Voters” are good examples.
However, the item listed right at the very top of the page, underlined and in bold-face type is: “Strike-Fear Unto Their Hearts”.
Now you see. The balance of democracy was broken at the core and in a frightful way without any catastrophic event, chiming of bells or flaring of horns. Silently and without warning three of the institutions of democracy had now gained a common means to pursue their distinct interests: Fear.
While their goals are different, their interests were aligned and so formed the Coalition of Fear.
It is an ad-hoc coalition. The media will give air-time to a fear-mongering politician not because they necessarily agree with his views. They will allow air-time for his messages because it serves their purpose as well; Fear will bring in the viewers, the readers, the listeners and the revenue. The media is so used by the politicians, but at the same time it uses them. In nature this is called symbiosis.
This system will not award the politician who inspires his voters. The lowest-barrier of entry is for politicians who vend fear. And there is always fear to invoke. Fear of change, if things are good, fear of no-improvement if things are bad, fear of foreigners, fear of abstract threats, and even fear of a ‘dangerous’ idea…
As an exercise for the reader I leave this: Think back and try and recall items of news that imply fear. How many of them were brought up by Politicians? How many were already prevalent in the reporting of the media and a politician conveniently became their spokesperson?
What we have now is an unbalanced system, from the physical world we know that unbalanced systems tend to move between extremes. We need to find a way to restore the balance or democracy will not survive. There is a certain development in our world that promises to bring such a balance, and I will discuss it in another post. I do believe most can guess what I am referring to. Will it deliver? We’ll see.
