PHIL 109 ESSAY 20180611 Paper 2

3063858
Media’s organization model

and its democratic role
PHIL 109 // 2018-06-11 // Paper 2
The media, the collection of “mass communication” institutions -such as

newspapers, broadcasters or social media- which control people’s access to
information, plays an essential role in maintaining a functioning
democratic system (Garton Ash, 2016) (Oxford University Press). That is
to inform society of the happenings in the nation and the world and of the
activities of the three democratic powers1 in what is known as journalism.
Furthermore, it disseminates people’s opinions on current affairs. This
latter attribution, further democratized since the creation of the Internet,
makes media the platform through which collective discussions happen in
modern society. As philosopher Garton Ash states, without media, we
would not be capable of
mak[ing] well-informed choices on issues of public policy

and participat[ing] fully in political life. Media, old and new,
are the primary means we have to create a public sphere and
to practi[c]e self-government. (Garton Ash, 2016)
To fulfill such democratic duty, media institutions need to follow certain

criteria. First, they need to report events truthfully: if they do not respect
reality, people will not have accurate information on which base their
democratic opinions and decisions. From this, it follows that media must
both be free of censorship and manipulation. Otherwise, the veracity of its
reporting could be compromised. It also follows it must have the resources
1
Executive, legislative and judiciary
1
and ability to expose the truth. Some people question the possibility for
media and journalists to be objective; since we all have personal biases
that affect our perception.
Acknowledging that reality, there are multiple ways to ensure honest

reporting. One is to make the journalist’s biases apparent. It can happen in
multiple ways: there can still be an aim towards objectivity, or a clear
display of prejudiced coverage. While the latter requires the audience to
expose itself to multiple accounts of the same event; the first allows it to
recognize the facts merely moderated by the journalist’s unavoidable
subjectivity. Thus, the latter model requires extra effort by society, which
can be neither controlled nor ensured.
An alternative method to overcome bias is to strive for impartiality.

Instead of the reporter describing his/her perception of the facts, the
multiple accounts of the events are recorded in the information piece. This
technique allows the audience to form its own opinion without media’s
interference. However, some standpoints might be omitted. And the
amount of trustworthiness and value of each position might be as
subjective to establish a single record of the facts.
A second criterion to accomplish media’s goals is it must be plural. Given

media constitutes the main political discussion arena; all relevant
perspectives shall be published. This principle is necessary to ensure de
facto freedom of expression: where all ideas are not only free to be
expressed but also part of the collective discussion; and, therefore,
criticisms and alternatives to the dominating ideologies can rise in
importance based on the citizens’ reflection.
To pursue their duties, media institutions organize themselves into

structures which can take multiple forms. Regarding ownership and type
of legal incorporation, we can differentiate among private businesses,
nonprofits, public-owned corporations and others. In most countries, the
vastly predominant system is the first. However, I believe a media system
mainly containing businesses in market competition is not a framework
where media’s role can be properly performed. For it incentivizes
sensationalist and sectarian journalism as well as the censorship of
controversial ideas.
2
Regarding sensationalism, we must recall businesses have the goal of
making a profit. While some argue providing a good service -in this case,
journalism and opinion- is the best way to generate revenue,
democratically accomplished journalism is not necessarily what people
naturally choose to consume. Media corporations often resort to irrelevant
attention-grabbing topics to get the audience’s interest. Thus, the issues on
the spotlight are not those the citizens need to be informed of for the
functioning of democracy but rather those which ensure higher sales.
Moreover, the most attention-maximizing ways of treating information are

not among the objectivity-aiming set of frameworks discussed above.
Instead, hyperbole and deformation can be used to make the topics
discussed even more eye-catching. Yet, those are exactly the opposite
methods to the ones required to fulfill media’s democratic duty. For
instead of striving for the truth, they manipulate it to hunt more sales.
Nevertheless, not all media corporations resort to sensationalism. In many

societies there exists a market for good journalism (according to the
previously set criteria). The problem, though, is the mere existence of
market segmentation. Having multiple profit-seeking media businesses
not only entices them to compete in attention-grabbing but also to cater to
specific audiences. While a reasonable business strategy, it is problematic
in terms of media being the arena of public discussion. For people tend to
select those media outlets that better abide by their biases and style
preferences2. However, it can be argued that the path to find truth and
reason one’s opinion is through being exposed to opinions and analyses
that contradict your intuition (Mill, 1978). If people are only exposed to
information that reinforces their biases, they cannot reflect whether their
political opinions and supports are grounded.
2
Some studies question whether people do tend to choose news outlets
that follow their thinking (see Garton Ash, 2016). However, the increasing
importance of social media (e.g. Facebook or Twitter) to source people’s
news and opinions makes the reliability of such studies irrelevant, given
that these platforms algorithmically filter the content every individual is
exposed to match their ideological traits.
3
As aforementioned, the solution to clearly biased media outlets is for
people to obtain their information through different outlets. It seems the
Internet revolution could greatly facilitate this process; since it has both
magnified the number of sources at reach by an individual and vastly
reduced the barriers to access information -most media outlets are free
through the Internet. Yet, recent political developments -such as the
increased ideological polarization in European and North American
countries- suggest that in fact, the use of resources social as channels does
not pluralistic sourcing of information; but rather more segmentation of
the media market. Deterring the extent to which subjectivity is
counteracted in a citizen’s intake of information.
The resulting situation is that more media businesses face greater

competition to capture the audience of each segment of the market. One
could think it would translate into more nuanced outlets targeting micro-
segments of the ideological spectrum. Nonetheless, the reality is that to
maintain large audiences it is a more profitable business decision to cater
to a larger segment. Then, compete with other businesses in terms of the
sensationalism and radicality of the media outlet. For it allows more
people to feel identified with the outlet and at the same time appeal to
their intuitions and uncontested biases. The combination of increased
radicality and market segmentation is a not only biased but increasingly
sectarian media. Where people are almost only exposed to ideas that do
not challenge their own, harming the role of media as the market of ideas.
And instead, creating eco-chambers which challenge themselves the basis
of liberal democracy -in the sense of it being based in rational decision-
making by informed citizens.
Another problem of media being organized as for-profits is that there is an

incentive for censorship. We have already established that media
corporations need large audiences to maximize their profits. From the
conclusion of it tending towards sectarianism, it easily follows unpopular
opinions will not find a space in which be discussed in mainstream media 3.
3
It is true that within the Internet, one can easily publish his/her own
opinions without the necessity of it being part of a major media outlet. In
this case, I am referring to ideas being discussed not in marginal corners of
the web but rather on the mainstream.
4
Additionally, since all corporations basically depend on its owner’s
decisions, it is unlikely that a media outlet would publish any information
contradicting the owners’ interests. Furthermore, and even more so in
digital media, advertisers are an essential part of media outlets’ revenue.
Hence, it is an uneconomic business decision to publish any content that
might offend or harm the outlet’s advertisers.
Censorship in media’s consequences are particularly harmful to both

criteria of truthful and plural media. The first is affected by media
corporations’ incentive to suppress truths that contradict its stakeholders’
interests. The second, by the difficulty that opinions that exceed the
mainstream find a platform.
Having considered the problematics of media existing in the form of

corporations, it is equally necessary to name some of its benefits. It is a
very efficient system for media to generate enough resources -recall it
requires them to uncover truths. Also, compared to the other main system,
publicly-owned enterprises, it is more likely to be free of government
censorship. Yet, through both institutional advertisements and subsidies,
the government can still influence private corporations. Moreover, some
publicly-owned media outlets (e.g. the BBC) epitomize impartial
journalism.
While I find more plausible to remedy the problems of public media

through independent democratic balances than solving the business ones;
it is perhaps in the combination of both, and other systems like nonprofits,
that the most efficacious media can be for its democratic purposes.
5
Bibliography
Garton Ash, T. (2016). Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected
World. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Mill, J. S. (1978). On Liberty. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company,

Inc.
Oxford University Press. (n.d.). media. Retrieved 06 09, 2018, from

Oxford English Dictionary Online:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/media#h701800400
52640

PHIL 109 ESSAY 20180611 Paper 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHIL 109 ESSAY 20180611 Paper 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3063858

Media’s organization model

The media, the collection of “mass communication” institutions -such as

mak[ing] well-informed choices on issues of public policy

To fulfill such democratic duty, media institutions need to follow certain

Acknowledging that reality, there are multiple ways to ensure honest

An alternative method to overcome bias is to strive for impartiality.

A second criterion to accomplish media’s goals is it must be plural. Given

To pursue their duties, media institutions organize themselves into

Moreover, the most attention-maximizing ways of treating information are

Nevertheless, not all media corporations resort to sensationalism. In many

The resulting situation is that more media businesses face greater

Another problem of media being organized as for-profits is that there is an

Censorship in media’s consequences are particularly harmful to both

Having considered the problematics of media existing in the form of

While I find more plausible to remedy the problems of public media

Mill, J. S. (1978). On Liberty. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company,

Oxford University Press. (n.d.). media. Retrieved 06 09, 2018, from

You might also like