Chapter 2: Politics, Democracy and the Media

The Theory of Liberal Democracy

The ideas of liberal democracy today emerged from the bourgeois critique of autocracy in early
modern Europe, starting in the 1500s and leading to the French Revolution of 1789, which promoted
the ideas of ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.’ In autocratic societies, like those ruled by absolute
monarchs, power was held by kings or queens, believed to be chosen by God. Lower classes, such as
peasants and artisans, had no political rights. Even the aristocracy had to obey the monarch. State
institutions focused on maintaining this hierarchical system and suppressing any dissent.
As the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class) grew as a powerful economic force in Europe and America,
they needed to overthrow autocracy and its control over politics. For capitalism to thrive, people with
entrepreneurial skills needed freedom to think and act. This meant ending the absolute power of
monarchs, rejecting the divine right to rule, and recognizing the importance of capital earned through
commerce rather than inherited.
Philosophers like John Locke and John Milton critiqued autocratic power and proposed representative
democracy and citizenship rights, reflecting the new economic and political power of the bourgeoisie.
Voting rights were gradually expanded, starting with the British Reform Act of 1832, and assemblies
like the British House of Commons were created to prevent the abuse of power. Liberal democratic
theory aimed to protect individuals’ civil liberties from state interference.
For the bourgeoisie, rejecting divine rule was vital for legitimizing their new political power. By
seeking the consent of all citizens, elected leaders could demand respect and loyalty, even from those
who didn't vote for them. Citizens also had the right to oppose the government and express their views
at the polls.
The right to choose leaders assumed that citizens could make informed decisions. Democracy is
meaningful when it involves an educated electorate. Italian political sociologist Norberto Bobbio
stated that liberal democracy relies on citizens being informed enough to choose wisely among
candidates.
Key characteristics of a democratic regime are:
Constitutionality
There must be clear rules and procedures for conducting elections, how elected officials behave, and
what dissenters can do. These rules typically exist in a constitution or a bill of rights.
Participation
Democracy requires that a significant portion of the population takes part in the process. Initially,
citizenship rights were limited to wealthy, educated men. John Stuart Mill argued that only this group
could ensure a rational and informed electorate. However, this limitation showed the close link
between democracy and the bourgeoisie’s rise. Over time, voting rights were extended to lower
classes and, by the early 1900s, to women. In the US, black citizens gained the right to vote only in
the 1950s. Countries that denied voting rights to most citizens, like South Africa until 1994, are seen
as undemocratic.
Rational Choice
Democracy requires citizens to have choices in political parties (like Democrat vs. Republican) and
the ability to make informed decisions. This assumes a knowledgeable and educated population.
 Public Opinion and the Public Sphere

An informed electorate is crucial for democracy, which requires political discussion in public
spaces (unlike the secrecy of autocratic regimes). Information and knowledge for making
political choices must be freely accessible.
Democratic politics also requires individuals to act together to decide who will govern them.
Personal opinions become public opinion, influencing voting trends and guiding political
leaders. This concept of public opinion is shaped within what German sociologist Jürgen
Habermas called “the public sphere.”
The public sphere is a social space where public opinion can form. Citizens become a
collective when they discuss ideas freely, supported by the rights to assemble, associate, and
express their opinions.
Habermas believed the public sphere developed in 18th-century Britain, with newspapers
providing not just information but also opinions and critiques, facilitating discussions among
the bourgeoisie and educated classes. He noted that the term “public opinion” first appeared
in 1781, relating to the bourgeois public’s ability to form judgments.
Gripsund described the public sphere as a "buffer zone" between the state and private life,
protecting individuals from arbitrary state decisions. The press serves as a forum for rational
and critical discussions on cultural and political matters.
Josef Ernst defined the public sphere as a space where individuals can unite to become a
powerful political force. It represents the realm of bourgeois politics that has gradually
expanded to include larger portions of the population in modern democracies.
Essentially, the public sphere comprises the communication institutions that allow facts and
opinions to circulate and build a shared knowledge base for collective political action. Since
the 18th century, mass media has evolved as the primary source of shared experiences, and
“news” has become a vital way to inform citizens about important political matters and guide
public discussion.
THE MEDIA AND THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
From what has been stated thus far, we may now suggest five functions of the communication
media in ‘ideal-type’ democratic societies:
1. Surveillance: The media must inform citizens of what is happening around them.
2. Education: They must educate citizens on the meaning and significance of the ‘facts’. This
underscores the seriousness with which journalists protect their objectivity, as their value as
educators depends on their professional detachment from the issues being analyzed.
3. Public Discourse: The media must provide a platform for public political discourse,
facilitating the formation of ‘public opinion’ and feeding that opinion back to the public from
whence it came. This includes space for dissent, without which the notion of democratic
consensus is meaningless.
4. Watchdog Role: The media's fourth function is to give publicity to governmental and
political institutions. This ‘watchdog’ role of journalism was exemplified by the US media
during the Watergate episode and the British Guardian’s coverage of the cash-for-questions
scandal, where investigative journalists exposed members of parliament accepting payment
for parliamentary
questions. Public opinion can only matter if the acts of those in power are available for
scrutiny, meaning they must be visible, ascertainable, accessible, and hence accountable.
There must be a degree of ‘openness’ regarding the political class if public opinions are to
influence decision-making.
5. Advocacy: Finally, the media in democratic societies serve as a channel for the advocacy
of political viewpoints. Political parties require an outlet for articulating their policies and
programs to a mass audience, and thus the media must be open to them. Some media,
especially in print, will actively endorse parties at sensitive times like elections. The media’s
advocacy function can also be viewed as a means of persuasion.
For these functions to be performed adequately and for a real ‘public sphere’ to exist (and, by
extension, ‘real’ democracy), several conditions must be met. According to Habermas,
political discourse circulated by the media must be comprehensible to citizens and truthful,
reflecting the genuine intentions of speakers. Hauser summarizes Habermas’s views:
- The public sphere must be accessible to all citizens.
- There must be access to information.
- Specific means for transmitting information must be accessible to those who can be
influenced by it.
- There must be institutionalized guarantees for the public sphere to exist.
In short, democracy presumes an open state in which people are allowed to participate in
decision-making and have access to media and information networks through which
advocacy occurs. It also presumes an audience that is sufficiently educated and
knowledgeable to make rational and effective use of the information circulating in the public
sphere.
DEMOCRACY AND THE MEDIA: A CRITIQUE
Since the eighteenth century, the media and the functions listed above have become
increasingly important to the smooth workings of the democratic political process. The
achievement of universal suffrage in most advanced capitalist societies during the twentieth
century paralleled a technological revolution in mass communication, as print, film, radio,
and television became widely accessible.
Since the 1950s, particularly with the expansion of television, interpersonal political
communication has been marginalized. Nowadays, as Colin Seymour-Ure notes, television
has become an integral part of the environment within which political life occurs. Surveys
indicate that the media, including the internet, represent the primary source of political
information for most people.
Questions for Examination:
- How does contemporary political discourse as communicated through the media align
with the ideal described above?
- To what extent do the media fulfill their role as envisioned in liberal democratic
theory?
A critical examination of democratic structures and the surrounding media environment is
necessary. It is naive to expect that these institutions function perfectly, yet it is vital to
acknowledge their shortcomings and the implications of these deficiencies.
Failure of Education: Some observers argue that the normative assumption of a ‘rational’
citizenry is unrealistic. Bobbio describes the failure of the education system to produce
rational voters as one of the great ‘broken promises’ of liberal democracy, reflected in
growing political apathy, particularly in countries like the US. In the 2001 UK general
election, only 58% of eligible voters participated, while turnout was 65% in 2010.
Viewing low voter turnout from another angle suggests that political apathy may be a
rational, albeit cynical response to a political process where individual votes seem
inconsequential. Regular elections may feel ineffective, especially when one party retains
power with less than 50% support from the electorate.
For Jean Baudrillard, voter apathy represents a strategy of resistance against a system
perceived as rigged, where the masses are incorporated into a ‘game’ they cannot truly win.
This ‘silent passivity’ serves as a mode of defense against the perceived illegitimacy of
power.
Absence of Choice: Another limitation of democracy is the lack of genuine choice or
pluralism. The similarities between the policies and ideologies of major parties, like the US
Democratic and Republican parties, raise concerns about the real distinctions among them. In
Britain, the 1990s saw Labour and Conservative parties converge on many issues, with ‘New
Labour’ adopting previously right-wing policies. Such scenarios lead voters to feel that their
choice has little impact on their lives.
Capitalism and Power: Socialist and Marxist critiques argue that real power in capitalist
societies lies hidden behind formal political processes, in the boardrooms of big businesses
and within secretive, non-elected institutions. While citizens may elect a Labour government,
efforts to implement a genuine socialist program often face bureaucratic resistance, capital
flight, and other obstructions. Thus, the democratic process is viewed as a facade, with the
true levers of power wielded by those who cannot be voted for.
Even ardent defenders of liberal democracy acknowledge some of these criticisms. Assuming
democratic procedures are sound and election results meaningfully shape government
behavior, we may still identify a fundamental weakness in democratic theory regarding the
media. The theory assumes that citizens are rational actors who absorb available information
and make appropriate choices. However, what citizens experience as political information is
often the product of several invisible mediating processes.
The Manufacture of Consent
The processes of gaining public consent begin with politicians. The legitimacy of a liberal
democratic government relies on the consent of the governed. However, as Walter Lippmann
noted, this consent can be ‘manufactured’. By 1922, the 'manufacture of consent' had become
a deliberate strategy where politicians combined social psychology techniques with the
extensive reach of mass media. This book will explore these techniques and their evolution
over time. Recognizing their existence reveals a significant flaw in democratic theory: if the
information influencing political behavior is manufactured rather than based on objective
truth, the integrity of the public sphere is diminished. When citizens are manipulated instead
of being informed, democracy loses its authenticity and may take a more sinister form.
The line between ‘persuasion’—a recognized function of political actors—and
‘manipulation’—which implies propaganda and deceit—is often blurred. However, anyone
who believes in the absolute ethical purity of politicians would be naive to deny that
manipulation plays a significant role in modern democratic politics. This theme of
manipulation will be revisited later (see Chapter 7).
Politicians also aim to withhold information from citizens, sometimes citing ‘national
security’ or to avoid political embarrassment. The public nature of politics, considered
essential for liberal democracy by Bobbio, often clashes with politicians’ need for survival,
leading to sacrifices in transparency. Although secrecy and deception are not new in politics,
their continued existence, highlighted by events like Italy’s tangentopoli scandal in the mid-
1990s, shows that citizens often receive an incomplete view of political realities. We may
recognize this incompleteness when secrecy laws are applied for national security, but more
frequently, the concealment itself goes unnoticed unless a journalist or activist brings it to
light.
The manipulation of public opinion and the suppression of inconvenient information are
tactics employed by political actors through media institutions. Journalists sometimes try to
uncover hidden information, as will be discussed in Chapter 4, highlighting the media's
interest in monitoring politicians. Conversely, media outlets may collaborate with politicians
to conceal sensitive information, especially if they have strong ties to a government and
choose to downplay damaging stories.
Moreover, various aspects of media production make organizations susceptible to political
manipulation strategies. In 1962, Daniel Boorstin introduced the term ‘pseudo-event’ to
describe the growing trend of news and journalism covering inauthentic events. He argued
this tendency arose from the popular press's growth from the nineteenth century, resulting in
an increased demand for news content. The first interview with a public figure in the U.S.
occurred in 1859, followed by the first American press release in 1907. As printing and
broadcasting costs rose, it became necessary to keep the press and television active, leading
to a stronger focus on creating pseudo-events rather than just reporting them.
A key source of pseudo-events in the media is the political process—interviews with leaders,
news leaks, and press conferences generate reportable material. Thus, Boorstin argues that a
mutually beneficial relationship has developed between politicians and media professionals,
with each trying to meet the other's demand for news while maximizing their public
exposure. Boorstin viewed this trend unfavorably.
In a democratic society, freedom of speech and press includes the freedom to create pseudo-
events. Politicians, journalists, and media compete in this creation, offering attractive and
informative accounts of the world. They are free to speculate on facts and create new ones,
demanding answers to their own crafted questions. Our 'free market of ideas' presents
competing pseudo-events for public judgment. This raises questions about the true nature of
public information and its role in democracy.
For Boorstin, the rationalist idea of public information contributing to democracy is illusory
and artificial, as the political reporting available to citizens is dominated by spectacle rather
than substance.
The Limitations of Objectivity
Another criticism of the media's role in democracy centers on the journalistic ethic of
objectivity. This ethic emerged with mass media in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries and has faced criticism for being unattainable. It is argued that political reporting is
often biased and flawed—more subjective than objective and more partisan than impartial.
Lippmann pointed out in 1922 that every newspaper represents a series of choices about
which items to print, their placement, the space they occupy, and the emphasis they receive.
There are no true objective standards; only conventions shape these choices.