Traditionally the democratic position of the press in society is as a fourth estate acting completely independent of government intervention. However, since this ideological position was developed, the industry, politics and social arena have changed dramatically. Information technology and globalisation have morphed the planet and now we live in a different world; new attitudes to the modern press and its relationship with government need to be taken into account. This change of environment means that now political parties and governments would be foolish not to participate in the media arena in order to push their agendas. Having positions in their institutions such as a communications director is, therefore, a necessity for any modern political party but the policing of their activities within the media must remain in the hands of the media.
Use of progressive, pragmatic political ideals and a mix of age old political dogmas can achieve the best for everyone. Social Democratic approaches to the market appreciate that a mixed economy allows the state to work in conjunction with, and operate as part of, the market, allowing citizens to benefit from the best of both worlds. This pragmatic approach is surely the same with regard to the media. Currently the media is broadly based and omnipresent. Long gone is the time when the media consisted solely of printing presses and political parties were limited to simply putting up posters or printing leaflets to advertise their cause. Front line politicians such as Barak Obama use the internet in the shape of ‘myobama.com‘, Vladimir Putin has a Twitter account and Nick Clegg, a true front runner in the use of modern media, has a weekly programme on the wireless. Politicians have a right to be part of the modern world and that includes the media. They still have a right to put up posters and put leaflets through doors, they can issue party political broadcasts on the TV, and, if possible, use their influence in the media to promote themselves and their agendas. They do not, however, have the right to dictate content to the media and thereby control what the public consume.
The press must remain free and plural in its ownership. The dangers inherent in press regulation are similar to the dangers inherent in letting businessmen like Rupert Murdoch control large areas of the media. Murdoch enjoyed barrels of undemocratic power throughout recent Labour and Conservative governments due to his relationships with Prime Ministers Thatcher and Blair. Arguably there was little difference between the politics of these two bastions of British Democracy and both obviously saw a need to jump into bed with this charming Australian gent; after all, he had the power to make or break their premierships via his media empire.
Recently both Labour and Conservative governments have appointed communications directors in the shape of Alastair Campbell under Blair, and Andy Coulson under Cameron. Both men came from a background in the media and both were to fill legitimate political positions. Another similarity between the men: you wouldn’t have them in the house! Campbell has been accused in the past of ‘sexing up’ the ‘dodgy dossier’ on the Iraq War by exaggerating the threat of weapons of mass destruction, making him, at worst, complicit in starting an illegal war. Coulson, like Campbell, would also now appear to be a crook. He is in Court at the moment accused of various crimes such as phone hacking to mention just one. Alongside him in the dock is another one of the current Prime Minister’s chums, Rebekah Brooks, also part of the Murdoch dream team. These venal relationships are a threat to society and democracy and need to be regulated.
Oddly, the weak link in this network is, in fact, the media. Although they held legitimate positions, Coulson and Campbell enjoyed much more privilege than should ever have been allowed and the same can be said for Murdoch. The policing of their positions should have been in the hands of the media. Why the left wing press has not jumped on the trial of Andy Coulson is a mystery (a cynic might argue that close ties to government and the judiciary had a part to play) but they haven’t. Occasionally one might catch a mention of his relationship with the Torys in the Guardian, or Private Eye might issue a piece on the criminal activities of corrupt associates of political parties, but this should be an outrage. Ditto Campbell and the Labour Party. The lack of plurality in ownership and the fact that the motivation comes from the bottom line rather than from a commitment to a healthy democracy, means that now the modern media is soaked in beige dross.
Vile contributors like Simon Cowell together with odious proprietors such as Murdoch (not to mention pornographers like Richard Desmond) have aimed their work at the lowest common denominator rather than upholding the true position of the fourth estate; instead of educating, informing and entertaining, they busy themselves with sedating. If they were to fulfil their unique and powerful role in democratic society no government would dare employ nefarious characters like Coulson or Campbell for fear of being exposed.
In conclusion then, it is clear that the environment in which the media and politics exist has changed. With this change must come pragmatism and modern politicians certainly have a right to participate in the media – but, the independent role of the fourth estate remains paramount. The media must continue to critique government and politicians, it must remain free from legislation and there must be plurality of ownership if it is to fulfil its democratic role in British democracy. Contemporary concerns with state/media relations have grown out of a dysfunctional media poisoned by a lack of plural ownership which has allowed Murdoch to become a kingmaker. Unfortunately this democratic utopia of transparency, participation and plurality in both the media and politics is far from being a reality in today’s society. The power to change is in the hands of the public but, when this is in competition with teams of world class sales people, the probability of a move from the status quo is, unfortunately, slim. Maybe if someone were to dress Cameron, Clegg and Miliband in ballroom gowns and have them dance in front of a panel of judges the public might start to take interest in how their country is run.
tomsrantspace 
Reblogged this on tomsrantspace.