Here is a hypothetical example of how the public in a democracy uses the news media to govern itself:

A serious car accident occurs at a busy street intersection. The local (independent) newspaper reports the incident, noting it was one of five accidents that have occurred at that same spot in the past two months. Nearby residents read the article, and decide to petition the city council to install a traffic light at that crossing in front of their homes. The elected officials on the council agree with the petitioners (either on the merits of the case or out of fear of losing votes in the next election, or both). Thus, the taxpayers have decided how their tax dollars should be spent, and have prevailed upon their representatives in government to implement and enforce that decision. Democracy in action.

If the newspaper happened to be owned and controlled by the local government, it might have decided against publishing that article. Perhaps the city mayor would not want the people to think his traffic department is inefficient. Or perhaps he has other plans for spending tax revenues.

Seldom is the equation so simple, however, even at the community level. In the traffic case, let us say there is a counter- petition from citizens who do not want a light at that intersection, because they say it will seriously slow down traffic in the middle of the city -- inconveniencing a lot more people a lot more often than the few who live near that intersection. The newspaper, which has an opinion section, takes an editorial stand in favor of the traffic light. But because the newspaper wants to reflect a broad cross-section of voices in the community, it also publishes letters from citizens opposed to installing a new light. It may even run a commentary by one of its columnists who takes a position opposing the newspaper's own editorial (reflecting the publisher-owner's opinion). The newspaper also runs news articles quoting the mayor, who is against installing the traffic light.

Now we have a full-scale fight, and the newspaper is right in the middle of it. Some might even say that the newspaper caused the argument in the first place by publishing all those contradictory views, stirring up what had been a fairly calm and simple situation. But most agree that the newspaper provided a useful public service. In the end, the city council weighs all the evidence and arguments, including those from the powerful merchants who oppose the light, and decide to install the new light. Democracy in action.

Now to complicate the matter even more, let us say the publisher and editor of the newspaper, who are worried about declining sales, decide to take advantage of this minor public crisis to boost the paper's circulation.

They also want to use the crisis to embarrass the mayor, whom the newspaper dislikes and fiercely opposed for re-election. So, they devise a scheme to whet readers' appetites and at the same time make some political points. In this effort, they decide to run a false story that the mayor himself had a car accident at that intersection but tried to hide it. The mayor sues the newspaper for libel, and wins his case in court. As a result, the newspaper's plan backfires: Readers become so angry, they cancel their newspaper subscriptions, and the city council decides not to install that traffic light after all. Democracy in action?

One can say in this case that the marketplace worked fine -- the newspaper paid for its sins when the public voted with its pocketbook. But good governance suffered as well, because the city council made its decision for the wrong reasons (anger over press lies). In the end, the problem at that street intersection was not solved.

Back to text.

Issues of Democracy
USIA Electronic Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, February 1997