In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville's 19th-century study, justifiably considered the most penetrating and enduring analysis of the United States ever written, the author writes: "The more I observe the main effects of a free press, the more convinced am I that, in the modern world, freedom of the press is the principal and, so to say, the constitutive element in freedom." A few sentences later, he adds: "In America there is no limit to freedom of association for political ends."

>From his travels and acute observations, Tocqueville easily recognized the connections between "a free press" and "freedom of association for political ends." Since the 1960s and 1970s, just as journalism became more investigatory vis-a-vis government, citizen groups and nongovernment organizations have multiplied across America to serve as watchdogs and critics of the conduct of public business and of those either elected or appointed to do that business.

Groups such as Common Cause, Public Citizen and the Center for Public Integrity have made public activity -- or inactivity -- their focus of attention and reason for being, communicating their research findings to members of their organizations and through the news media to the citizenry at large. As a result, federal, state and local governments are now subject to monitoring on a continuing basis as never before.

Public Awareness Organizations as Watchdog

Common Cause, which was founded in 1970 and now has over 250,000 members (as well as a staff of 50 in Washington), uses the slogan "Holding Power Accountable." Committed to open and ethical politics and governing, the organization has helped initiate legislation for reforming the funding of presidential campaigns, for creating "sunshine" laws to insure public business is conducted in public and not behind closed doors, for ending outside gifts and lucrative speaking fees for members of Congress from special interests, and for establishing disclosure requirements for lobbyists trying to influence legislation or government agencies.

While Common Cause focuses on political and government reform, the watchdog group Public Citizen has had a more encompassing agenda. Founded by consumer activist Ralph Nader in 1971, Public Citizen focuses more on American consumer concerns -- notably safe food and drugs, professional medical care and energy conservation. However, one arm of Public Citizen, Congress Watch, also monitors government and focuses on corporate accountability, campaign finance reform, public education, and research and media outreach. Nader and his co-workers were instrumental in the legislation creating the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Pursuing a somewhat different approach from other groups, the Center for Public Integrity, founded in 1990, combines the methodologies of political science and the techniques of investigative reporting in researching and releasing reports and book-length studies on such topics as questionable contributions in presidential and congressional campaigns, the dangers of under-regulated pesticides and the decline in privacy as technology becomes more sophisticated. What makes the Center for Public Integrity distinctive is its emphasis on investigative reporting and its relationship with established journalistic institutions. For instance, its analysis of campaign contributions to members of Indiana's state general assembly resulted in a detailed series of articles in 1996 in the Indianapolis Star and a week-long report on local television.

In these and other cases, an independent watchdog organization is providing sophisticated research assistance for the news media to use in their work. At a time when some news institutions claim they cannot afford expensive investigations of complicated subjects, the Center for Public Integrity helps defray the costly background inquiry, with the findings ultimately appearing in major media outlets. In the balance, news institutions and the Center achieve their common objectives, with public awareness benefitting from the joint effort.

The Press as Watchdog

Near the end of his life in 1836, James Madison wrote in a letter, "A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." What the fourth president and father of the U.S. Constitution could never have envisioned was a world with such an array of sources of available information that acquiring the knowledge that leads to power takes more effort today than ever before.

Although access to political and government news and reports is now relatively easy, sorting through the volume of daily information poses a serious, potentially debilitating problem for the average citizen. The media present so many messages that most people are forced to seek civic information in a deliberate, active way. With constantly multiplying broadcast, print and cyber sources, it's no longer possible to expect that people to share a common body of information about civic life.

Although media usage has by no means declined in recent years, new media options result in less attention to traditional news outlets, forcing Americans who want to be informed about public affairs to take greater personal initiative to learn what's happening. Concerned citizens now must go to special media sources featuring political and government information for the necessary background to make decisions, for example, about voting or working to change or affect public policy. And the multiplicity of available outlets means mastering myriad data. Otherwise, one consequence could well be a sense of information overload or a personal quandary about the most appropriate direction to take.

But such work demands perspective and recognition of the limitations that exist in relying on the media alone for guidance. As the respected American columnist and author Walter Lippmann once argued, "The press is no substitute for institutions. It is like the beam of a searchlight that moves restlessly about, bringing one episode and then another out of darkness into vision. Men cannot do the work of the world by this light alone. They cannot govern society by episodes, incidents and eruptions. It is only when they work by a steady light of their own that the press, when it is turned upon them, reveals a situation intelligible enough for a popular decision."

Maintaining "a steady light" with which to see the strengths and weaknesses of the different levels of government is the first step in responsible citizenship. >From that comes individual and collective action that seeks to correct or improve aspects of politics and governance. Especially since the 1960s and 1970s, American news coverage of government has assumed a more pronounced adversarial stance. The Vietnam War and the Watergate scandals not only lowered citizen confidence and trust in the government's work; those two events forced the media and the public to question whether the government and its officials were truthful and thus made journalists more aggressive in their reporting of public affairs and government administrators at every level. In particular, the coverage of Watergate and Richard Nixon's administration by Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein changed the ethos of journalism, giving rise to probing, investigative coverage and analysis.

What's different today, aside from the aggressive reporting style of Woodward and Bernstein, is the new environment for news, complete with many more broadcast and Internet sources. Each outlet requires a constant supply of new messages, leading to more opportunities for the news media to serve as watchdog. How well the different institutions fulfill that role is widely debated both inside and outside journalism, but the facts of the new ethos and environment are critical in understanding the contemporary relationship between government and the news media.

During the past three decades, as news outlets have proliferated and become more aggressive, government offices and agencies at every level have become more sensitive to the public's perception of their work. So many competing messages now circulate in the coverage of major stories that forming a reasoned viewpoint, based on accurate facts and fair interpretation, is increasingly difficult. As the noted ABC television journalist Ted Koppel remarked in a recent lecture: "There are at least two kinds of extreme ignorance. For centuries we have been familiar with the first kind -- an ignorance that covered most of the world like a dark cloud; an ignorance that exists in a vacuum, where no information is available. The second kind is a more recent phenomenon, one which presents itself in the form of a paradox. This second form of ignorance exists in a world of electronic anarchy, where so much information abounds that the mind doesn't know what to believe. Information does not always lead to knowledge; and knowledge is rarely enough to produce wisdom."

In this new information environment, with government officials trying to make sure their rationale for public policies and actions receives attention, tension between government on all levels and the news media is inevitable. The First Amendment to the Constitution insuring freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petitioning "the Government for a redress of grievances" is both a shield and a sword for journalists in covering public affairs.

One significant battle between the government and the press occurred in 1971, when the administration of President Richard Nixon tried to halt the publication of documents about American involvement in the Vietnam War. Called the Pentagon Papers Case (officially New York Times v. U.S.), it was the first time the federal government tried to pre-censor major news outlets -- the New York Times and the Washington Post -- for endangering national security.

However, by a 6-3 vote of the Supreme Court, the government's effort to restrain the press was not allowed, and publication of the Pentagon Papers proceeded. This landmark case, decided as the Vietnam War raged on and involving the president of the United States and two leading news organizations, became an influential victory for journalism in the press- government relationship. The Supreme Court's affirmation of the First Amendment three decades ago continues to embolden the press today.

An Ever-Present Watchdog

In his second inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson noted that "the artillery of the press has been leveled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare." Yet earlier in his career, Jefferson had proclaimed that in choosing "government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter."

Embedded in Jefferson's differing views of the press are several lessons with continuing relevance for anyone attempting to understand the relationship between government and journalism or, more generally, government and outside watchdogs seeking accountability in the conduct of public affairs.

Early on, Jefferson recognized the value of newspapers for citizen self-governance and freedom, but later as president, he found the reportage and criticism detrimental to his own efforts at governing. Jefferson was neither the first nor last occupant of the White House to complain vociferously about press mistreatment of his presidency.

But Jefferson's complaints, along with those of government officials throughout the ages, are what fuel the fires for keeping the public well informed. Suspicion of governmental power encroaching on individual freedoms has always been a defining American characteristic. Indeed, the Founding Fathers established different branches of government -- executive, legislative and judicial -- that proliferated at the national, state and local levels, providing "checks and balances" on public bodies and officials. Unofficially, yet significantly, the news media, public interest groups and citizens -- either acting alone or collectively -- monitor what's happening in government and seek changes or corrections when they seem warranted. By engaging in their day-to-day and multi-faceted activities, the work of these "watchdogs" -- in holding government accountable and faithful to the nation's ideals -- help keep the United States on an unending path to a more representative and purposeful democracy.

Back to top | Issues of Democracy, August 2000 | Other IIP E-Journals | IIP Home