One of the functions any watchdog of democracy is to keep open the range of political discussion.
But does that matter if the public stage is manipulated and the “agora” is empty of active citizens, who are not otherwise consumed by entertainment? (Sometimes people do not turn up for events because invitations get lost in the blizzard of emails, and somebody has not been attentive to matters of administration as they might be.)
At the various levels of government there is a narrowing of the political horizon of what is possible. At the local level where the notion of administered solutions and token democracy is pronounced, the problem is most egregious.
It has long being supposed that the media were watchdogs for democracy, and on some occasions there may be the case. Gary at Public Opinion describes “access journalism”. The implication is that public policy alternatives are restricted, and the process of elmination of alternatives is behind the curtain and not on the public stage. Gary observes:
It’s the ability of politicians, journalists and pundits to avoid meaningful challenges to their views that, more than any other factor, degrades our political discourse. So we have a self-imposed cocooning process that is now pervasive and has become the norm. The gatekeeping that takes place in the media functions to protect access journalism.
Aside from consideration of the processes of economic consolidation and power, and the resultant framing of the political economy, it seems that the precepts and conditions of democracy can be ascribed. These include the proposition that all relevant and important alternatives should be under consideration with the pre-condition that all horses should be running. Public opinion, ideally informed public opinion should decide the winner at any point along the course.
Leave aside the notion that the public stage, especially now as financial crises of the pampleting that gave rise to newspapers. Murdoch in his ABC lectures did not really address a practical business model that would quarantee journalism, independent or otherwise.
Despite the potential of the internet, and new forms such as blogs, we seem to be caught up in a narrowing universe of democratic debate. One of the best illustrations is of Obama’s health summit, which will not be considering the single-payer alternative.
A practical illustration of this process, with relevance to Australia, is the increasing violence and chaos in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Clearly nonviolence could never be an option. Tom Engelhardt, of Tom Dispatch, talks with Scott Horton at Anti-War.com about the results of the media’s war agenda. Tom Engelhardt writes:
After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, those few who suggested that the appropriate response might be intensive, determined global police action, not the loosing of the might of the U.S. military on Afghanistan, were derisively hooted from the room. It was so obvious that an invasion was not only a necessity, but couldn’t fail against the ragtag Taliban and their al-Qaedan allies, not given the military might of the planet’s “sole superpower.” Even now, when it comes to that invasion “lite” and the subsequent occupation of Afghanistan from which unending disaster ensued, no mea culpas have been offered; nor does anyone in the mainstream pay the slightest attention to those who worried about, or warned against, such an approach.
Conclusions:
(The perennial question, what is to be done? I have not thought carefully and fully about what these might be. )