To fully grasp the extent of media-state collaboration, one has to evaluate the extent to which media has fulfilled its primary purposes. For example, the primary roles of Journalism are to inform and educate the general public about domestic and international political developments. Apart from these functions, the mass media is also expected to serve as a dissenting voice against excesses of power. In an ideal world the press would act as a faithful servant to the general public, earnestly endeavoring to inform and educate them. But the state of media in the contemporary world is far from ideal, which is reflected in the news product (TV news programme or newspaper) as well as the processes involved in making the product (including editorial policy, government censorship, advertiser pressure, etc). Instead of the media framework being set by democratic mechanisms from the bottom-up, we actually have a system that is directed by corporate and political interests. It is no surprise then that the general public is increasingly growing sceptical of the motives that decide editorial frameworks. Coinciding with the decline in public confidence on media industry is the disturbing trend of incompetence among journalists. This phenomenon is more obvious in the electronic media – especially Television – where many talk show hosts don’t have the requisite expertise and range of knowledge to hold forth on issues of international diplomacy and economics. These “celebrity journalists” seem to pick and choose stories that serve their own career prospects as opposed to keeping the interests of the viewers in mind (Shaw, 1999, p. 6).
Also, while the present state of media leaves a lot to be desired, media reform is not as straight forward as one might expect. For instance, “in the process of media reform, the general assumption is that media should progress ever nearer to an ideal of freedom and independence and away from dependency and control” (Craig, 2004). Many scholars concur that a media industry that is independent of governmental and corporate interference is better equipped to sustain the competitive and participative elements that keep alive democratic traditions. Yet, “free and independent media are not a good in and of themselves, but only in as much as they support other, more intrinsic values and goals (that is, democracy, a particular economic structure, greater cultural understanding, general human development, and so on). In a certain sense, free and independent media buttress these greater societal objectives and are, therefore, subordinate to them” (Gerbner, 2001, p.186).
Hence, in sum, it could be asserted that the government and media largely depend on one another. For the media houses, which are mostly business corporations, pleasing the government is a way to more profits. For the government, befriending the media goes a long way in help retain power. So, as long as this symbiotic arrangement goes undisturbed, the general public will not find their interests served. On a more optimistic note, there are some signs already that the media’s role as an ideological vehicle is facing a new challenge. With the advent of new technologies for communication, people have more control over the content and are in a better position to demand what they want. Many surveys have reflected the fact that public opinion is in favour of such empowerment. It remains to be seen, however, when this change actually manifests. While this will justly diminish media’s role as collaborators with an ideologue, it will help democratic governance and overall public contentment (Eldridge, Kitzinger & Williams, 1997, p. 160).
Bibliography:
Eldridge, J., Kitzinger, J., & Williams, K. (1997)., The Mass Media and Power in Modern Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Negrine, R. (1994)., Politics and the Mass Media in Britain. New York: Routledge.
Payne, K. (2005)., The Media as an Instrument of War. Parameters, 35(1), 81+.