Freedom of the press, or any other forms of freedom as the word is wielded by the liberal West, often refers to only the absence of government interventions, which in turn exposes the enterprise to market forces, aka the “free” market, where it is subjected to all the problems presented by late-stage capitalism.
Through this lens, to be free is to be released from publicly funded shackles just to put on commercially manufactured handcuffs. Instead of forced speech and censorship through power, information is curated through the eyes of the money-holders, which, in my opinion, makes propaganda more difficult to detect and therefore more effective.
Non-fascist propaganda is still propaganda
Propaganda from the victor simply becomes the truth. And so, as the winner of the First Cold War, the US has established a convincing narrative that propaganda is (1) an evil thing; and (2) a thing that is only done by governments and in particular “non-democratic” governments.
But propaganda need not be sinister nor intentional or government-backed. It can be systemic and exist without bad individual actors.
Disclaimer: I am not here to make a both-side argument, that propaganda exists everywhere and we just have to deal with it. I am here to assert that propaganda is everywhere and share my thoughts on how I (and many sociologists) think that Americans are less aware of propaganda compared to those whom they view as being more vulnerable to propaganda, i.e. citizens from totalitarian regimes.
The work of journalism is to curate and present information and narratives. Media outlets are companies formed by people. People have ideologies and so companies formed by certain people would have certain ideologies, which affects who they hire and what they push out.
Curiosity kills the Schrodinger’s cat
Here is where I reluctantly align with a viewpoint commonly touted by rural conservatives, that there is a liberal elitist bias in media. There is a long list of unofficial requirements for one to become a journalist. These are not job qualifications or certificates, but a combination of privileges and aptitude.
English writing skills and geographical origins and personal networks aside, journalists are generally curious personalities — to have the yearning to discover and understand an event and to put it in perspective, which requires the conception of a narrative. Regardless of whether this narrative is openly presented in the final reporting, the process of writing requires the journalist to translate events into words. Just as a foreign work of literature is limited by the vocabulary of the translator, a piece of reporting is limited by the lens of the journalist.
The reporting of an event is the conversion of a quantum phenomenon into data. It collapses the abstract and the perspective of the observer kills the cat.
The enterprise of the press also tends to attract those who are passionate about causes. This may be an upside if you believe democracy is at its most effective when everyone is yelling as loudly as they are passionate about their opinions. But the side effect (or the main effect) is an ever-escalating arms race of propaganda and the increasing emphasis on packaging narratives alongside facts and the hyper-politicization of everything.
The undemocratic fourth branch
A free press is often referred to as the fourth branch of a democratic government because of its perceived ability to counter the other three branches. Without the news industry, public opinion may be truly organic but also chaotic and impossible to navigate. The news industry institutionalizes and organizes this fourth branch. Like most of the US Constitution, it was a good idea to start with, at least in spirit, but late-stage capitalism has ruined most things by now.
Arguably wielding more power than any of the public branches of government to influence the public, the decision-makers of this fourth branch are, however, chosen in the most undemocratic manner. By that, I mean they are not elected, but chosen by private entities behind closed doors, HR managers and advisory boards, etc. Combine this with the market dominance of media conglomerates — the free press is as free as one is free to open up a grocery store next to a Walmart.
The runaway stratification of journalists and media tycoons from the general public while also being their (hu)mansplainers, can lead to many ugly effects that can only be corrected through the self-realizations of those in power, e.g. the public would be immersed by the narrative that one should go fight in Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan unless the news anchor/editor-in-chief/CEO of CNN/FOX/WaPo decided otherwise.
I have seen Democrats or Republicans turn into doves or hawks depending on whether their party is currently in command of the military (aka sitting in the White House). It chills my bone in realizing the effectiveness and dedication of the enterprise in creating ideologically consistent arguments for both sides and therefore the trivialness of facts and the power of narratives.
This is especially apparent to me when the reporting is about one of America’s adversaries or any groups that fall outside the purview of mainstream left-wing and right-wing media, which is most of the world’s population. If the US wants to start a war, it will be able to manufacture consent for it. And there are no bad actors. The collective enterprise of the news media and the general consciousness and subconsciousness of the population would will this narrative into existence.
As a thought exercise, can you name the top ten most populous countries in the world?
…
…
…
…
…
…
They are China, India, the US, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Brazil, Bangladesh, Russia, and Mexico.
Now, think of how many of these countries you consider whose opinion need not matter because (1) they are evil, or (2) they are poor. Do you think most of the population in those countries, which represent most of the world’s population, would agree with your interpretation of US foreign policies, which disproportionately affect the rest of the world? If you think they’d disagree. Do you think you are out of touch? Or that everyone else is wrong?
Epilogue: A peer-reviewed newspaper?
I want to preface that a peer-reviewed newspaper is in no way viable, but it is an interesting idea to inject some checks and balances into the news industry, which is largely only subjected to self-review.
As a scientific editor, I am also guilty of being an un-democratically chosen curator of information. That being said, my work is overseen by the peer review process, where other experts from the same field as the paper authors would help me evaluate my curation.
How will this look like in news reporting? I guess the reporter will have to submit their article to the managing editor, who will then send it out to other journalists and experts on the subject matter for review, before deciding whether the article would be published, 3–6 months after the first draft.
As I said. It’s stupid.
