The
State of Democracy in the Digital Age
In the
formerly Communist Czech Republic, where democracy is struggling
to be born, life is "incomparably better and richer now than
it was in times when almost everything was forbidden, and almost
everyone was afraid to say aloud what he or she really thought,"
Czech President Vaclav Havel observes. But "the life of our
society... has another face," he emphasizes, "which we might
describe as the relationship of citizens to their state, to
the social system, to the climate
of public life, to politics. It is our primary responsibility
to concern ourselves with this second face, to try to understand
why it is so gloomy and to think about ways to brighten it up--at
least a little."1
The new
media technologies, which hold so much promise for empowering
citizens, are building new stresses into our democratic discourse.
If they were used differently, these technologies could do democracies
significant good. More people than ever can get access to information
and make their own views heard. And in a media culture dominated
by journalists, some are doing important and courageous work,
such as the international reporting from Bosnia during the "ethnic
cleansing" of 1993-1996. The use of faxes, videocassettes and
the Internet help keep outlawed democracy movements alive in
repressive countries like China.
But in
the United States, the world's most important incubator for
democracy, these tools are largely squandered. It is the message,
not the medium, that is the problem. If the content is wrong,
it is wrong in all of its media forms. All the gorgeous streaming
video and razzle-dazzle delivery systems won't make it any better
for our civic culture. America's media-driven culture is saturated
with entertainment, much of it violent. We've cleaned up the
air but toxified the airwaves. A mounting body of scholarship
demonstrates the deleterious impact some of this material is
having on children and on democracy in general.2
When it
comes to information, citizens now are overwhelmed with its
quantity and skeptical of its quality. Fewer journalists and
media consumers are separating out the important information
from the false diversions, and fewer still seem ready to reward
the truth. Across the country, a constant stream of issue and
candidate advertising on television, radio, the Internet, telephone
"push polls" and the mails deliberately distorts the facts.
More media noise has not created more melody.
Appearances have become more important than facts. Heaven help
the policy maker who doesn't know how to surf the airwaves;
officials' effectiveness these days is measured by their media
performance.3
More sources
of information have not improved our "civic face," the joint
enterprise we call democracy. In fact, the opposite has happened.
Democratizing
the Wrong Information
The easier
access provided by today's mass media, particularly radio, television
and the Internet, have democratized extreme hate speech and
pornography, making the worst content more prevalent and thus
more legitimate. Noxious material that once was walled off in
small cul-de-sacs on the information highway--music lyrics,
films and video games which glorify violence and pornography,
including sexual attacks on women and children, sadistic and
racist comedy routines, talk radio which calls blacks "primates,"
praises violence against the government and vilifies Jews and
others-- all are now available to a mass audience through the
old and new media technologies. In some countries, including
Bosnia and Rwanda, this kind of material has been used to incite
genocide.
But in
America the problem is usually more subtle than the direct damage
done elsewhere by such extreme messages. American journalists
seem to have lost their footing in the new media landscape.
When they do navigate the important democratic issues of public
or government policy, they often talk in code--concentrating
more on strategies and who is winning or losing politically,
than on what difference it might make to the average American.4
Just
when we need them the most, journalists who purport to offer
veracity and relevance standards for the news seem to be abandoning
their mission.5 With a falsely-placed sense of responsibility
to report any rumor because it is "in play" in cyberspace, news
organizations offer legitimacy
to intentionally false attacks that spring up through the Internet
and talk radio.6
A
scandal--any scandal--tends to take priority now over other
news, as the networks run in tabloid panic after their fragmenting
audiences.7 While investigative reporting on real abuses
is vital to democracy and journalism, real scandals today seem
to be buried in an avalanche of meaningless gossip and unverified
attacks. This can be harmful to democracy in at least two ways.
First, a frivolous scandal wastes everyone's time and attention.
Policy-makers, who need to find some public resonance for their
work, must divert their attention to fielding whatever rumor
might be dominating the day's news.
Secondly,
excessive scandal coverage can actually reduce the government's
accountability to the public. It is likely that the American
people have been cool to the Clinton sex allegations not just
because the economy is strong and the public wants to restore
a distinction between private and public behavior, but because
they are suffering from "scandal fatigue."
Ironically,
many journalists genuinely are trying to serve the public interest,
reporting the "tough stories" and "difficult facts" in each
new scandal. Yet too few editors and producers recognize that
serving the public interest is not the same as simply serving
what the public is interested in. Just because sex scandals
and celebrities are interesting doesn't mean they should replace
other
news. Similarly, just because the new media technologies enable
television to go "live" to show the unfolding drama of a man's
freeway suicide, it does not mean that journalists are serving
the public interest by doing so.8
News organizations
that should know better are constantly choosing entertainment,
violence and scandal news priorities over more substantive political
discourse--as in, for example, the networks'
decision to cut away from the live broadcast of President Clinton's
State of the Union address in 1996 in order to cover reactions
to the O.J. Simpson civil trail verdict.9 Americans may want to tune in to all the salacious
gossip, but they also know that there is more to democracy than
celebrity and sex. It's not surprising that the lowest poll
ratings these days are the journalists'.
What is
lost when all the news arteries are clogged with muck is a flow
of information to the public about what their government is
actually doing from day to day--as well as information about
what real choices they have to shape the nation's future. Most
news organizations simply are
not trying hard enough to offer political news that is meaningful
to people. When offered encrypted political news interrupted
by hysterical feeding frenzies, citizens conclude that the political
system belongs to someone else, and doesn't have any real need
for them.10
There
are notable exceptions to this sorry picture. Television news
executive Carole Kneeland11
was widely admired for holding her local Austin, Texas television
news division to a higher standard. She determined that crime
coverage wouldn't depend on "can you go live at five?" which
had been the previous test at her station. Under Kneeland's
management, KVUE reporters got crime and accident news on the
air only when it genuinely was relevant to the public. Thus
a private tragedy involving a suicide, accident, court case
or family violence that did not involve any threat to the public
would not normally make it to air. A crime which the public
should know about in order to increase its own safety, news
about a public figure, or news about patterns, responses or
solutions to crime would meet her broadcast test. Under her
leadership, KVUE has been number one in its market.
Similarly,
many `civic journalism" experiments have helped, in their finest
moments, to inform voters and draw communities together to tackle
racism, crime and other problems. Studies of civic journalism
projects in Charlotte, NC, Madison, WI, San Francisco, CA and
Binghamton, NY concluded that these localized efforts to cover
relevant issues from a citizen's perspective made people
"think more about politics, gave them a better idea about important
community problems, made them want to be more involved in the
community, and made them feel more strongly they should vote."12
These civic
journalism projects create a critical mass of multimedia coverage
and even a temporary "public square" for citizens to face common
problems. In the summer of 1994, for example, the Charlotte
Observer teamed up with competitors WSOC-TV, the local ABC
affiliate, and two local radio stations, WPEG and WBAV, on a
project called "Taking Back our Neighborhoods/Carolina Crime
Solutions." After using crime statistics to identify neighborhoods
that had been hard hit by crime, the news organizations held
joint town hall meetings and produced special issue coverage
featuring citizens' proposed solutions. They reported "success
stories" about fighting crime. Their collective efforts inspired
a burst of civic activity: about 500 people
volunteered to help out in targeted neighborhoods. Eighteen
law firms helped to file pro bono public nuisance suits to close
down crack houses; a local bank even donated $50,000 to build
a recreation center. Crime rates went down in the wake of all
of this civic activity.13
The
Technology Could Help
The new
technologies should make it easier for journalists and others
to improve--not weaken--their service to democracy. We journalists
used to shrug when people complained about the shallowness of
our work by saying "I ran out of space" or "I was on deadline,
and ran out of time." Now, thanks to the Internet, there are
no deadlines, space constraints or excuses. Journalism can be
much more accurate, thoughtful and complete. A constant deadline
means no deadline,
so a journalist now has whatever time is needed to check out
the facts. And whatever can't fit into the old media container
(the print news story or newscast) can be put onto the companion
Website. There is a bottomless news hole.14
Yet the
new technologies are not being used this way by most news organizations.
Instead, we get even more raw "instant" information now which
has not been tested for accuracy and relevance. It is time-consuming
to seek additional information to assess the meaning of the
news story, and even harder to discover one's options for impacting
future developments. Since anyone can throw half-baked material
onto their Websites in order to be "first," why do we need journalists
at all, if they aren't going to offer the benefits of verification,
relevance and context?
And what,
finally, is the marketplace value of that precious "scoop" that
so often now trumps the traditional two-source rule? Who broke
the Paula Jones story first? The story about O.J.'s bloody glove?
The Kathleen Willey story? The fact that Linda Tripp taped Monica
Lewinsky's conversations with her? Nobody in the audience remembers.
Scoops, which may have mattered when
newspapers competed side-by-side on street corners for each
customer through multiple editions a day, have no marketplace
meaning to the audience in a constant deadline, 24-hour news
environment.15
Scoops
matter only to other journalists, as a way of keeping score.
This makes no sense in terms of the journalist's long-term survival,
and in fact it often has the opposite effect. Throwing accuracy
to the winds undermines the credibility of the news brand. Better
to build the brand by offering them a consistently trustworthy,
accessible place to go for news.
There are,
of course, all the "quality" channels emerging on cable, from
CNN and MS/NBC to the A&E and Discovery. Do they have a
"public service" mission, or just a neat marketing niche? Test
the democracy quotient by asking, how much of this new channel
is taken up with pundit score-keeping, celebrity gossip and
voyeur crime news, issue-free animal features, sports, entertainment
and weather programs? The transformation in particular of MS/NBC
from a promising television/Internet laboratory to a scandal
news service has been disheartening. Neil Postman's lament--that
we are "amusing ourselves to death"--has never seemed more accurate.
David Fanning,
senior executive producer of PBS's "FRONTLINE" documentary series,
described recently to The New York Times how difficult
it is to place a hard-hitting documentary these days:
"I was
once told by someone at Discovery that they would not do a film
on human rights in China because then they would not be able
to film pandas there,' he said. In response, Michael Quattrone,
the Discovery Channel's senior vice president and general manager,
said that a film on Chinese human rights would not fit with
Discovery's mix of programs. He said he found it unlikely that
anyone at Discovery would use the panda excuse. "We make programming
which is as
credible and informative as possible, while being entertaining,
but with a subject matter that people expect to find on Discovery.
I make no apologies for concentrating on science and natural
history. There is some great stuff in there."16
Public
and Private are Reversed
One reason
that democracy isn't being served well by the new media outlets
is that our popular culture has been turned inside out. What
should be private is now becoming public, and what should be
public is being privatized. Our current obsession with the president's
sex life, for example, is something most people believe should
remain his own business. The journalists' self-righteous "outing"
of officials' sexual adventures has to be blamed to some extent,
on the falseness of politics to date (the phony "family values"
candidates who can't wait to run off with their mistresses)
and on the broader culture in which the journalists are operating.
Thanks to the confessional Jerry Springer and Laura Schlessinger
talk shows on television and radio, we now have a culture saturated
with perverse revelations, exposed as voyeur entertainment.
If there were commensurate reporting on the sex histories of
prominent Washington journalists and media executives, it would
reveal a fair number of boss-employee adulterous affairs, and
perhaps even a few intern seductions.
Veteran
newsman Robert MacNeil argues that substantive "issue" news
is less interesting to people now because there are no major
overriding public policy issues as there were when the nuclear
threat hung over the world during the Cold War. But this inattention
is more a failure of civic imagination and journalistic effort.
We are likely to look back some years from now as some major
challenge demands our action, and say, as we did with the Savings
and Loan crisis, "why didn't we see this coming?" The stakes
are particularly high in America; as this democracy reigns as
the world's leading superpower, its public priorities and actions
resonate beyond our borders.
The private
has taken on too much national importance, while the public
has lost the attention it deserves. Anti-government activists
use the word "public" as a pejorative, equating it with the
word "government." The word "public" actually means "of the
people." It would be helpful to restore this core definition
if we are to build digital public squares and honor democracy
as a common responsibility and goal.
Getting
the Point: Resource Journalism
It is time
for a new model for news--a multimedia model that relies on
objective, independent journalism that better serves democracy
than today's journalists normally do. Our proposed new model--"resource
journalism"-- draws especially on the flexibility offered by
the new digital technologies, and on lessons learned from watching
local and national television news, the magazine and pundit
shows, the Internet, and the civic journalism experiments.17
Resource
journalism attempts to offer thorough but unbiased reporting,
assembling for citizens the authentic information they need
to make civic choices. It seeks to enlist not only the traditional
charms of television, radio and print but the interactivity
and depth afforded by the Internet. Resource journalism provides
historical context, local, national and international reference
points, and tries to answer "compared to what?" It tries to
explain "why does this matter to the average American?" Resource
journalism works to combine news about problems with news about
a range of potential solutions to those problems, but it does
not seek to encourage any particular action. Through carefully
curated Websites, resource journalism tries to offer a relevant
selection of deeper information resources, a range of clearly
labeled, diverse opinions, and interactive access points for
citizens who may want to get involved.
Clearly
not every breaking news story can be spun into all of these
forms. But a thoughtful news organization could divert some
of the time, talent and money now spent on chasing the entertainment
side of politics and culture, and instead assemble an updatable
set of interactive, multimedia resources about the top 10 issues
that will shape our nation's future.
It doesn't
have to cost a lot of money. In fact, resource journalism was
developed by PBS's Democracy Project in the spring of 1997 when
it was presented with the need to cover, with limited resources,
the prospect of unlimited daily Congressional campaign finance
hearings in both the Senate and House. If PBS offered the traditional
live daily feeds of the hearings to its participating stations,
CSPAN-style, few stations would have pre-empted what has become
very important daytime programming for families and schools:
Sesame Street, Magic School Bus, Arthur, Wishbone, etc. More
importantly, few people would actually have watched these hearings
as they stretched through the entire workday. (CSPAN and MS/NBC
were expected to offer daily hearings feeds for the tiny minority
who might do so.)
What could
be a better way for PBS to serve the busy adult who should have
access to more than the brief nightly news coverage of the hearings?
We determined that a weekly highlights show would be the most
accessible and cost-effective approach. But we wanted to be
sure the content was truly useful, that the series was more
than just insider score-keeping or theater criticism. We saw
our news colleagues assessing the opening hearings according
to the wrong measurements--by whether or not Senate Committee
Chairman Fred Thompson had a smoking gun, a great television
show, or a presidential campaign.
Our different
approach, a 24-week half-hour series called FOLLOW THE MONEY,
started each broadcast Friday night with a documentary-style
highlights tape of the week's hearings in both houses. We had
"tour guides" who weren't encouraged to prattle as pundits,
but rather to provide citizen-oriented insights into what the
hearings were telling us about money and politics in America.
We surrounded this news summary with history mini-documentaries
(George Washington plying his voters with rum-laced bumbo),
field reports on what citizens were thinking and doing about
these issues, news about a range of reform efforts, a soapbox
of citizen and expert viewpoints, and other features.
We reached
out to partners to expand the impact of the project and offer
more resources to our viewers. There were spinoff radio discussions
on NPR's Talk of the Nation thanks to Ray Suarez, who was host
of both the television and radio shows. Our Website created
much of the series' interactivity--providing viewers with a
chance to make their comments for others to see online, and
to answer the "question of the week" posed by the television
hosts--who then reported back some responses on the next television
program. It also assembled an archeological trove of related
resources--providing not just the transcripts of all the programs
in the series, but html click and point access to layers
and layers of specific information about money and politics
generated by such research groups as Public Campaign and the
Center for Responsive Politics. There was a reform game called
"Destination Democracy" invented by the Benton Foundation, to
navigate each Web visitor through the likely changes each reform
option would entail. For those viewers who wanted to know how
they could get involved, we offered click-through access to
the websites of the such groups as Common Cause, who favored
the McCain-Feingold reform legislation, and the Cato Institute,
which opposed it. We offered insights from historians, including
a congressional expert from the Library of Congress, and signed
opinion columns. The Capitol Steps comedy troupe provided real
audio comic relief.
Lacking
any advertising funds or coverage in the "free media," we generated
a core audience for the television show and Website through
national civic groups. At a series of hastily-organized meetings,
we invited the Washington representatives of these grassroots
organizations who had some interest in the issues of campaign
finance to use their listservs, e-mail, Websites, newsletters
and phone banks to invite their members to watch and critique
the show.
Ultimately
our FOLLOW THE MONEY audiences were relatively small but actively
engaged in feedback and Web discussions prompted by the series--a
desirable audience model for the niched media landscape. We
had compliments from all across the political spectrum--the
National Rifle Association as well as liberal groups and ordinary
citizens who don't align themselves with any particular ideological
camp. They liked the efforts at fairness and comprehensiveness.
They liked the doors we opened for citizens to put themselves
into the action. They loved the attempt to bring history and
humor into the unfolding scandals, and also the pairing of problem
news with solution news.
There has
been some concern, as PBS has experimented with such multimedia
projects, that the Internet Websites might divert audiences
from the television programs. But PBS has found that
many viewers are online at the same time as they are watching
television, using both at once. FRONTLINE, PBS's documentary
series, has pioneered separate but complementary "webumentaries,"18
as well as a moving webmarker bug along the bottom of the screen
which prompts viewers to go to PBSOnline for more information
about the subject of the program. When FRONTLINE's Whitewater
documentary program "Once Upon a Time in Arkansas..." used the
webmarker bug just as they were getting into the details of
the Castle Grande investments, thousands of people hit the Website
at that particular moment. FRONTLINE's " Jesus to Christ" series
last month similarly drew so much Internet traffic that it temporarily
overwhelmed the PBS server.
For the
fall 1998 elections, PBS will apply the "resource journalism"
model to two special projects. In early October we will have
PBS DEBATE NIGHT, featuring a live national Congressional leadership
debate hosted by Jim Lehrer, broadcast from the historic House
of Burgesses at Colonial Williamsburg. Before and after that
debate, on the same night, local PBS stations will conduct local
congressional candidate debates. The websites will offer voting
records, interest group score cards, issue summaries, biographies,
campaign donation information and other background on the candidates.
A week
later, we will have a one-hour national PBS "The 30-Second Candidate"
documentary on the history of political advertising in America,
including a look at how ads are shaping some 1998 campaigns.
Participating local stations will do "ad watches" during regular
news programs or as interstitial messages between programs,
providing fact-checks, funding sources and other contextual
information. Perhaps most valuable will be the "ad watch" websites,
which will offer the information that voters need to get beyond
the ads, including voting records, issue positions, financial
backing and news coverage of the races. Educational materials
will be developed so that schools can use the "as watch" project
as a critical viewing tool as well as a political science project.
These projects
all carry the hallmarks of resource journalism, including complementary
local and national news, interactive background information
that is useful to citizens, a citizen soapbox, and educational
tools.
PBS is
not the only media provider making efforts to harness new media
technologies to serve democracy. But at the national level,
it remains a lonely fight. The television cable channels and
broadcast networks seem to be retreating from their moral responsibility
to offer bread as well as circuses.. "Our national adventure
is taking a wide and dangerous turn. We are entering an age
when problems are deep-set and government cannot necessarily
provide the answer, when citizens need to claim a place at the
table or watch the table get spirited away, when democracy will
either become a willed achievement or a sentimental dream,"
concludes Jay Rosen of New York University. "Journalists should
not huddle together in the press box, wondering how the story
will come out. They need to rejoin the American experiment."19
PBS's Democracy
Project invites others to offer models for news that better
serve our nation's civic life. We hope that many will join the
attempt to create a multimedia "public square" for American
democracy, a source of updated information, discussion and decision-making
that offers citizens real opportunities to participate in their
own governance.
Even
modest efforts can have ripple effects. As James Baldwin once
observed, "Words like `freedom', `justice' `democracy' are not
common concepts; on the contrary, they are rare. People are
not born knowing what these are. It takes enormous and, above
all, individual effort to arrive at the respect for other people
that these words imply."20
1 "State of the Republic" address
to the Czech Parliament, February, 1998. return
2 See Kathleen Hall Jamieson's
works, and Sissela Bok, Mayhem, Addison-Wesley, (Reading,
Mass: 1998.) return
3 Harvard sociologist Kiku Adatto
recounts during the 1988 campaign, for example, how Sam Donaldson
of ABC news faulted Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis for
not playing his trumpet in camera-range, measuring this as an
example of his unfitness as a presidential candidate. See Adatto,
"Sound Bite Democracy," Research paper, Shorenstein Center on
Press, Politics and Public Policy, Harvard University, June,
1990. return
4 Kathleen Hall Jamieson has
written extensively about this problem. In particular, she has
mapped the way this "strategy" formula distorted network television
and newspaper coverage of the Clinton health care debate in
1994. Jamieson and Joseph N. Cappella, Newspaper and Television
Coverage of the Health Care Debate, Annenberg Public Policy
Center, August 12, 1994. return
5 For a lengthy examination of
this point, see my monograph, "Tabloids, Talk Radio and the
Future of News" (Annenberg Washington Program,1996). return
6 Examples are rampant. Miami
Herald Tom Fiedler recalled how during the 1988 campaign, a
Newsweek editor justified the printing of rumors about Gary
Hart's sex life (before the celebrated Donna Rice townhouse
story which the Herald broke.) "When Newsweek was asked about
that later, why they chose to report the rumor which they hadn't
substantiated, the answer was...that the rumor itself reached
such crescendo level that it had achieved a critical mass of
its own. It had somehow become reality. The rumor had gotten
so large that it was reality. So therefore the press was justified
in printing it," Fiedler said at a June 10, 1988 conference
at Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public
Policy. return
7 Even scandals that prove to
be untrue make big news stories. The syndicated television magazine
show "Inside Edition" on May 4 featured charges that Cristy
Zercher, a former flight attendant, was groped by President
Clinton on a 1992 campaign flight. On May 5, the show offered
a "world television exclusive," outlining how Zercher "failed
miserably" a lie detector test administered on behalf of "Inside
Edition." The King World vice president in charge of the show
concluded that "there's a 99 percent probability that she's
not telling the truth." In a last-minute change, he decided
to reveal in the final minute of the May 4 report that
the next program on the following night would show it
to be false. As Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post asks, in
reporting on this May 4, "Why air the story at all? The answer
from King World vice president Marc Rosenweig: : "You have to
set up the premise of what her story is in order to thoroughly
examine the results." return
8 When this gory incident was
shown on live television in Los Angeles May 1, 1998, pre-empting
cartoons watched by children, one Los Angeles television station
representative compared the criticism of his live broadcast
to support for "censorship." Others argued that the unfolding
suicide had tied up freeway traffic, and this justified the
high-priority live news coverage. return
9 At least ABC's Sam Donaldson
regretted on May 4 1998 his network's decision not to carry
President Clinton's last news conference live the way CBS and
NBC did. "There are some events that major news organizations
have to cover, even if it's unlikely that news will happen..."
he told Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post. One wonders, what
would the President have had to do to meet Sam Donaldson's standard
for "news"? He covered the Clintons' recent trip to Africa by
implying that they were there only to "duck the executive privilege
controversy." Thus the sex scandal was his news frame for even
this historic and long-planned presidential trip. return
10 "Key Findings," Markle Commission
on the Media and the Electorate, May 6, 1990. return
11 Kneeland, who also helped
to innovate television "ad watches", died of cancer in 1998
in the prime of her career. return
12 "New Civic Journalism Research,"
Civic Catalyst, January1997, p. 10. For more information
about the specifics of these experiments, contact the Pew Center
for Civic Journalism, whose website is www.pewcenter.org return
13 Ed Fouhy, "The Dawn of Public
Journalism," The National Civic Review, Summer-Fall,
1994, p. 263. return
14 When PBS's FRONTLINE series
runs a moving "bug" prompting viewers to go to the PBS Website
for more information, the flood of "hits" is enormous. At least
twice, the instantaneous response has crashed the overwhelmed
PBS server. return
15 One could argue that financial
and weather news still has a legitimate place for timely "scoops"
since each is so time sensitive. return
16 New York Times article (get
cite) return
17 The Pew Center for Civic
Journalism in Wasington, D.C. has numerous publications and
studies which map the positive civic impacts, the pitfalls and
the still uncertain effects of "civic journalism" experiments
around the country. return
18 David Fanning, the impresario
who created FRONTINE and led it to win the gold baton at the
duPont Columbia awards this January, has copyrighted this wonderful
term. return
19 Jay Rosen, Getting the
Connections Right, (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1996),
p. 6. return
20 As quoted in the Freedom
Forum's 1998 calendar. return