         |
|
||||
| Writings: Essays | |||||
| The Media and Democracy: Do we have free expression of the truth? In his piece ‘The Media and Democracy’, author John Keane reflects on the ongoing issues concerning a free press. These issues are inter-related with the many ideas that were expressed by the leading thinkers of the Enlightenment period. One of the main issues that arise when discussing the idea of a free press is the question of rights: Is it one of humanity’s natural rights to have a free press? Or is it part of a ‘social contract’ that societies create to ensure this right? Keane quotes part of a speech given by Attorney General Thomas Erskine, “Liberty of the press is an imprescriptible natural right, given by God.” (Keane: 4). The concept of ‘liberty’ was a primary component of the ideas espoused by Enlightenment thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In the first sentence of his most famous work, The Social Contract Rousseau writes: “Man is born free but everywhere is in chains.” (Hooker: Rousseau). Rousseau believed that freedom is our natural state of being, however was intrigued by the many ways in which “humans are forced to give up their liberty.” (Hooker: Rousseau). As a consequence of giving up our liberty Rousseau felt that we had created a deal between ourselves and our human-invented government. He termed this deal a “social contract” whereby “the governed agree to be ruled only so that their rights, property and happiness be protected by their rulers. Once rulers cease to protect the ruled, the social contract is broken and the governed are free to choose another set of governors.” (Hooker: Rousseau). If indeed we have created a ‘social contract’, ultimately who is in charge of ensuring that this contract continues to be upheld? Do the people need to continually monitor this contract, or does the government have the right to decide how it is upheld, based on what they think is best for either themselves and/or society? For those societies that have a free press as part of their ‘social contract’, do we place too much trust in our governments, who are arguably extremely entwined with those who govern and control our media, naively believing that they are upholding their end of the deal? Keane reflects on the essay On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, where Mill writes: “The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing when it is no longer doubtful, is the cause of half their errors” (Keane: 19). Have humans become so used to being governed over that we have ceased to uphold our end of the ‘social contract’ which is to ensure the government is truly acting in our best interests? Rousseau makes the distinction between “natural human beings..born completely self-sufficient and self-governing” and “social human beings (who are) dependent and restricted.” (Hooker:Rousseau). Have we come to believe that a press is free when in actual fact it is not? Using Australia as an example, a country in which most of the population believe we have a free press, we are apparently far from free. “Australia has become a microcosm of the self-censored society. In its current index of press freedom, the international monitoring organisation Reporters Without Borders lists Australian press freedom in 50th place, ahead only of autocracies and dictatorships.” (Pilger: Speech) Erskine said: “Liberty of the press...cannot be infringed by any earthly power, and certainly not by corrupt governments wanting to save their own skins.” (Keane:4). Keane raises the point that “A free press casts a watchful public eye over the bureaucracy.” (Keane: 16). This would indicate that not only is a free press to society’s advantage, but it is an achievable right that we can claim if we truly desire to do so. One then asks the question, if a free press is our right, whether a natural right or a right determined by social contract, and this right is one that benefits us, why then has society seemingly chosen to forego that right? Enlightenment thinker Immanuel Kant said: “The public use of one’s reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men.” (Halsall: Kant). He also wrote: “Enlightenment is man’s release from his self-incurred tutelage...Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own reason.” Is humanity afraid to be free? Are we afraid to claim our freedom and thus possibly achieve enlightenment? For some reason do we fear enlightenment? When brave journalists and members of the public sought to speak what they believed to be the truth about events like September 11 and the Iraq war, they were vilified and cut down by the mainstream media and public alike. In this window of opportunity when humanity had a chance to break free from the lies and injustice that have been thrown onto us by leading world governments, we instead chose to hold back and condemn those rebellious humans that were trying to escape the prison and potentially save us all. Keane writes: “The rise of a free press breaks down dogmatic traditions. It fosters reflexiveness. It stimulates the growth of an arbitrary or ‘conventional will’...The growth of public opinion...has deep political implications.” (Keane: 21). Humanity seems to be afraid of those political implications, or perhaps they are afraid of very real personal implications, such as the possibility of losing one’s job, reputation or status in the community if you dare to speak the truth. We seem to have created a society where we not only censor ourselves, but we also have a need to censor others who step out of line. Keane writes of a profound wisdom spoken by Thomas Jefferson “It does me no injury for my neighbour to say that there are twenty Gods or no God’ (Keane: 85) Why then do we have this need to suppress or denounce anything we disagree with? Are we afraid that a free press would create chaos for our society or even our own lives personally? A great Enlightenment leader John Locke said: “Liberty of conscience is the “natural right” of each human being” (Luther: Locke). Rene Descartes, one of the most important thinkers of the Enlightenment period famous for his conclusion “I think therefore I am” (Brians: The Enlightenment) priveleges “the individual’s perception of the truth over some objective truth or some commonly shared truth. The individual subjective experience is the foundation of truth.” (Hooker: Descartes). Descartes believed that essentially the truth is, what is true for you? And whatever that truth is, it is valid because one person holds it, even if you are the only person who holds it. Far from being an enlightened group of people who allow each other our own opinions, thinker Thomas Hobbes argued that “the society was a group of selfish individuals that united into a single body in order to maximize their safety - to protect themselves from one another.” (Hooker: 17th Century). He stated that “In its natural state, humanity is at war with itself. Individuals battle other individuals in a perpetual struggle for advantage, power, and gain.” (Hooker: 17th Century). So, in some twisted reasoning we have decided to hand over our individual freedoms and rights to a governing body, rather than experience “the violent anarchy of a completely equal and free life.” (Hooker: 17th Century). This is in alignment with Kant’s theory that “A greater degree of civil freedom appears advantageous to the freedom of mind of the people, and yet it places inescapable limitations upon it.” (Kant: What is Enlightenment). According to Baruch Spinoza, a Jewish Enlightenment philosopher, “the more power that accrues to individuals, the less is available to the dominion; the more power that accrues to authorities, the less is available to individuals.” (Hooker: 17th Century). So, in handing over our liberties we come to a situation where the press can be used as “a tool for enhancing the power and legitimacy of the ruling bureaucracies.” (Keane: 8). While Rousseau would have agreed, arguing in the Discourse on Inequality that “civilization has robbed us of our natural freedom” (Hooker: Rousseau), and encouraging a “democratic revolution” (Brians: Study Guide) his adversary Voltaire thought this inequality was as it ought to be. Voltaire argued that “equality was impossible” (Brians: Study Guide) and whilst opposing “tyranny and dogma” (Brians: Study Guide) had “far too little faith in the ordinary person” (Brian: Study Guide) to aim for democracy. Striving for utopian ideals the Enlightenment period was a self-titled one whereby the leading thinkers attempted to replace “the obscurity, darkness and ignorance of European thought with the “light” of truth.” (Hooker: 17th Century). Similarly Keane believes that wherever genuine free press exists it is “Like a brilliant comet in the dark skies of absolutism, the press and public opinion bring light to the modern world.” (Keane: 22). Both the Enlightenment thinkers and Keane through his piece ‘The Media and Democracy’ attempt to advocate the ideals of human beings allowing each other a voice, allowing each other the free expression of our truth, whilst acknowledging there is a place for a governing body to ensure this freedom of expression occurs fairly. However in fearing our own freedom we seem to have handed over the keys to our liberty and enlightenment. We seem to be using willing governments and media bodies to keep us ‘un-enlightened’ instead of being the caretakers and outlets for truth they were designed to be. Bibliography
|
|||||
 |
|||||
| © Copyright 2006 Dana. Site Development + Design: Lelfly | |||||
