Democracy and freedom of speech are usually seen as twins resulting from freedom of association and a free press. However in Washington, as elsewhere, the urgent is often the enemy of the important. John F Kennedy for example believed that the need for decision and action to resolve the pressure of crises frequently precludes the serious and careful study of fundamental and long-range problems that require foresighted leadership. The result often being that the neglected problems of the future suddenly in their true importance and become tough emergencies needing top leadership to resolve with improvisations that are too little or too late.
Very few should be made to believe that the world of democracy (especially in America) which has many power sharing institutions has ever been a level playing field for the media because more often than not elected and unelected representatives strive to define and determine news outcomes that can be a critical source of prestige or the success of foes who will not be tolerated. Even if information is limited politics does not fade away.
In the twenty first century global communication is the fundamental channel for news of all types with the result there is no immunity from news sources even though these may not be perfect and the standards of journalism idealised have not been achieved as desired. The saturation of the world’s communities with news however can lead to paranoia about policies of individual countries and the nature of international relations-certainly true in the case of the United States. The flaws and sometimes abandonment of journalistic standards does not necessarily lead to instances of permanent change, which becomes irreversible. People are now therefore in a stronger position to put right media issues if the theory and practice of democracy as in America are to be acceptable.
In the case of the United States there has developed strong concentration of ownership and therefore control of editorial opinion, which helps management efficiency of the news but can lead to significant news bias especially in cases where the community is dependent on the review process in the press and news broadcasting. It could be said that the result is so negative that the critical functions of the community and therefore its institutions cannot succeed because of the few alternative ideas in the market place.. In the American case one researcher found that in 1984 some fifty large companies controlled all media, by 1987 the number was only twenty-six, and then only ten by 1996 and by 2005 there were only fours principal media companies. It doesn’t look like this trend will not continue in the case of America and many other societies. The result too often is that the media barons and those protected by them fall in love with their status and own opinions because they are shielded from scrutiny
Many believe that in the case of America’s Barrack Obama, he is the first important public official to take on this establishment lack of thinking and fully take on board the modern weapons of public relations and politics. It seems he is especially game because he is also taking on board criticisms directly aimed at him as well as the flack from other observers and politicians on past US decisions including the relationship with Cuba and central and South America.
For example Obama’s role in Australia in leading a public dialogue process here since elected ,about world war two and events that followed in Australia (especially in Canberra) have been full and frank. He made it clear to me and an audience for example that the Battle of the Coral Sea in 1942 was resolved using atomic weapons to the benefit of Germany in this sector. The weapons used destroyed defenders off the coast and should not be believed much longer as only a battle that prevented Japanese advance into Australian territory. The world war two censorship of this event (most likely organised by the United Kingdom) left the story telling to veterans and crafted history stories to diver the attention of the public for its own immediate and later advantage because neither the world or Australians would be able to savvy the significance for them and Europe especially the United Kingdom which is also blacked out news, familiar enough at war time and in Australia’s case now clearly not required.
However it’s best to say (and it is my experience) that negotiations with Obama (a force for good) have been done with the strong democratic profile of his party and supportive of the political beliefs of Australians who are not babies about government red tape, which can include managed news of all types. Obama in my view has done well to improve Australian democracy by taking on an establishment now brought down to earth about its own reputation especially its controversial role in the war years and subsequently (all embarrassing to the United States now) and even my personal safety because of deadly circumstances since living in Canberra having being brought up a Sydney guy with an eventual important role in politics-local, national and international.
