In addition to the three branches of the American government, a supposedly fourth branch, the press, plays a major role in the democratic process. For instance, the American Constitution guarantees the freedom and independence of the press. Thus besides its informative role vis a vis the public, media in America are supposed to deal with competing sources and alternative views. Being the paragon of the watchdog image, media have to be vigilant and countercheck abuses of power by the ruling elite for the benefit of the masses. While bringing into stage examples of press freedom namely The Pentagon Paper Case , Watergate Scandal, in addition to its role in shaping US retreat from Vietnam and other places in the world, one can't ignore another lapdog image which keeps the press away from being unbiased and free. Examples of meekness which harm the very sense of democracy include: governmental control, news management, self censorship and corporate sponsored mass media. The American media, armed with the First Amendment of the constitution, enjoy total freedom and independence. In a well functioning democracy, the press keeps watchful for abuses of power, informs the public and provides it with diverse opinions. In fact, investigative journalism is not just a link between the public and the government, but it rather serves the governed who constitute the basic core of democracy. Then the press is requested to act as a watchdog. It is its mission to stand watchful for any potential abuse of power. Being aware of the presence of watchdogs, governors will think twice before making decisions. Indeed, this empowers the press and makes it more influential in shaping political decisions. Another sound image of press freedom which concurs with the concept of participatory democracy is that it gives voice to opponent views. In fact controversial and competing ideas constitute the bases of democratic debates. In this vein, Ben H. Bagdikian argues that “diversity and richness in the media are not ornaments of a democracy but essential elements for its survival”. The general image of the American mainstream media appeals to the general public as being the most efficient and free in the world. This becomes clear when the media present different views about different political, economic and social problems. For instance a simple citizen never questions the working of the press when he finds himself provided with a clear coverage of what happens in AbouGharib. Another prominent image of press freedom of speech victories is the effective role played in the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam. For instance in 1965, 61% of the population supported the war. But when the press presented the inadequacies of American intervention and succeeded in mobilizing the public, the image became clearly reversed and 61% of Americans thought that American involvement was wrong.
Concerning domestic matters, US media scored another victory. For instance, the Supreme Court approval of press publication of the Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam war showed freedom off speech triumph although the Department of Justice claimed that it would be harmful for the national security. Nevertheless, a thorough investigation about the American press shows it as far from being totally free in a number of ways. A clear threat to press freedom is tat the American government tries to control the messages delivered to the media. As newsmen are thirsty for up to date news, they are totally reliable on government sources to get the news ready made and transmit it to the public. A public relation stuff of 13000 people working for the government manage the news in the way which fits the ruling interests. The news management techniques provide the desired images and information and thus the public relation team becomes the real agenda setter. Therefore government propagandists become a manipulative power of the journalists who in turn become the direct manipulators of the people. In this context, former senator of Wyoming, Alan Simpson puts it more clear when he argues that “ If you read a newspaper this morning, you were manipulated by journalists who were in turn manipulated by people whose identities-and more important biases-were never revealed to you. This web of manipulation was presented to you as unbiased reporting, pure as snow”. Government critics are often silenced either directly or indirectly. Often, the unfavourable reporters' access to information is limited, instead they are misinformed. In addition, some government officials exert influence on editors and media owners to keep only friendly reporters. This chilling effect leaves no room for other motivated journalists who care more about their own careers. Thus by killing the right of dissent, infotainment press replaces the critical one and misses what the founding fathers expected the press to do. While the press in totalitarian regimes is blamed for being submissive to government censorship, the American press is harmed for being self censored.Journalists anticipate their bosses' disapproval of critical reports or requests to make their language smoother and consequently they no longer bother to think and investigate stories again and hence they exercise on themselves an auto-control.
Actually, journalists' laziness makes tem rely on ready-made information. By relying on official journalism, American press complicitly allies itself with government officials who often socialize with journalists and hence it makes its mission harder. As former New York Times reporter, John Hess puts it: “The paper finds it very hard to tolerate this kind of high controversial journalism about the people that the publisher is eating with everyday”. Executive Producer of ABC World News Tonight, Jeff Gralnick explains this alliance and press cooperation as follows “ It's my job to take the news as they choose to give it to us. The evening news telecast is not supposed to be the watchdog on the government. It never was, never will be”.Hence being under the effect of self censorship, media agents, like secretaries become intermediate message transmitters. They fall into the lapdog image; a lapdog who shows his submissiveness by his fawning behavior.
Media freedom, have become a vague concept especially if we consider the fact that ten corporations control the mass media in America. The immediate effect of this media concentration is that information is going to be selective and in favour of the elite economic interests. Editors who know the interests of their bosses only present what Michael Parenti calls “ a copy that generally does not challenge the interests of those of wealth and power”. The press no longer exposes competing ideas and check abuses of power. It has become the guardian of free market principle and politico-economic elite interests. Obviously, the corporate ownership of media keeps them away from being free and unbiased. For instance, how would a news reporter, whose boss would make huge benefits in the process of reconstructing Irak, criticize the war for being unnecessary?
In conclusion, freedom of press victories provide America's image with a democratic aspect. However direct or indirect controls harm the very sense of democracy. All press limitations don't remove the watchdog role. But instead, media behave as a watchdog with brief mentions or only in front pages and headlines with no further more harmful interpretations.
