and other roles journalists play

“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers,
or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
- Thomas Jefferson

When we think about the relationship between media and government, we often think in terms of censorship and how a government can influence or control the media. However, we should also understand that media outlets can also influence the government. We’ll address this in more detail in Module 6 when we talk about framing and agenda setting, but for now, let’s consider some basic principles.

In the United States, journalists are often referred to as the Fourth Estate. This is a reference to the fact that journalists serve to check and balance the three branches of government: the executive branch, the legislative branch and judicial branch. Although these three branches are supposed to keep one another in check, that isn’t always enough. It is often up to journalists to keep an eye on government and call attention to corruption and incompetence.

Journalists around the world are often referred to as watchdogs and investigative reporting is called watchdog journalism. If you think about it, watchdogs serve two important functions.

They serve as a deterrent in that the mere presence of the dog means people will think twice about breaking the rules.
The dog can bark and alert you that something bad may be happening.

Journalists serve the same two functions. This is why as more governments in places like Africa and the Middle East move toward democracy, the United Nations and others have stressed the need for independent media and additional training for journalists.

But as we discuss individual nations later in the semester, you will see that freedom of the press around the world moves in fits and starts. Many a new democratic government has promised more freedom of the press only to change course once journalists began to use that freedom to publish or broadcast stories critical of the government.

Another thing to consider is the availability of information. It is one thing to say journalists can report on and/or criticize the government. It is quite another to guarantee that journalists and members of the public will have access to government proceedings and documents. The word for this is transparency. The idea is that government business should be performed in the light of day and that government documents should be readily accessible. In a perfect world, such transparency would go in lockstep with democratic reforms. But in reality, journalists in emerging democracies often have access to a lot less information than their counterparts in more mature democracies. A Kenyan friend of mine who has worked as a journalist in the United States and Kenya put it this way: “In the U.S. you have the Freedom of Information Act and in Kenya we have the Official Secrets Act.”

Of course, not everybody agrees that watchdog is the most important role that a journalist can play. Some have proposed that in underdeveloped countries perhaps it's more important for journalists to help facilitate development than it is for them to always hold government accountable. Proponents of so-called Development Journalism argue that emerging countries need a period of stability and unity, and that journalists must help encourage that. The idea is that public faith in government policies must be promoted and that it is the role of journalists to help their government succeed rather than to challenge it. Of course, proponents of watchdog journalism argue that being a government lapdog is no way to promote development. These folks suggest that although journalists and the government have a common interest in promoting development, each has a different roll to play. They argue that development efforts are most likely to succeed when journalists are free to question government decisions and to hold government officials accountable.

As the previous paragraph suggests, not all journalists around the world see themselves as watchdog's. And even those who do often balance this role with other roles. As me briefly discussed in Module 2, the Worlds of Journalism Study has identified four roles that journalists often play, or at least say they attempt to play. I've pasted the maps below, but I'll briefly discuss all four roles here.

Monitorial Role: This role measures the degree to which journalists believe it's their job to keep people informed politically and to more generally serve as a watchdog to the powerful. Although WJS doesn't call this the watchdog role, that's really what it's measuring. Of the four roles, this is the one with the most support among journalists around the world. As Map 1 suggests, journalists in the United States and certain parts of Africa take this role especially seriously. By contrast, journalists in Russia, China and Australia place much less emphasis on this role. Interestingly, this seems to be an issue where European journalists are all over the map, so to speak.

Interventionist Role: This role measures the degree to which journalists believe it's their job to be change agents and advocate for social justice. This is a role that tends to be a role that's more popular in less economically developed countries. Journalists in Mexico, parts of Africa and India clearly buy into this role. By contrast, journalists in Canada and much of Europe place much less emphasis on this role.

Collaborative Role: This role measures the degree to which journalists think it's their job to support the government. Of the four roles, this is the one with the least support among journalists around the world. Journalists in China, India and parts of Africa conform to this role. By contrast, journalists in Canada, the United States and most of Europe generally believe that this isn't a role journalists should play.

Populist Role: This role measures how much emphasis journalists place on building the largest possible audience, even if that means emphasizing entertainment over hard news. Journalists in Russia, China and parts of Africa clearly place a high priority on building the largest possible audience. Journalists in Canada, the United States, Brazil and much of Europe appear to place much less emphasis on this.

One thing to keep in mind about the four journalistic roles mentioned above is that journalists can embrace more than one role. And in some parts of the world, journalists may embrace two roles that journalists in America might find contradictory. For example, many journalists in Latin America embrace both the Monitorial Role, the interventionist role and the collaborative role. They see nothing contradictory about holding the government accountable while also working with the government to help improve people’s lives.

Similarly, journalists in China embrace both the Collaborative Role and the Populist Role. On the one hand, they tend to believe it’s their job to help the government reach its goals. On the other hand, they also believe they have an obligation to reach the largest possible audience, even if that means emphasizing entertainment over hard news. The explanation for this is that although much of the media in China are owned by the government, the government increasingly expects these outlets to pay for themselves through advertising and subscriptions. In other words, it’s not enough to simply be a mouthpiece for the government. Outlets are also expected to find ways to be relevant to their audiences.

Map 1 (Monitorial Role)

Map 2 (Interventionist Role)

Map 3 (Collaborative Role)

Map 4 (Populist Role)