The presidential election in United States is upon us. Well, upon US citizens. And I am increasingly getting uneasy and frustrated with it. Not only that both the candidates are creating elaborate charade of sincerity and chicanery but Media is playing such huge role in creating this façade of “I am the only guy who can lead the world” bravado that I feel like puking. That got me thinking about the reality of Freedom of Expression in United States, particularly in US media.
The most enshrined and celebrated amendment in US constitution is first amendment - Freedom of speech. The text of the amendment is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This amendment is encoded in the genes of people born in this country. And barring few instances US government have never stopped anyone from expressing their views. I mean literally anything. People in US talk trash about every known political or religious figure. In my university, students used to publish semi-porn newspaper that would trash talk from Georgie boy to Jesus Christ. I was taken a back by some of the stuff even though I am not Georgie boy’s supporter or a Christian faith follower. But these students have right to say what they wanted to say. It’s up to the readers to ignore such stuff. Same thing goes at the debates on various forums. From university debate to YouTube, people from all walks of life express their views freely. The fact that the society even allows immigrant non citizens to express their views freely makes this country a special case. This is one of very few countries that truly accord such a freedom to its subjects. Now the important question we as a society should ask is whether people’s views are making any difference in a way the government works? The answer is not that that simple. The situation is quite murky and ambiguous. The government doesn’t impede freedom of expression but that job is done by Media quite cleverly.
American media – TV as well as most of the print media – is heavily partisan and biased. They are not only biased with respect to the foreign news coverage but they openly takes sides in the general elections. The case is more complex in TV news land. All of the news agencies are owned by five or six industry conglomerate. Broadcasting news on TV is a costly proposition for sure but for five or six organization to decide what news should be presented is worst than censorship. The economic necessity to broadcast 24 hours a day leads these news agencies to manufacture the news or make the news of molehill. It probably increases the viewership but in turn makes the news channel standing joke. (Aptly shown by Jon Stewart in his The Daily Show) So for example they can devote (I am talking about the entire news channel) all most a week worth of footage towards a girl gone missing in Florida beach but they can’t devote much time towards why there so much antipathy towards US in European nations. Or these news agencies can conveniently disregard the opposition of US citizens towards Iraq war while simultaneously helping administration in drumming beats for war. In short, the news or print media doesn’t capture the reality but it creates its own reality. And in the process it stifles the freedom of expression by effectively muting differing voices.
Coming back to the Presidential election, all the news media give importance to only Democrats or Republicans. I understand they are the biggest parties but there are enough small parties that should at least be heard. The job of news agencies is give space to various points of views and let readers decide the outcome. For example, I am sure very few people outside US know about Ralph Nader. Moreover, I bet that very few people in US know what Ralph Nader stands for. It doesn’t matter whether you agree with him or not but he is standing for election and yet Media stubbornly refuses the give him space. In fact they even blame him for Al Gore’s defeat. I have not read a single article about his intended policies in any of the print media. By not presenting him the news media is censoring substantial number of voters. If he garnered enough votes to stand for election in 37 states (in order to get on to the Ballot i.e. having your name as a candidate on the ballot, one need to garner certain number of signatories) then the least thing for news agencies to do is to hear him out. It’s quite ironic that in quintessential land of choices the Media presents only two choices in Presidential election.
Constitutional amendments are fine but the reality has changed drastically with the ascent of news media conglomerates. Their powers is only going to increase. And I don’t know what we can do to maintain sanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment