I have previously opined on the topic of democracy and I suspect there will be a collective switching off as these words are read. However, such is my love of democracy and my strength of feeling for the need of its preservation, I am compelled to engage yet again with the vexed subject. Why do I consider it vexed? Let me explain.
We are surrounded by opinion. If you pick up a newspaper, no longer do you read factual accounts of happenings but rather journalists’ and commentators’ opinions on those happenings. In some cases, you can read a journalist’s opinion of what the commentator said about a news event. Objectivity in print died before the injection of millions of dollars into print and other media to ‘encourage’ the reporting of a viewpoint. The kind view is that journalism simply got lazy. Some of us believe it has developed an agenda.
Radio and television are not immune from this malaise and it is difficult to witness objectivity in the reporting of journalists in these media as well. And, despite the injection of significant capital into these areas in recent times, there appears to be a shrinking of organisations with resources to carry on the activity. Less competition equates to more of the same from fewer sources. News delivered as quickly and cheaply as possible seems to be the mantra from those running the networks.
And what does this have to do with democracy? The oft repeated expression of an opinion becomes the commonly held view by the consumers of what passes for news and the media. If you say something often enough and loud enough, people listen and start to believe what they are hearing repeatedly. Sensationalist media outlets seeking headlining stories have little trouble finding material for willing reporters of gossip and innuendo to fill news programmes and our senses can be saturated by opinion if we allow it.
I have a built-in abhorrence for inconsistency and I am overloaded with examples of it on every front. With very little study it is possible to see credibility gaps in stories that pop up daily on our news feeds and one wonders what the editors of news stories are thinking about the intelligence of viewers. Either they hold us in very low esteem regarding our cognitive processes or they are engaged in pushing a particular viewpoint.
I often think in terms of the numbers such as what statistics are behind a particular poll result; how many people actually believe what they are hearing; what proportion of the population really subscribe to the general drift of political opinion being suggested by the media; what do the statistics say about who voted for what and for what purpose?
There are some facts that might suggest a battle for the hearts and minds of the people has been going on. For example, the burgeoning public service with its inflated ranks of PR people is a case in point. NZTA is symptomatic of this with a reported huge expansion of communications specialists in the past six years while other government departments share similar experiences. What do all these advisors do and how much of their workload is aimed at convincing the public they are doing a great job?
There is an old saying about the squeaky wheel getting attention and the principle applies to this discussion. The squeaky wheels that are attracting attention to themselves at present all seem to represent a particular viewpoint but do the numbers stack up? One of the matters much reported currently concerns the cause of a smaller section of our society wishing to change the constitution of the country in favour of co-governance and so the question must be asked: ‘How many of the people in that population segment actually want the changes much clamoured for in the media?’ My understanding is that, of the segment in question, the majority did not vote for the parties pushing the policies seeking co-governance. The noise on the subject is coming from a loud and vocal minority whose motives are clear but their diction of the detail is fudged and obscured.
My earnest desire is that the silent majority would find its voice and begin to make clear to the policy makers that democracy cannot exist where all the change comes from the urging of a vocal minority. Democracy demands that all voices are heard and I support the opportunity of all to be heard, even voices with messages I find abhorrent. All I ask is that all sides of the story get an airing, as it was in the days when journalism was an honourable profession and hacks took pride in getting to the bottom of a story and were not satisfied with glossing over the truth.