Press in chains

"Freedom of the Press" is a phrase often bandied around by politicians, newspaper editors and political scientists—apparently one of the tell-tale signs of a "democratic" society.

And because New Zealanders have been brought up from the cradle with constant batterings over how lucky they are to be living in a "free" country, everytime we see a headline such as "The Press in Chains" we think of those horrible Communist countries or those ugly South American dictatorships.

Newspapers such as The Dominion play upon these concepts of freedom to constantly pump us with their analysis of the world, which is essentially that the world is a struggle between forces of democracy (private enterprise, peace, justice and the American way ) and dictatorship (those countries attempting to throw off the yolk of colonialism,) with democracy presently being on the retreat.

Two weeks ago the Dorn published a short article on its editorial page (entitled "Press in Chains") bemoaning the fact that (according to a US organisation called Freedom House) only 19% of the world's in population now live in countries with a "free press." And according to the same source just below 40% of the world population live in countries "that are not regarded as free" (i.e. not free to choose their own leaders and to read uncensored news,) while 36% are living in countries that could be classed as "partly free."

But what precisely is "being free" and what is "freedom of the press?" In Wellington we have a 'free press' because we have more than one newspaper and these are not government controlled (the criteria of Freedom House.) But, if we examine the newspapers in Wellington, we find that they all (with the exception of Salient and Karori News) are owned by Independent Newspapers or its subsidiaries.

So one would expect all these newspapers to follow the same sort of line or not to get involved in controversies that Independent Newspapers don't want them involved in.

However things are a little more subtle than this because the gathering of news (although it is a great crowd attractor for fitting in between the advertisements) must be seen to be apolitical. Journalists will tell you that all they are doing is reporting "the facts" without comment and without bias.

But while journalists may not be consciously imparting any world view upon their unsuspecting readers, objectively, they are.

In every society the media (in the same way as the education system) plays a role of perpetuating the world view (or ideology) the ruling class (whether it be feudal, capitalist or socialist.)

Examples are numerous, but most avid newspaper readers will probably be aware of the following: Evening Post court reporters go along to the Wellington Magistrate's Court and try and gather "newsy" stories. The most common of "newsy" court stories, is one in which the defendant is ridiculed, either for the bumbling comments he makes before sentencing or because of the wit heaped upon him by the magistrate. There is never any attempt to explain why 90% of the people appearing in our courts are labourers, factory workers, storemen or people from similar occupations. It is unconsciously accepted that these people are "criminals," have offended against society (or against the values of the ruling class,) and must be punished.

So too, news is always about important people in society and never about what the ordinary working person is doing or thinking. History and politics is about the conflict and exchange of personalities in public life, never about the mass of people who are actually the motive force behind many of the struggles. In this way the newspapers can single out a "leader" who can be either created or destroyed (and the movement with it) in terms of his/her individual personality and characteristics.

Newspapers also create and perpetuate prejudices against all sorts of progressive groups (Hart stirrers, violent, maniacal Communist Parties, and stupid workers) so as to reduce anything they say in public to the nonsense level.

In the Third World countries, the contradiction between the sorts of things being pushed in the newspapers, and the condition of the mass of the people is even more explicit. But to use the newspapers to improve the condition of the common people is seen by the Dominion as destroying the "freedom of the press," for newspapers must not be responsible to the mass of the people, but to those people who have invested the capital (hoping for a nice tidy return) in the newspaper.

So, next time the "freedom of the press" is mentioned, ask the question, "whose interests is this so-called freedom serving? Those who are benefitting from the status quo, of those who are not."

—Robert Collins.