One of the iconoclastic ideas Gans suggests is that people should focus less upon the myth of “citizen empowerment” through information and learn to understand that in a society as huge and complex as the United States, much of what ultimately gets done is accomplished through the efforts of large organizations. These organizations are simultaneously representative of and autonomous from private citizens. Their involvement isn’t necessarily good or bad — but to keep it from being bad, we have to learn to work with and through them:
- “In any big country that fondly remembers its humble beginnings, small is usually preferable to big, informal is superior to formal, and the citizenry is better than the formal organizations. However this Manichean view can be excessive. In a vast society, many organizations are apt to be big and as the society expands so do its organizations. Moreover, as the world becomes interdependent, organizations become multinational, and therefore yet bigger. Big is not intrinsically evil, however, and big organizations can be beneficial to the citizenry. What distinguishes these organizations from citizens are the economic and political powers they bring to the democratic table.”
- “At issue is the unequal balance of power between them rather than merely size, because that inequality per se will likely hurt the citizenry. What matters, therefore, is whether it can be reduced or controlled sufficiently to preserve a viable democratic role for the citizenry.”
As individuals, citizens are disempowered; in groups, however, citizens have a great deal of power and leverage should they wish to exercise it (although quite often, many don’t). That’s what democracy is all about. Unfortunately, perpetuating the idea that things should be any other way only leads to a “disempowerment spiral” and unnecessary pessimism.
Journalists themselves experience their own disempowerment as their organizations come under increasing control by large conglomerates more beholden to the financial bottom line than journalistic ideals, and as fewer people really trust them to deliver the whole story. What they need to recognize, however, is that they never really had “power” — what they had is influence:
- “Journalists can turn the activities of powerful business people and firms into news and even into exposés, but neither news nor exposés alone can reduce their economic or political power. The same goes for the power of other organizations. News supplies information, but citizens and politicians have to bring about greater democracy. Journalists should not kid themselves into thinking they can turn news into power.”
Unfortunately, even their influence is waning; in order to retain their important position in society, they need to find ways to get it back. That, in turn, means that they have to find ways to better connect with the people they are ostensibly there to serve: their audience. They need to do more to learn about what people want to see and hear. They need to do more to connect stories with people’s immediate surroundings — for example, by reporting on a national story (economic downturn) in a manner that brings out local ramifications (people in the community who have lost their jobs). They also need to do more to explain to people that the stories not only carry personal significance, but also that there are things people do can to help or affect the situation if that is what they want.
As an outsider who is sympathetic to the journalistic perspective, Gans is perfectly situated to offer insights and ideas that are unrestrained by the conventional wisdom which typically informs and structures the beliefs of those most intimately involved. This is not, however, what one might call a detailed and well-documented sociological analysis of American journalism. It’s more of an extended essay where Gans is offering ideas and new ways to think about things, not a series of conclusive arguments and answers.
« Back...
