The Press is Not The Problem
Tamara Himani abstains from voting on the motion, ‘This House Believes the Press Has Too Much Power and Not Enough Accountability’, and emphasises that we are asking the wrong questions about the press.
By Tamara Himani
Thursday’s motion encourages two main tendencies — to speak of the press as one monolithic entity and as though it operates in a vacuum. Throughout the debate, speakers on both paper (main debaters) and floor acknowledged these falsehoods, as analyses incorporated class, racial or religious minority prejudice, and several other dimensions. But to tackle both tendencies explicitly: the press is not one agentic entity. Firstly, it is one of several democratic institutions and interactive features of civil society — along with the judiciary, regular elections, public activism, NGOs, social media, popular culture, and so on. Secondly, as a medium of communication and arbitration similar to these institutions, it is vulnerable to first, the classic power dimensions determining who is writing and whom it is written about — class, race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. Whether through ‘client journalism’ with Westminster or the ‘invisible contract’ with the monarchy, our press will always bend to power — and its targets — within the appease-to-access formula.
But it is equally vulnerable to global dynamics not exclusive to the press — capitalism, digitisation, globalisation, and mass partisanship, for example. The press is as much reproductive as it is subject to the resulting consequences; it reinforces the system in which it participates. This is not to absolve them of any responsibility — no one yearns more for the day we get Rupert Murdoch out of Barbados and onto a spit, preferably rotating, than I. However, constructing out of a varied and complex network some gargantuan monstrosity, needlessly evil and relentlessly bloodthirsty, that must be tamed, is an equal distortion. We must combine the above contexts to understand why the press is what it is. Headlines are awful because press outlets are businesses in a digitised, capitalist economy and selling outrage prolongs engagement, sidelines competitors and maximises profits. These press outlets are competing with each other and an array of social media algorithms that provide much more inflammatory, brief and engaging content in an age where information provision is decentralised, digital, instant, and ubiquitous. Increased competition weakens their power, while globalisation strengthens it: an article published in one part of the world can inspire a stabbing in quite another in an interconnected era where weapons are plentiful and cause ubiquitous.
Whether from populism or authoritarianism, democratic institutions are increasingly subject to a tug-of-war between elite and popular power — look, for instance, at the global populist threat to the judiciary, media and NGOs, whether from Modi, Netanyahu, or Erdogan. Look at Trump’s undermining of the news media and electoral process or our own government’s anti-strike and anti-protest legislation or the BBC chairman scandal. Many such elements — illiberal governance, political polarisation, intensified competition, decentralised information — are systemic phenomena affecting several democratic institutions, of which the free press is but one. The press is a set of levers operated by a tug of several power dynamics. We cannot tackle such abuses — other than additional regulation of which, understandably, no one is in favour — until we reckon with the systems that incentivise and aggravate such behaviour. So it is not only: does the press have too much power. But also: where does it get its power? And how do we stop it?
Tamara Himani is a second year BA in History and Politics student at St. Catherine’s College, University of Cambridge | Twitter & Instagram: @tamarahimani
The opinions expressed in this piece are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Cambridge Union Society.
On January 26, Cambridge Union Society debated the motion, “This House Believes the Press Has Too Much Power and Not Enough Accountability”. The motion passed with a vote of 153 in favour, 66 abstentions, and 99 in opposition.
