Journalism in society

Democracy
Good as it is. A value in itself
Something general, without the necessity to provide evidence. For ex. Democracy (Developing Liberalism). Democracy can be seen as being good, because when asking why it's good, the answer is, it's good because it's good.

Some things are good, because they are just good.

• "Knowledge" is good because it's good.
• "Influence" is good because it's good.
• "Freedom" is good, because it's good.
• It can lead to some less fortunate things.
• For ex. A woman with cancer being told she soon will die, so therefore she can't live normally anymore
• Consequence: Knowledge is not always good

Good for something else. A value for something else
Something is good because it makes things better. For ex. Democracy (Protective Liberalism)

• Democracy can been as improving something else, because it provides the frame of freedom to the citizens. Meaning, Democracy is good for freedom

If one makes judgement on, whether or not something is good, one has to consider the consequences.
Ethics measures the advantages and suffering in the world.

• Do we do harm or do something good?
• Often: Do we do something of use?
• Is it good that we are here?

Good intentions
If one consider if something is good, one must have in mind the intention. Ethics measures the inner human dignity: To be able to choose.

Protective Liberalism
Protective liberals were basically somewhat skeptical of Democracy. They considered Democracy as a safeguard for freedom. Meaning, it was good for something else and NOT good as it was. Not a value in itself.
The role of the journalist:

• The journalist is an intermediary for information. He does not encourage debate nor discussions that lead to new values. The citizens only have to know what is happening. Not necessarily why or what alternative possibilities exist.

Developing Liberalism
Democracy is a method of development for the individual. Not just when there is an election, but equally as much in the local community and judiciary. Democracy is a value in itself. Good as it is. Unlike protective liberalism, developing liberalism is not only good because it makes something else better.

• The journalist has to help the citizens to participate actively in the democracy. He has to create debates, preferably  also critical of politicians. He also has to explain every viewpoint.

Positive Freedom
Freedom TO something
Collective
The state must strengthen human development by improving its ability to make free choices
When you actively chose something by discarding something else
Through community and the collective (for ex. the state) does one achieve freedom
Ex. the freedom to take an education

Negative Freedom
Freedom FROM something
Individual
The state must protect a particular predetermined freedom

• Against external limitations and internal selfishness

The rulers must be kept in check

• Through division of power and freedom rights

Freedom to live one's life without interference from others
When there is no one to stop you from doing what you were planning to do
Ex. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion (Type of freedom with unnatural limitation)

Ethics
The teaching of the good.
Ethics in journalism.

• How is a journalist "good"?
• Assessment based on values.

The ethical question

• Is the journalism we have good?
• Or

• Is the good journalism good?

Ethical Argumentation
When we use ethics to justify something ("Why is X good?") we eventually end with a "Good as it is. A value in itself" justification, even though we can't use that.
The speech (articulation) abandons us - but that is not to say that it's not important.

Freedom of speech and information
It is important

• To be able to gather information
• To be able to voice oneself

Freedom of speech

• The right to express oneself
• Both in speech and in writing

•  Perspective from the sender
• To add something new to the public space
• Often justified as some good as it is. A value in itself.

Freedom of information

• The right to seek information
• Perspective from the recipient
• To be personally informed

Freedom?

• The rules (constitution and human rights) are formulated as a limitation (by setting limits, does one become free)
• All citizens are appointed freedom, therefore "the public" loses some freedom
• Positive/negative?
• Negative

• Protective or Developing Freedom?
• Protective
• A right to preserve something we already have

Impossible to imagine to function without each other

• By communicating both ways, the concepts become indistinguishable. Without the one freedom, the other freedom becomes limited. The definitions form a symbiotic relationship. Free expressions without freedom of information would be useless, because one would not be able to reach a recipient. One can imagine a society where you are free to express whatever you want, but the state censors the information and makes it unavailable for the public.
• Without freedom of information there is basically nothing to express
• Without freedom of expression there is no information to express

Can be problematic?

• Freedom of expression can be an obstacle for freedom of information
• If irrelevant expressions hide the information, because the citizen loses his overview or because their attention is drawn away from information 
• Ex. Bad entertainment is obscuring good information
• Some expressions harm without doing anything good
• Ex. "That group of people rape their children."
• Some expressions harm more than they do good

• Ex. If the minister of finance informs that devaluing is in consideration (then the market is forced to devalue)

Limitations

• If expressions or information can be said to be a threat to private persons life or integrity
• Transitions between private and public spheres are vulnurable

• If they give a false or twisted image of reality
• Meaning, freedom of expression and freedom of information can be used to safeguard and undermine personal integrity and an informed position.

The public
What is the public?

• There are different layers of "public" - the family, the job, the community etc.
• One often brings personal matters out in the public

• Something very basic
• Every time we say anything we are moving ourselves from the private to the public

• Something democratically important
• Some issues have great public interest

• A layer between the citizens and the rulers.

If issues have fundamental public interest, then it is of the outermost importance that they are is publicly available

• But sometimes private interest are a reason to keep it hidden
• Someone must therefore be given the task of assuring public availability:
• 1. Safeguarding the voicing of minority interests
• 2. Administrative: Openness in the management
• 3. Investigation (Police, research, journalism)

The public versus publics (plural)

• The public
• The "whole" public, which we have normative expectations to

• Publics (plural)
• Smaller differentiated parts of the public, which serve special purposes (ex. scientific research community)

Social Choice theory
The theory considers the democratic process as strictly egotistical and static. People get involved in the democratic process by election and debate only to achieve the best possible outcome for themselves.
The social choice theory

• Considers the political political process as an instrument (a tool to achieve a certain thing)
• The crucial political act is private (individual vote casting in a secluded area)
• The goal of politics is the optimal compromise between conflicting and basically incompatible points of view
• People's preferences and the alternatives are a given
• The media is primarily a manipulative instrument, in contrary to the deliberative theory, where the media exists to educate

Social Choice is by definition a compromise solution. Because those who haven't voted for a solution are having to compromise by agreeing to vote.

Consensus theory
In Habermas consensus theory one disregards one's own private interests and therefore doesn't consider what the solution gives oneself, but exclusively what is for the common good.
Harbermas is an advocate for consensus decisions, in contrary to Social Choice theory, where one has to come to a compromise - Decisions where the involved parties realize that they are not getting the best solution for themselves, but the best which could be agreed on.
Changes in people's interests can be seen many places, if one observes over a longer period. Equality, racism, view on homosexuals and environmental awareness can all function as examples of something where the public opinion and political view has changed. According to Habermas, these changes are the result of public conversation, which mostly has been in and started by the mass media.

Public Service
Public Service is based on the view that the politicians have on what good public is.
Under the monopoly

• Access to the public is limited - We have to make sure that there is room for the good contributions
• Citizens are to educated, based on "We know best, what's good for you", also culturally
• In this education there was also the view that the citizens should be educated, so that they could participate in a democratic society
• We are back to the thoughts of Developing Liberalism

After the monopoly was broken

• We must make sure that "good" public gets attention
• The problem now is not so much to get the information out, but to get attention
• Functions as an alternative to the commercial media, by providing national quality TV/radio, which reaches the broadest possible audience, but at the same time, covering the small niches, which the free market can't.

The goal with Public Service
Supporting democracy; educating

• Providing factual knowledge and news to assure a good foundation for when making decisions.
• Acting as the an extension of the citizens in keeping the politicians in check.
• Acting as a line of communication between the citizens and the politicians.
• To be a democratic forum for debate.
• To empower and motivate the citizen through education
• ex. News, background storytelling, debate shows.

Explaining a "complex" and/or "experimenting" culture

• High versus low culture
  Avantgarde versus Mainstream
  The counterpoint
  
  ex. Reviewing shows
  
  
  
  
   Providing a national culture
• Assuring a common identity through integration in the community
• Culture as a fragile community, which must be guarded and cared for, thus providing stories about it
• Non-elitist
• The nation versus globalization
• ex. Matador, Krøniken, the Queen's New Year speech, sports

Uniting the narrow with the broad

• Assuring the public access to quality shows in an available and broadly appealing format
• Teaching the public on how to appreciate the narrow
• Pedagogic ideal
• Public Service must assure the "possibility" for quality - not realize it
• Horisont, Magasinet Penge 

• Developing Public Service:
• We must develop the citizens ability to choose the good

Making sure that people get what they want

• Respecting the recipients ability to choose
• Orienting according to the recipient
• Identification
• Populist public
• ex. talkshows, x-factor

From Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Media

• PSB (Public Service Broadcasting)
• PSB must assure good information to the citizens
• Citizens are passive recipients

• PSM (Public Service Media)
• PSM must assure good dialogue
• The recipient is now a user instead of an audience

The Fourth Estate
Not constitutional as the others (Self appointed)
Communication between rulers and the people
In order for the people to wield its power (Democratic election), the people must be properly informed

• Properly
• Critical, sorted (the right/important information)

• Informed
• To have information

Concrete

• The media must reveal abuse of power
• The media must show problems in society and the consequences of political decisions
• The media must explain the different political viewpoints (and critically test the politicians self-presentation)
• The media must tell the politicians what the voters attitudes are

 The deliberative ideal
Seeking information
Suggesting solutions
Critically testing: Did we think of everything?
Decision
Evaluating results
Democracy presupposes ↓

• 1. That someone chooses
• 2. That there is something to choose
• 3. That there is someone to choose
• 4. Willingness to abide by decisions

Habermas 

Theoreticians:
Joseph Schumpeter
Schumpeter believes that the election process is a competition, where the person who is most visible wins. So he does not have much faith in voters. Here, journalism is in danger of being taken advantage of by specially media trained or sharp politicians, who can make an election on a false or weak foundation.
What is democracy?

• Thin definition - What we choose it to be

Democracy: A value for something else = power

Robert Dahl
Dahl believes that all representatives must have equal opportunity to be seen and therefore the media must show all politicians representative and neutrally.  He has faith in the voters ability to think critically. There are more restrictions on the media, when it comes to how much time there is allocated to a politician during an election campaign.
What is democracy?

• All votes have same worth
• Equal opportunities to express points of view
• Informed understanding
• Citizens control the political agenda
• All adults have a right to citizenship

Dahl says that the essence of democracy is to choose a good leader. Like Schumpeter, Dahl does not believe that much energy should be put into the election process itself, however Dahl says that voters should have more say and that the condition for a qualified choice is an informed people. Therefore he also says like S. Hjarvad, that a strong media, critical and informing, is essential for a good democracy.

Stuart Mill
Developing Liberalism
John Stuart Mill regarded democracy as an important method of development for the individual, not just when casting the vote, but just as much in the local community and judiciary.
Positive/negative freedom.

John Locke
Protective Liberalism
The state is a frame, which secures the individual rights within the community. The mindset here is that the citizen can develop on his own and that the only purpose of democracy is to assure people's "space of development" without actually interfering in the development.

S. Hjarvad
About the role of media

• It's a mistake to consider the media and political institutions as separate entities within the democracy. The media is an integral part of political life. The media is structurally and content-wise affected by political institutions, and media structure and ways of expression affect political institutions.

What is democracy?

• The public must be included (when it comes to decision-taking and discussion)
• The structure of the media?
• Participants (citizens versus consumers)
• What service, as in product, does politics provide? (to service, lead, what it means to represent?)

A good democratic debate presupposes:

• A good public
• The possibility to voice oneself in a broader public (freedom of expression)
• Access to information must be as free and extensive as possible (freedom of information)
• Critical research/analysis (independent from state and private interests)
• Diverse media: The political communication in society must represent the different attitudes and interests, that exist in society
• The debate must be connected to decisions
• Consideration must be shown to minorities and less informed public

Loftager
Process/substance

• It's bad that news journalism focuses on process rather than substance. It forces the politicians to "stage" themselves, rather than the politics (populism)
• Therefore the foundation for decisions made by the public is weakened

Diverse news coverage

• It's when light is put on a subject from many different points of view and is discussed in the public
• The more media there is, the more of reality is covered
• Possibly problematic that much of media is being taken over by giant global media groups.

Public:

• It's bad when the public only focuses on who wins, instead of whether or not the right decision has been made. 

Loftager wants a diverse news coverage.  That substance rather process is being focused on. All this, so that the citizen is more capable of making decisions.

Jon Elsters
Social Choice theory

• Considers the political process as an instrument (Tool to achieve certain things)

• The crucial political act is private (individual vote casting in a secluded area)

• The goal of politics is the optimal compromise between conflicting and incompatible interests
• Both the participants preferences and alternatives are a given
• The media is primarily a manipulative instrument, in contrary to the deliberative theory where media is to inform

Social Choice is by definition a compromise solution, as those who didn't vote for a solution have to compromise by participating in the election.

Habermas
Compromise
Decisions need to be based on consensus

• We reach agreement through argumentation and find the best solution
• Ex. in Denmark
• Christiania, Enhedslisten, bestyrelser etc

Disagrees with the Social Choice theory.

• In Habermas consensus theory private interests are disregarded, therefore does one not consider one's own profit with regards to solutions, but one considers exclusively the greater good
• Habermas is an advocate for consensus decisions, and to this Social Choice is the opposite, because Social Choice decisions are compromises - decisions where the involved parties realize that they are not getting the best solution for themselves, they are getting the best that could be agreed on
• Changes in people's interests can be seen many places, if one views them over a longer time period. Equality, racism, view on homosexuality and environmental awareness can all function as examples, where the public opinion and the political viewpoint has changed. According to Habermas these changes are result of public conversation that was in and started by massmedia.

Public

• Democratically speaking, the public needs to give space to everyone to be heard

Habermas is a proponent of deliberative democracy, where everyone can reach consensus through discussion: Meaning, there are no compromises and everyone through discussion and conversation can agree on and stand behind a solution.

Challenges in the future
News travel across national borders, then which legislation is applicable?
So much information is out there. How do we secure that the relevant information gets attention?
Today digitization has made it so that one has to actively do something to prevent publication, where as before the reverse was true.