The British newspaper The Guardian and the
American paper The Washington Post shared the Pulitzer
for public service for their coverage of the NSA's domestic spying programs (as
revealed through the documents leaked by Edward Snowden).
The Prize was awarded on Monday, with the Pulitzer Board remarking that
the Prize was merited through “authoritative and insightful reports that
helped the public understand how the disclosures fit into the larger framework
of national security” (as reported by The New York Times).
The Pulitzers Board's remarks were
no doubt carefully calculated-- the NSA and Edward Snowden are still
highly contentious issues in the country today. While the Board could have
remarked that the coverage revealed a secret that should not have been kept
from the American public, they instead stated that "aggressive
reporting ... spark[ed] a debate about the relationship between the government
and the public over issues of security and privacy" (as reported in The Guardian).
The obvious connection to make with
this particular tidbit of news would be to Chapter 15 in O'Connor: What is
the role of the media? Should it be a watch-dog over the government? Or is the
media obliged to "start conversations," as it were? Furthermore,
do you think that the actions of The Post and The Guardian should
be considered "public service" (is a for-profit publication really a
vehicle for public service)?
These connections are worth making, and I'd love your responses. But
let's throw in some nuance: how does this story relate to Chapter 17? Specifically
Elitist, Bureaucratic, and Pluralist Theory? Here are my thoughts:
it's essentially impossible for the public to be involved with any policy
making decisions if those decisions are kept secret. Could the "public
service" the two papers performed be--in essence--including the public in
policy-making decisions?
3 comments:
First of all, I really like your connections to both the media and the different theories. I think that this kind of situation benefits both the newspaper's financial interest and the public's interest in knowing what is actually happening in our country. If a media source has information, it should share it which will then shift opinions accordingly. Without the media as the "watch-dog," we would rarely hear about important issues such as these NSA shenanigans. The media has so much influence and should be put to use for the public.
I agree with you about the fact that these papers have actually included the people in the conversation, but I would not say they get to make the decisions. This is really only one part of letting the public be a part of making these big decisions, but it is a vital one at that.
Good response Connor, it seems that we share similar thinking.
Let me address the second part of your comment: you said you would not say that "they get to make the decisions."
I'm not sure if your "they" is the newspapers, or the public. Let me address it as if you're talking about newspapers.
While a newspaper cannot ask a decision, they way they portray and issue has enormous power to influence consecutive action. AS we discussed in class, the media has great pawer in labeling and framing the problem, as well as creating an agenda (through editorializing).
I agree with Connor in that the papers do not allow the public to insert themselves into actual policy-making decisions, but merely the first step: problem recognition and definition. If a solid portion of the public reacts with outrage, it will lead to agenda setting as well. However, most of the agenda setting is done by the papers, like Jack said, as they frame the issue according to their own agenda.
I feel that the newspaper as a whole cannot be considered a public service, as they are profit-oriented, but a singular news article or investigation can be considered public service, for informing the public in a distinguished and meritorious way. Although newspapers are not technically obligated to inform the public the truth, nowadays they are criticized heavily if they do not.
Post a Comment