media in democracy essay

The Essential Role of Media in Democracy- 6 Key Points

Media is called the fourth pillar of democracy. The other three pillars are the legislature, the ae, the executive, and the judiciary. Media is the fourth pillar through which the government is able to reach its message to the people, again people’s complaints or messages to the government.

So the media must be transparent. If not, democracy will be endangered. In this article, I will analyze for you what role media plays in maintaining a democratic environment and what are the challenges in their work, and what should be done to get rid of those challenges.

Table of Contents

Role of Media in Democracy

By disseminating information, fostering public dialogue, holding authority figures responsible, and promoting transparency, the media is essential to democracy.

Free and independent media are crucial for the operation and development of the system in democracies . This article explores the significant role of media in democracy such as informing citizens, promoting political participation, and safeguarding democratic principles.

Here are the 6 key points that cover the essential role of media in democracy.

• Informing Citizens
• Media as Watchdog
• Promoting Political Participation
• Providing a Platform for Diverse Voices
• Educating Citizens
• Fostering Public Discourse

1. Informing Citizens

the role of media in democracy is to inform the public about current affairs, governmental initiatives, and other matters that have an impact on society.

The public and the government are connected through the media. It provides a field for the dissemination of information. Citizens can access diverse perspectives through newspapers, television, radio, and online platforms. News articles, and their analyses, enable them to make informed decisions.

2. Media as a Watchdog

 As a watchdog, independent media monitor the actions of government institutions, politicians, and public officials. news media exposes corruption, malpractices, and abuse of power. it may be considered as the most important role of media in democracy.

Investigative journalism is crucial in creating openness and holding influential people and organizations accountable. By bringing such issues to light, the media helps in maintaining the integrity of democratic systems and fostering public trust.

3. Promoting Political Participation

promoting political participation is another key role of media in democracy. Media plays a vital role in promoting political participation among citizens. By covering elections, political campaigns, and debates, the media informs the public about the available choices and helps to shape public opinion. 

Individuals who have access to information are more empowered and informed individuals actively participate in politics to make decisions and hold elected officials responsible for their actions. Media platforms also serve as forums for public discussions, allowing citizens to express their views and concerns, and fostering an inclusive democracy.

4. Providing a Platform for Diverse Voices

The sharing of ideas and the involvement of various voices are essential components of a thriving democracy. Whatever their background or socioeconomic class, media provides a platform for individuals and groups to communicate their beliefs and views. this fosters the role of media in democracy.

It gives a voice to marginalized communities to enable them by highlighting their issues and advocating for change. Media diversity ensures a plurality of viewpoints and promotes a vibrant democratic culture.

5. Educating Citizens

Media serves as an effective educational tool. It helps citizens to understand complex issues and policies. It explains the functioning of government institutions, the role of different branches of power, and the impact of decisions on society.

The media contributes to citizens becoming more civically educated by providing in-depth reporting and analysis that improves their comprehension of democratic procedures and their capacity for effective participation.

6. Fostering Public Discourse 

The public debate and the interchange of ideas are facilitated by media channels both traditional and digital platforms. Opinion pieces, debates, and talk shows encourage the exploration of various viewpoints, leading to a better understanding of diverse perspectives.

Strong public discourse promotes democratic principles including tolerance, respect for opposing viewpoints, and the capacity for productive debate. Media serves as a catalyst for this discourse, helping societies to navigate complex societal issues and find common ground.

Challenges and Responsibilities of Media

The media in a democratic society faces numerous challenges and carries significant responsibilities. These challenges and responsibilities are crucial to address in order to uphold the integrity and effectiveness of the media in serving democratic principles. Here are some key challenges faced by the media in a democracy:

Challenges Faced by the Media in Democracy

• Fake News and Misinformation: The growth of false information and fake news is a serious setback to the media. Rapidly disseminating false or misleading information has the potential to degrade democratic processes. It undermines public trust and sways public opinion also. Media organizations face the challenge of verifying information and ensuring accuracy before reporting.
• Political Interference: Politicians or powerful interest groups may attempt to influence or control media content to serve their own agendas. Media independence and objectivity can be compromised by political intervention. It limits the media’s ability to serve as a watchdog and hold transparency. Media organizations need to resist undue influence and maintain their independence.
• Economic Pressures: Media organizations often face economic pressures due to declining advertising revenues and competition from digital platforms. These pressures can lead to cost-cutting measures, compromising the quality and depth of reporting. Sustainable business models need to be developed to ensure the viability of independent journalism.
• Lack of Media Diversity: Media concentration and lack of diversity in ownership and perspectives can limit the range of voices and viewpoints represented in the media. To ensure diverse viewpoints and to accurately reflect the interests and concerns of all societal groups, it is crucial to support media diversity.
• Threats to Journalists’ Safety: Journalists often face physical threats, intimidation, and harassment when reporting on sensitive issues or exposing corruption. to maintain free and independent media, it is required to make sure that journalists are secure and protected.

Responsibilities of Media in Democratic Society

• Accuracy and Truthfulness: It is the primary duty of the media to provide accurate and reliable information to the public. Fact-checking, verification of sources, and rigorous reporting standards are essential to maintain credibility and counter the spread of misinformation.
• Ethical Reporting: Upholding ethical standards is vital for the media in a democracy. Fairness, impartiality, and transparency in reporting ensure that diverse perspectives are represented and that the public receives unbiased information. Media organizations must adhere to codes of ethics and professional standards.
• Holding Power Accountable: The media is essential in ensuring that elected officials, public servants, and government agencies perform transparently and responsibly. Investigative reporting, exposing power abuses, and covering up corruption are crucial media duties in defending democratic ideals.
• Public Interest Reporting: Media houses have a duty to report on topics of public interest, such as social justice, human rights, environmental issues, and other significant subjects. By bringing attention to these issues, the media contributes to informed public discourse and helps address societal challenges.
• Promoting Civic Engagement: Media should actively encourage citizen participation in democratic processes. By providing platforms for public debates, hosting discussions, and facilitating public discourse, the media fosters civic engagement and promotes an informed and active citizenry.
• Diverse Representation: Media organizations should strive for diversity in their newsrooms and ensure representation from different backgrounds, cultures, and perspectives. This helps to overcome biases and provides a broader range of viewpoints, fostering inclusivity in democratic societies.
• Media Literacy: The media promote media literacy among the public. Educating citizens on how to critically analyze information, discern credible sources, and navigate the media landscape helps empower individuals to be active and informed participants in the democratic process.

In conclusion on the role of media in democracy, it can be claimed that free and independent media is essential to a democracy. Its role in informing citizens, holding power accountable, promoting political participation, and facilitating public discourse is essential for the functioning of democratic systems.

By providing diverse perspectives, empowering citizens, and ensuring transparency, media contributes to the development and progress of democratic societies. However, preserving the integrity of media and upholding democratic values require ongoing efforts from both media organizations and the citizens they serve.

Let me share with you what you have learned from “ The Essential Role of Media in Democracy “.

Must Read Guide-

• Pressure Group: Meaning, Definitions, Features, & 4Types
• Political Culture: Meaning, Features, 3 Types, and Importance
• The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to Achieve Social Change: 8 Examples

Sharing is Caring :)

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Essay on Role of Media in Democracy

Students are often asked to write an essay on Role of Media in Democracy in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Role of Media in Democracy

Introduction.

Media is a pillar of democracy. It informs the public, promotes transparency, and encourages citizen participation.

Media as an Informer

Media informs citizens about the activities of government. It helps people make informed decisions during elections.

Media and Transparency

Media exposes corruption and misuse of power. It holds leaders accountable, ensuring they serve public interest.

Media and Participation

Through debates and discussions, media encourages citizens to participate in democratic processes. It gives voice to the voiceless.

250 Words Essay on Role of Media in Democracy

Media, often hailed as the ‘Fourth Pillar’ of democracy, plays a pivotal role in shaping a healthy democracy. It is the backbone of a democracy, as it helps shape public opinion and influence the direction in which a society progresses.

Media as a Watchdog

Media’s primary role in a democracy is to act as a watchdog. It ensures the government’s accountability and transparency, scrutinizing its policies and decisions. By exposing corruption, inefficiency, and injustice, it empowers citizens to demand better governance.

Media as a Platform for Dialogue

Media also facilitates a healthy exchange of ideas, opinions, and criticisms. It provides a platform where different viewpoints can be expressed and heard, fostering a culture of debate and discussion, which is integral to a thriving democracy.

The Role of Media in Elections

Media’s role becomes particularly significant during elections. By providing comprehensive and unbiased information about candidates, their policies, and their performance, media allows voters to make informed choices, strengthening the electoral process.

Challenges and Conclusion

However, the power of media also poses challenges. Issues like fake news, media bias, and sensationalism can undermine its role in a democracy. Thus, it is crucial to promote media literacy, ethics, and regulations to ensure that media continues to serve as a pillar of democracy. Despite these challenges, it is undeniable that media plays a critical role in the functioning and preservation of democracy.

500 Words Essay on Role of Media in Democracy

The role of media in ensuring transparency.

In a democratic setup, media acts as a watchdog, keeping a vigilant eye on the actions of the government and other public figures. It investigates, exposes, and challenges any instances of corruption, malpractice, or abuse of power. By reporting on such issues, the media ensures accountability and transparency, thereby strengthening the democratic fabric of the society.

Media as a Platform for Debate and Discussion

Media also provides a platform for public debate and discussion. It encourages the exchange of ideas, opinions, and perspectives, which is crucial for the democratic process. Through news, talk shows, and panel discussions, media allows diverse viewpoints to be heard, fostering a culture of tolerance and mutual respect.

Media and Voter Awareness

Media and social change.

Media can also be a powerful tool for social change. By highlighting social issues and injustices, it can mobilize public opinion and spur collective action. Media campaigns on issues like gender discrimination, environmental conservation, and human rights have played a significant role in bringing about societal transformations.

Challenges and the Way Forward

Despite its crucial role, the media in a democracy faces several challenges. These include issues like media bias, sensationalism, and the influence of corporate and political interests. To overcome these challenges, there is a need for stringent regulations to ensure media independence and objectivity. Media literacy should also be promoted to enable the public to critically analyze media content.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Political Science

Volume 6, 2003, review article, t he m edia and d emocracy : beyond myths and stereotypes.

• Doris Graber 1
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: Department of Political Science, University of Illinois, 1007 W. Harrison Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607-7137; email: [email protected]
• Vol. 6:139-160 (Volume publication date June 2003) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085707
• First published as a Review in Advance on December 08, 2002
• © Annual Reviews

This essay's point of departure is the hallowed belief that democracy requires active citizens and news media that supply them with information they need to participate effectively in politics. The main features of this model of a functioning democracy, including the underlying assumptions, are tested and found wanting. Neither citizens nor media are capable of performing the roles expected of them. The appropriateness of these roles for life in modern societies is also open to question, as are the many myths and stereotypes that obscure the interface between media and democracy. The fact that democracy can persist despite citizens and media that fall short of the expected performance suggests that political culture may be more important than citizen wisdom and media excellence. Rallies in civic activism during crises may also be a major factor in the durability of democratic governance in the United States.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, framing theory, discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse, historical institutionalism in comparative politics, the origins and consequences of affective polarization in the united states, political trust and trustworthiness, public attitudes toward immigration, what do we know about democratization after twenty years, what have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research, economic determinants of electoral outcomes, public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature.

Publication Date: 01 Jun 2003

Online Option

Sign in to access your institutional or personal subscription or get immediate access to your online copy - available in PDF and ePub formats

Democracy, Social Media, and Freedom of Expression: Hate, Lies, and the Search for the Possible Truth

• Share Chicago Journal of International Law | Democracy, Social Media, and Freedom of Expression: Hate, Lies, and the Search for the Possible Truth on Facebook
• Share Chicago Journal of International Law | Democracy, Social Media, and Freedom of Expression: Hate, Lies, and the Search for the Possible Truth on Twitter
• Share Chicago Journal of International Law | Democracy, Social Media, and Freedom of Expression: Hate, Lies, and the Search for the Possible Truth on Email
• Share Chicago Journal of International Law | Democracy, Social Media, and Freedom of Expression: Hate, Lies, and the Search for the Possible Truth on LinkedIn

Download PDF

This Essay is a critical reflection on the impact of the digital revolution and the internet on three topics that shape the contemporary world: democracy, social media, and freedom of expression. Part I establishes historical and conceptual assumptions about constitutional democracy and discusses the role of digital platforms in the current moment of democratic recession. Part II discusses how, while social media platforms have revolutionized interpersonal and social communication and democratized access to knowledge and information, they also have led to an exponential spread of mis- and disinformation, hate speech, and conspiracy theories. Part III proposes a framework that balances regulation of digital platforms with the countervailing fundamental right to freedom of expression, a right that is essential for human dignity, the search for the possible truth, and democracy. Part IV highlights the role of society and the importance of media education in the creation of a free, but positive and constructive, environment on the internet.

I. Introduction

Before the internet, few actors could afford to participate in public debate due to the barriers that limited access to its enabling infrastructure, such as television channels and radio frequencies. 1 Digital platforms tore down this gate by creating open online communities for user-generated content, published without editorial control and at no cost. This exponentially increased participation in public discourse and the amount of information available. 2 At the same time, it led to an increase in disinformation campaigns, hate speech, slander, lies, and conspiracy theories used to advance antidemocratic goals. Platforms’ attempts to moderate speech at scale while maximizing engagement and profits have led to an increasingly prominent role for content moderation algorithms that shape who can participate and be heard in online public discourse. These systems play an essential role in the exercise of freedom of expression and in democratic competence and participation in the 21st century.

In this context, this Essay is a critical reflection on the impacts of the digital revolution and of the internet on democracy and freedom of expression. Part I establishes historical and conceptual assumptions about constitutional democracy; it also discusses the role of digital platforms in the current moment of democratic recession. Part II discusses how social media platforms are revolutionizing interpersonal and social communication, and democratizing access to knowledge and information, but also lead to an exponential spread of mis- and disinformation, hate speech and conspiracy theories. Part III proposes a framework for the regulation of digital platforms that seeks to find the right balance with the countervailing fundamental right to freedom of expression. Part IV highlights the role of society and the importance of media education in the creation of a free, but positive and constructive, environment on the internet.

II. Democracy and Authoritarian Populism

Constitutional democracy emerged as the predominant ideology of the 20th century, rising above the alternative projects of communism, fascism, Nazism, military regimes, and religious fundamentalism . 3 Democratic constitutionalism centers around two major ideas that merged at the end of the 20th century: constitutionalism , heir of the liberal revolutions in England, America, and France, expressing the ideas of limited power, rule of law, and respect for fundamental rights; 4 and democracy , a regime of popular sovereignty, free and fair elections, and majority rule. 5 In most countries, democracy only truly consolidated throughout the 20th century through universal suffrage guaranteed with the end of restrictions on political participation based on wealth, education, sex, or race. 6

Contemporary democracies are made up of votes, rights, and reasons. They are not limited to fair procedural rules in the electoral process, but demand respect for substantive fundamental rights of all citizens and a permanent public debate that informs and legitimizes political decisions. 7 To ensure protection of these three aspects, most democratic regimes include in their constitutional framework a supreme court or constitutional court with jurisdiction to arbitrate the inevitable tensions that arise between democracy’s popular sovereignty and constitutionalism’s fundamental rights. 8 These courts are, ultimately, the institutions responsible for protecting fundamental rights and the rules of the democratic game against any abuse of power attempted by the majority. Recent experiences in Hungary, Poland, Turkey, Venezuela, and Nicaragua show that when courts fail to fulfill this role, democracy collapses or suffers major setbacks. 9

In recent years, several events have challenged the prevalence of democratic constitutionalism in many parts of the world, in a phenomenon characterized by many as democratic recession. 10 Even consolidated democracies have endured moments of turmoil and institutional discredit, 11 as the world witnessed the rise of an authoritarian, anti-pluralist, and anti-institutional populist wave posing serious threats to democracy.

Populism can be right-wing or left-wing, 12 but the recent wave has been characterized by the prevalence of right-wing extremism, often racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, and homophobic. 13 While in the past the far left was united through Communist International, today it is the far right that has a major global network. 14 The hallmark of right-wing populism is the division of society into “us” (the pure, decent, conservatives) and “them” (the corrupt, liberal, cosmopolitan elites). 15 Authoritarian populism flows from the unfulfilled promises of democracy for opportunities and prosperity for all. 16 Three aspects undergird this democratic frustration: political (people do not feel represented by the existing electoral systems, political leaders, and democratic institutions); social (stagnation, unemployment, and the rise of inequality); and cultural identity (a conservative reaction to the progressive identity agenda of human rights that prevailed in recent decades with the protection of the fundamental rights of women, African descendants, religious minorities, LGBTQ+ communities, indigenous populations, and the environment). 17

Extremist authoritarian populist regimes often adopt similar strategies to capitalize on the political, social, and cultural identity-based frustrations fueling democratic recessions. These tactics include by-pass or co-optation of the intermediary institutions that mediate the interface between the people and the government, such as the legislature, the press, and civil society. They also involve attacks on supreme courts and constitutional courts and attempts to capture them by appointing submissive judges. 18 The rise of social media potentializes these strategies by creating a free and instantaneous channel of direct communication between populists and their supporters. 19 This unmediated interaction facilitates the use of disinformation campaigns, hate speech, slander, lies, and conspiracy theories as political tools to advance antidemocratic goals. The instantaneous nature of these channels is ripe for impulsive reactions, which facilitate verbal attacks by supporters and polarization, feeding back into the populist discourse. These tactics threaten democracy and free and fair elections because they deceive voters and silence the opposition, distorting public debate. Ultimately, this form of communication undermines the values that justify the special protection of freedom of expression to begin with. The “truth decay” and “fact polarization” that result from these efforts discredit institutions and consequently foster distrust in democracy. 20

III. Internet, Social Media, and Freedom of Expression 21

The third industrial revolution, also known as the technological or digital revolution, has shaped our world today. 22 Some of its main features are the massification of personal computers, the universalization of smartphones and, most importantly, the internet. One of the main byproducts of the digital revolution and the internet was the emergence of social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok and messaging applications like WhatsApp and Telegram. We live in a world of apps, algorithms, artificial intelligence, and innovation occurring at breakneck speed where nothing seems truly new for very long. This is the background for the narrative that follows.

A. The Impact of the Internet

The internet revolutionized the world of interpersonal and social communication, exponentially expanded access to information and knowledge, and created a public sphere where anyone can express ideas, opinions, and disseminate facts. 23 Before the internet, one’s participation in public debate was dependent upon the professional press, 24 which investigated facts, abided by standards of journalistic ethics, 25 and was liable for damages if it knowingly or recklessly published untruthful information. 26 There was a baseline of editorial control and civil liability over the quality and veracity of what was published in this medium. This does not mean that it was a perfect world. The number of media outlets was, and continues to be, limited in quantity and perspectives; journalistic companies have their own interests, and not all of them distinguish fact from opinion with the necessary care. Still, there was some degree of control over what became public, and there were costs to the publication of overtly hateful or false speech.

The internet, with the emergence of websites, personal blogs, and social media, revolutionized this status quo. It created open, online communities for user-generated texts, images, videos, and links, published without editorial control and at no cost. This advanced participation in public discourse, diversified sources, and exponentially increased available information. 27 It gave a voice to minorities, civil society, politicians, public agents, and digital influencers, and it allowed demands for equality and democracy to acquire global dimensions. This represented a powerful contribution to political dynamism, resistance to authoritarianism, and stimulation of creativity, scientific knowledge, and commercial exchanges. 28 Increasingly, the most relevant political, social, and cultural communications take place on the internet’s unofficial channels.

However, the rise of social media also led to an increase in the dissemination of abusive and criminal speech. 29 While these platforms did not create mis- or disinformation, hate speech, or speech that attacks democracy, the ability to publish freely, with no editorial control and little to no accountability, increased the prevalence of these types of speech and facilitated its use as a political tool by populist leaders. 30 Additionally, and more fundamentally, platform business models compounded the problem through algorithms that moderate and distribute online content. 31

B. The Role of Algorithms

The ability to participate and be heard in online public discourse is currently defined by the content moderation algorithms of a couple major technology companies. Although digital platforms initially presented themselves as neutral media where users could publish freely, they in fact exercise legislative, executive, and judicial functions because they unilaterally define speech rules in their terms and conditions and their algorithms decide how content is distributed and how these rules are applied. 32

Specifically, digital platforms rely on algorithms for two different functions: recommending content and moderating content. 33 First, a fundamental aspect of the service they offer involves curating the content available to provide each user with a personalized experience and increase time spent online. They resort to deep learning algorithms that monitor every action on the platform, draw from user data, and predict what content will keep a specific user engaged and active based on their prior activity or that of similar users. 34 The transition from a world of information scarcity to a world of information abundance generated fierce competition for user attention—the most valuable resource in the Digital Age. 35 The power to modify a person’s information environment has a direct impact on their behavior and beliefs. Because AI systems can track an individual’s online history, they can tailor specific messages to maximize impact. More importantly, they monitor whether and how the user interacts with the tailored message, using this feedback to influence future content targeting and progressively becoming more effective in shaping behavior. 36 Given that humans engage more with content that is polarizing and provocative, these algorithms elicit powerful emotions, including anger. 37 The power to organize online content therefore directly impacts freedom of expression, pluralism, and democracy. 38

In addition to recommendation systems, platforms rely on algorithms for content moderation, the process of classifying content to determine whether it violates community standards. 39 As mentioned, the growth of social media and its use by people around the world allowed for the spread of lies and criminal acts with little cost and almost no accountability, threatening the stability of even long-standing democracies. Inevitably, digital platforms had to enforce terms and conditions defining the norms of their digital community and moderate speech accordingly. 40 But the potentially infinite amount of content published online means that this control cannot be exercised exclusively by humans.

Content moderation algorithms optimize the scanning of published content to identify violations of community standards or terms of service at scale and apply measures ranging from removal to reducing reach or including clarifications or references to alternative information. Platforms often rely on two algorithmic models for content moderation. The first is the reproduction detection model , which uses unique identifiers to catch reproductions of content previously labeled as undesired. 41 The second system, the predictive model , uses machine learning techniques to identify potential illegalities in new and unclassified content. 42 Machine learning is a subtype of artificial intelligence that extracts patterns in training datasets, capable of learning from data without explicit programming to do so. 43 Although helpful, both models have shortcomings.

The reproduction detection model is inefficient for content such as hate speech and disinformation, where the potential for new and different publications is virtually unlimited and users can deliberately make changes to avoid detection. 44 The predictive model is still limited in its ability to address situations to which it has not been exposed in training, primarily because it lacks the human ability to understand nuance and to factor in contextual considerations that influence the meaning of speech. 45 Additionally, machine learning algorithms rely on data collected from the real world and may embed prejudices or preconceptions, leading to asymmetrical applications of the filter. 46 And because the training data sets are so large, it can be hard to audit them for these biases. 47

Despite these limitations, algorithms will continue to be a crucial resource in content moderation given the scale of online activities. 48 In the last two months of 2020 alone, Facebook applied a content moderation measure to 105 million publications, and Instagram to 35 million. 49 YouTube has 500 hours of video uploaded per minute and removed more than 9.3 million videos. 50 In the first half of 2020, Twitter analyzed complaints related to 12.4 million accounts for potential violations of its rules and took action against 1.9 million. 51 This data supports the claim that human moderation is impossible, and that algorithms are a necessary tool to reduce the spread of illicit and harmful content. On the one hand, holding platforms accountable for occasional errors in these systems would create wrong incentives to abandon algorithms in content moderation with the negative consequence of significantly increasing the spread of undesired speech. 52 On the other hand, broad demands for platforms to implement algorithms to optimize content moderation, or laws that impose very short deadlines to respond to removal requests submitted by users, can create excessive pressure for the use of these imprecise systems on a larger scale. Acknowledging the limitations of this technology is fundamental for precise regulation.

C. Some Undesirable Consequences

One of the most striking impacts of this new informational environment is the exponential increase in the scale of social communications and the circulation of news. Around the world, few newspapers, print publications, and radio stations cross the threshold of having even one million subscribers and listeners. This suggests the majority of these publications have a much smaller audience, possibly in the thousands or tens of thousands of people. 53 Television reaches millions of viewers, although diluted among dozens or hundreds of channels. 54 Facebook, on the other hand, has about 3 billion active users. 55 YouTube has 2.5 billion accounts. 56 WhatsApp, more than 2 billion. 57 The numbers are bewildering. However, and as anticipated, just as the digital revolution democratized access to knowledge, information, and public space, it also introduced negative consequences for democracy that must be addressed. Three of them include:

a) the increased circulation of disinformation, deliberate lying, hate speech, conspiracy theories, attacks on democracy, and inauthentic behavior, made possible by recommendation algorithms that optimize for user engagement and content moderation algorithms that are still incapable of adequately identifying undesirable content;

b) the tribalization of life, with the formation of echo chambers where groups speak only to themselves, reinforcing confirmation bias, 58 making speech progressively more radical, and contributing to polarization and intolerance; and

c) a global crisis in the business model of the professional press. Although social media platforms have become one of the main sources of information, they do not produce their own content. They hire engineers, not reporters, and their interest is engagement, not news. 59 Because advertisers’ spending has migrated away from traditional news publications to technological platforms with broader reaches, the press has suffered from a lack of revenue which has forced hundreds of major publications, national and local, to close their doors or reduce their journalist workforce. 60 But a free and strong press is more than just a private business; it is a pillar for an open and free society. It serves a public interest in the dissemination of facts, news, opinions, and ideas, indispensable preconditions for the informed exercise of citizenship. Knowledge and truth—never absolute, but sincerely sought—are essential elements for the functioning of a constitutional democracy. Citizens need to share a minimum set of common objective facts from which to inform their own judgments. If they cannot accept the same facts, public debate becomes impossible. Intolerance and violence are byproducts of the inability to communicate—hence the importance of “knowledge institutions,” such as universities, research entities, and the institutional press. The value of free press for democracy is illustrated by the fact that in different parts of the world, the press is one of the only private businesses specifically referred to throughout constitutions. Despite its importance for society and democracy, surveys reveal a concerning decline in its prestige. 61

In the beginning of the digital revolution, there was a belief that the internet should be a free, open, and unregulated space in the interest of protecting access to the platform and promoting freedom of expression. Over time, concerns emerged, and a consensus gradually grew for the need for internet regulation. Multiple approaches for regulating the internet were proposed, including: (a) economic, through antitrust legislation, consumer protection, fair taxation, and copyright rules; (b) privacy, through laws restricting collection of user data without consent, especially for content targeting; and (c) targeting inauthentic behavior, content control, and platform liability rules. 62

Devising the proper balance between the indispensable preservation of freedom of expression on the one hand, and the repression of illegal content on social media on the other, is one of the most complex issues of our generation. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right incorporated into virtually all contemporary constitutions and, in many countries, is considered a preferential freedom. Several reasons have been advanced for granting freedom of expression special protection, including its roles: (a) in the search for the possible truth 63 in an open and plural society, 64 as explored above in discussing the importance of the institutional press; (b) as an essential element for democracy 65 because it allows the free circulation of ideas, information, and opinions that inform public opinion and voting; and (c) as an essential element of human dignity, 66 allowing the expression of an individual’s personality.

The regulation of digital platforms cannot undermine these values but must instead aim at its protection and strengthening. However, in the digital age, these same values that historically justified the reinforced protection of freedom of expression can now justify its regulation. As U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres thoughtfully stated, “the ability to cause large-scale disinformation and undermine scientifically established facts is an existential risk to humanity.” 67

Two aspects of the internet business model are particularly problematic for the protection of democracy and free expression. The first is that, although access to most technological platforms and applications is free, users pay for access with their privacy. 68 As Lawrence Lessig observed, we watch television, but the internet watches us. 69 Everything each individual does online is monitored and monetized. Data is the modern gold. 70 Thus, those who pay for the data can more efficiently disseminate their message through targeted ads. As previously mentioned, the power to modify a person’s information environment has a direct impact on behavior and beliefs, especially when messages are tailored to maximize impact on a specific individual. 71

The second aspect is that algorithms are programmed to maximize time spent online. This often leads to the amplification of provocative, radical, and aggressive content. This in turn compromises freedom of expression because, by targeting engagement, algorithms sacrifice the search for truth (with the wide circulation of fake news), democracy (with attacks on institutions and defense of coups and authoritarianism), and human dignity (with offenses, threats, racism, and others). The pursuit of attention and engagement for revenue is not always compatible with the values that underlie the protection of freedom of expression.

IV. A Framework for the Regulation of Social Media

Platform regulation models can be broadly classified into three categories: (a) state or government regulation, through legislation and rules drawing a compulsory, encompassing framework; (b) self-regulation, through rules drafted by platforms themselves and materialized in their terms of use; and (c) regulated self-regulation or coregulation, through standards fixed by the state but which grant platform flexibility in materializing and implementing them. This Essay argues for the third model, with a combination of governmental and private responsibilities. Compliance should be overseen by an independent committee, with the minority of its representatives coming from the government, and the majority coming from the business sector, academia, technology entities, users, and civil society.

The regulatory framework should aim to reduce the asymmetry of information between platforms and users, safeguard the fundamental right to freedom of expression from undue private or state interventions, and protect and strengthen democracy. The current technical limitations of content moderation algorithms explored above and normal substantive disagreement about what content should be considered illegal or harmful suggest that an ideal regulatory model should optimize the balance between the fundamental rights of users and platforms, recognizing that there will always be cases where consensus is unachievable. The focus of regulation should be the development of adequate procedures for content moderation, capable of minimizing errors and legitimizing decisions even when one disagrees with the substantive result. 72 With these premises as background, the proposal for regulation formulated here is divided into three levels: (a) the appropriate intermediary liability model for user-generated content; (b) procedural duties for content moderation; and (c) minimum duties to moderate content that represents concrete threats to democracy and/or freedom of expression itself.

A. Intermediary Liability for User-Generated Content

There are three main regimes for platform liability for third-party content. In strict liability models, platforms are held responsible for all user-generated posts. 73 Since platforms have limited editorial control over what is posted and limited human oversight over the millions of posts made daily, this would be a potentially destructive regime. In knowledge-based liability models, platform liability arises if they do not act to remove content after an extrajudicial request from users—this is also known as a “notice-and-takedown” system. 74 Finally, a third model would make platforms liable for user-generated content only in cases of noncompliance with a court order mandating content removal. This latter model was adopted in Brazil with the Civil Framework for the Internet (Marco Civil da Internet). 75 The only exception in Brazilian legislation to this general rule is revenge porn: if there is a violation of intimacy resulting from the nonconsensual disclosure of images, videos, or other materials containing private nudity or private sexual acts, extrajudicial notification is sufficient to create an obligation for content removal under penalty of liability. 76

In our view, the Brazilian model is the one that most adequately balances the fundamental rights involved. As mentioned, in the most complex cases concerning freedom of expression, people will disagree on the legality of speech. Rules holding platforms accountable for not removing content after mere user notification create incentives for over-removal of any potentially controversial content, excessively restricting users’ freedom of expression. If the state threatens to hold digital platforms accountable if it disagrees with their assessment, companies will have the incentive to remove all content that could potentially be considered illicit by courts to avoid liability. 77

Nonetheless, this liability regime should coexist with a broader regulatory structure imposing principles, limits, and duties on content moderation by digital platforms, both to increase the legitimacy of platforms’ application of their own terms and conditions and to minimize the potentially devastating impacts of illicit or harmful speech.

B. Standards for Proactive Content Moderation

Platforms have free enterprise and freedom of expression rights to set their own rules and decide the kind of environment they want to create, as well as to moderate harmful content that could drive users away. However, because these content moderation algorithms are the new governors of the public sphere, 78 and because they define the ability to participate and be heard in online public discourse, platforms should abide by minimum procedural duties of transparency and auditing, due process, and fairness.

1. Transparency and Auditing

Transparency and auditing measures serve mainly to ensure that platforms are accountable for content moderation decisions and for the impacts of their algorithms. They provide users with greater understanding and knowledge about the extent to which platforms regulate speech, and they provide oversight bodies and researchers with information to understand the threats of digital services and the role of platforms in amplifying or minimizing them.

Driven by demands from civil society, several digital platforms already publish transparency reports. 79 However, the lack of binding standards means that these reports have significant gaps, no independent verification of the information provided, 80 and no standardization across platforms, preventing comparative analysis. 81 In this context, regulatory initiatives that impose minimum requirements and standards are crucial to make oversight more effective. On the other hand, overly broad transparency mandates may force platforms to adopt simpler content moderation rules to reduce costs, which could negatively impact the accuracy of content moderation or the quality of the user experience. 82 A tiered approach to transparency, where certain information is public and certain information is limited to oversight bodies or previously qualified researchers, ensures adequate protection of countervailing interests, such as user privacy and business confidentiality. 83 The Digital Services Act, 84 recently passed in the European Union, contains robust transparency provisions that generally align with these considerations. 85

The information that should be publicly provided includes clear and unambiguous terms of use, the options available to address violations (such as removal, amplification reduction, clarifications, and account suspension) and the division of labor between algorithms and humans. More importantly, public transparency reports should include information on the accuracy of automated moderation measures and the number of content moderation actions broken down by type (such as removal, blocking, and account deletion). 86 There must also be transparency obligations to researchers, giving them access to crucial information and statistics, including to the content analyzed for the content moderation decisions. 87

Although valuable, transparency requirements are insufficient in promoting accountability because they rely on users and researchers to actively monitor platform conduct and presuppose that they have the power to draw attention to flaws and promote changes. 88 Legally mandated third-party algorithmic auditing is therefore an important complement to ensure that these models satisfy legal, ethical, and safety standards and to elucidate the embedded value tradeoffs, such as between user safety and freedom of expression. 89 As a starting point, algorithm audits should consider matters such as how accurately they perform, any potential bias or discrimination incorporated in the data, and to what extent the internal mechanics are explainable to humans. 90 The Digital Services Act contains a similar proposal. 91

The market for algorithmic auditing is still emergent and replete with uncertainty. In attempting to navigate this scenario, regulators should: (a) define how often the audits should happen; (b) develop standards and best practices for auditing procedures; (c) mandate specific disclosure obligations so auditors have access to the required data; and (d) define how identified harms should be addressed. 92

2. Due Process and Fairness

To ensure due process, platforms must inform users affected by content moderation decisions of the allegedly violated provision of the terms of use, as well as offer an internal system of appeals against these decisions. Platforms must also create systems that allow for the substantiated denunciation of content or accounts by other users, and notify reporting users of the decision taken.

As for fairness, platforms should ensure that the rules are applied equally to all users. Although it is reasonable to suppose that platforms may adopt different criteria for public persons or information of public interest, these exceptions must be clear in the terms of use. This issue has recently been the subject of controversy between the Facebook Oversight Board and the company. 93

Due to the enormous amount of content published on the platforms and the inevitability of using automated mechanisms for content moderation, platforms should not be held accountable for a violation of these duties in specific cases, but only when the analysis reveals a systemic failure to comply. 94

C. Minimum Duties to Moderate Illicit Content

The regulatory framework should also contain specific obligations to address certain types of especially harmful speech. The following categories are considered by the authors to fall within this group: disinformation, hate speech, anti-democratic attacks, cyberbullying, terrorism, and child pornography. Admittedly, defining and consensually identifying the speech included in these categories—except in the case of child pornography 95 —is a complex and largely subjective task. Precisely for this reason, platforms should be free to define how the concepts will be operationalized, as long as they guide definitions by international human rights parameters and in a transparent manner. This does not mean that all platforms will reach the same definitions nor the same substantive results in concrete cases, but this should not be considered a flaw in the system, since the plurality of rules promotes freedom of expression. The obligation to observe international human rights parameters reduces the discretion of companies, while allowing for the diversity of policies among them. After defining these categories, platforms must establish mechanisms that allow users to report violations.

In addition, platforms should develop mechanisms to address coordinated inauthentic behaviors, which involve the use of automated systems or deceitful means to artificially amplify false or dangerous messages by using bots, fake profiles, trolls, and provocateurs. 96 For example, if a person publishes a post for his twenty followers saying that kerosene oil is good for curing COVID-19, the negative impact of this misinformation is limited. However, if that message is amplified to thousands of users, a greater public health issue arises. Or, in another example, if the false message that an election was rigged reaches millions of people, there is a democratic risk due to the loss of institutional credibility.

The role of oversight bodies should be to verify that platforms have adopted terms of use that prohibit the sharing of these categories of speech and ensure that, systemically, the recommendation and content moderation systems are trained to moderate this content.

V. Conclusion

The World Wide Web has provided billions of people with access to knowledge, information, and the public space, changing the course of history. However, the misuse of the internet and social media poses serious threats to democracy and fundamental rights. Some degree of regulation has become necessary to confront inauthentic behavior and illegitimate content. It is essential, however, to act with transparency, proportionality, and adequate procedures, so that pluralism, diversity, and freedom of expression are preserved.

In addition to the importance of regulatory action, the responsibility for the preservation of the internet as a healthy public sphere also lies with citizens. Media education and user awareness are fundamental steps for the creation of a free but positive and constructive environment on the internet. Citizens should be conscious that social media can be unfair, perverse, and can violate fundamental rights and basic rules of democracy. They must be attentive not to uncritically pass on all information received. Alongside states, regulators, and tech companies, citizens are also an important force to address these threats. In Jonathan Haidt’s words, “[w]hen our public square is governed by mob dynamics unrestrained by due process, we don’t get justice and inclusion; we get a society that ignores context, proportionality, mercy, and truth.” 97

• 1 Tim Wu, Is the First Amendment Obsolete? , in The Perilous Public Square 15 (David E. Pozen ed., 2020).
• 2 Jack M. Balkin, Free Speech is a Triangle , 118 Colum. L. Rev. 2011, 2019 (2018).
• 3 Luís Roberto Barroso, O Constitucionalismo Democrático ou Neoconstitucionalismo como ideologia vitoriosa do século XX , 4 Revista Publicum 14, 14 (2018).
• 4 Id. at 16.
• 7 Ronald Dworkin, Is Democracy Possible Here?: Principles for a New Political Debate xii (2006); Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously 181 (1977).
• 8 Barroso, supra note 3, at 16.
• 9 Samuel Issacharoff, Fragile Democracies: Contested Power in the Era of Constitutional Courts i (2015).
• 10 Larry Diamond, Facing up to the Democratic Recession , 26 J. Democracy 141 (2015). Other scholars have referred to the same phenomenon using other terms, such as democratic retrogression, abusive constitutionalism, competitive authoritarianism, illiberal democracy, and autocratic legalism. See, e.g. , Aziz Huq & Tom Ginsburg, How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy , 65 UCLA L. Rev. 91 (2018); David Landau, Abusive Constitutionalism , 47 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 189 (2013); Kim Lane Scheppele, Autocratic Legalism , 85 U. Chi. L. Rev. 545 (2018).
• 11 Dan Balz, A Year After Jan. 6, Are the Guardrails that Protect Democracy Real or Illusory? , Wash. Post (Jan. 6, 2022), https://perma.cc/633Z-A9AJ; Brexit: Reaction from Around the UK , BBC News (June 24, 2016), https://perma.cc/JHM3-WD7A.
• 12 Cas Mudde, The Populist Zeitgeist , 39 Gov’t & Opposition 541, 549 (2004).
• 13 See generally Mohammed Sinan Siyech, An Introduction to Right-Wing Extremism in India , 33 New Eng. J. Pub. Pol’y 1 (2021) (discussing right-wing extremism in India). See also Eviane Leidig, Hindutva as a Variant of Right-Wing Extremism , 54 Patterns of Prejudice 215 (2020) (tracing the history of “Hindutva”—defined as “an ideology that encompasses a wide range of forms, from violent, paramilitary fringe groups, to organizations that advocate the restoration of Hindu ‘culture’, to mainstream political parties”—and finding that it has become mainstream since 2014 under Modi); Ariel Goldstein, Brazil Leads the Third Wave of the Latin American Far Right , Ctr. for Rsch. on Extremism (Mar. 1, 2021), https://perma.cc/4PCT-NLQJ (discussing right-wing extremism in Brazil under Bolsonaro); Seth G. Jones, The Rise of Far-Right Extremism in the United States , Ctr. for Strategic & Int’l Stud. (Nov. 2018), https://perma.cc/983S-JUA7 (discussing right-wing extremism in the U.S. under Trump).
• 14 Sergio Fausto, O Desafio Democrático [The Democratic Challenge], Piauí (Aug. 2022), https://perma.cc/474A-3849.
• 15 Jan-Werner Muller, Populism and Constitutionalism , in The Oxford Handbook of Populism 590 (Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser et al. eds., 2017).
• 16 Ming-Sung Kuo, Against Instantaneous Democracy , 17 Int’l J. Const. L. 554, 558–59 (2019); see also Digital Populism , Eur. Ctr. for Populism Stud., https://perma.cc/D7EV-48MV.
• 17 Luís Roberto Barroso, Technological Revolution, Democratic Recession and Climate Change: The Limits of Law in a Changing World , 18 Int’l J. Const. L. 334, 349 (2020).
• 18 For the use of social media, see Sven Engesser et al., Populism and Social Media: How Politicians Spread a Fragmented Ideology , 20 Info. Commc’n & Soc’y 1109 (2017). For attacks on the press, see WPFD 2021: Attacks on Press Freedom Growing Bolder Amid Rising Authoritarianism , Int’l Press Inst. (Apr. 30, 2021), https://perma.cc/SGN9-55A8. For attacks on the judiciary, see Michael Dichio & Igor Logvinenko, Authoritarian Populism, Courts and Democratic Erosion , Just Sec. (Feb. 11, 2021), https://perma.cc/WZ6J-YG49.
• 19 Kuo, supra note 16, at 558–59; see also Digital Populism , supra note 16.
• 20 Vicki C. Jackson, Knowledge Institutions in Constitutional Democracy: Reflections on “the Press” , 15 J. Media L. 275 (2022).
• 21 Many of the ideas and information on this topic were collected in Luna van Brussel Barroso, Liberdade de Expressão e Democracia na Era Digital: O impacto das mídias sociais no mundo contemporâneo [Freedom of Expression and Democracy in the Digital Era: The Impact of Social Media in the Contemporary World] (2022), which was recently published in Brazil.
• 22 The first industrial revolution is marked by the use of steam as a source of energy in the middle of the 18th century. The second started with the use of electricity and the invention of the internal combustion engine at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. There are already talks of the fourth industrial revolution as a product of the fusion of technologies that blurs the boundaries among the physical, digital, and biological spheres. See generally Klaus Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2017).
• 23 Gregory P. Magarian, The Internet and Social Media , in The Oxford Handbook of Freedom of Speech 350, 351–52 (Adrienne Stone & Frederick Schauer eds., 2021).
• 24 Wu, supra note 1, at 15.
• 25 Journalistic ethics include distinguishing fact from opinion, verifying the veracity of what is published, having no self-interest in the matter being reported, listening to the other side, and rectifying mistakes. For an example of an international journalistic ethics charter, see Global Charter of Ethics for Journalists , Int’l Fed’n of Journalists (June 12, 2019), https://perma.cc/7A2C-JD2S.
• 26 See, e.g. , New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
• 27 Balkin, supra note 2, at 2018.
• 28 Magarian, supra note 23, at 351–52.
• 29 Wu, supra note 1, at 15.
• 30 Magarian, supra note 23, at 357–60.
• 31 Niva Elkin-Koren & Maayan Perel, Speech Contestation by Design: Democratizing Speech Governance by AI , 50 Fla. State U. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2023).
• 32 Thomas E. Kadri & Kate Klonick, Facebook v. Sullivan: Public Figures and Newsworthiness in Online Speech , 93 S. Cal. L. Rev. 37, 94 (2019).
• 33 Elkin-Koren & Perel, supra note 31.
• 34 Chris Meserole, How Do Recommender Systems Work on Digital Platforms? , Brookings Inst.(Sept. 21, 2022), https://perma.cc/H53K-SENM.
• 35 Kris Shaffer, Data versus Democracy: How Big Data Algorithms Shape Opinions and Alter the Course of History xi–xv (2019).
• 36 See generally Stuart Russell, Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control (2019).
• 37 Shaffer, supra note 35, at xi–xv.
• 38 More recently, with the advance of neuroscience, platforms have sharpened their ability to manipulate and change our emotions, feelings and, consequently, our behavior in accordance not with our own interests, but with theirs (or of those who they sell this service to). Kaveh Waddell, Advertisers Want to Mine Your Brain , Axios (June 4, 2019), https://perma.cc/EU85-85WX. In this context, there is already talk of a new fundamental right to cognitive liberty, mental self-determination, or the right to free will. Id .
• 39 Content moderation refers to “systems that classify user generated content based on either matching or prediction, leading to a decision and governance outcome (e.g. removal, geoblocking, account takedown).” Robert Gorwa, Reuben Binns & Christian Katzenbach, Algorithmic Content Moderation: Technical and Political Challenges in the Automation of Platform Governance , 7 Big Data & Soc’y 1, 3 (2020).
• 40 Jack M. Balkin, Free Speech in the Algorithmic Society: Big Data, Private Governance, and New School Speech Regulation , 51 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1149, 1183 (2018).
• 41 See Carey Shenkman, Dhanaraj Thakur & Emma Llansó, Do You See What I See? Capabilities and Limits of Automated Multimedia Content Analysis 13–16 (May 2021),https://perma.cc/J9MP-7PQ8.
• 42 See id. at 17–21.
• 43 See Michael Wooldridge, A Brief History of Artificial Intelligence: What It Is, Where We Are, and Where We Are Going 63 (2021).

Perceptual hashing has been the primary technology utilized to mitigate the spread of CSAM, since the same materials are often repeatedly shared, and databases of offending content are maintained by institutions like the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and its international analogue, the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (ICMEC).

• 45 Natural language understanding is undermined by language ambiguity, contextual dependence of words of non-immediate proximity, references, metaphors, and general semantics rules. See Erik J. Larson, The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can’t Think the Way We Do 52–55 (2021). Language comprehension in fact requires unlimited common-sense knowledge about the actual world, which humans possess and is impossible to code. Id . A case decided by Facebook’s Oversight Board illustrates the point: the company’s predictive filter for combatting pornography removed images from a breast cancer awareness campaign, a clearly legitimate content not meant to be targeted by the algorithm. See Breast Cancer Symptoms and Nudity , Oversight Bd. (2020), https://perma.cc/U9A5-TTTJ. However, based on prior training, the algorithm removed the publication because it detected pornography and was unable to factor the contextual consideration that this was a legitimate health campaign. Id .
• 46 See generally Adriano Koshiyama, Emre Kazim & Philip Treleaven, Algorithm Auditing: Managing the Legal, Ethical, and Technological Risks of Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Associated Algorithms , 55 Computer 40 (2022).
• 47 Elkin-Koren & Perel, supra note 31.
• 48 Evelyn Douek, Governing Online Speech: From “Posts-as-Trumps” to Proportionality and Probability , 121 Colum. L. Rev. 759, 791 (2021).
• 53 See Martha Minow, Saving the Press: Why the Constitution Calls for Government Action to Preserve Freedom of Speech 20 (2021). For example, the best-selling newspaper in the world, The New York Times , ended the year 2022 with around 10 million subscribers across digital and print. Katie Robertson, The New York Times Company Adds 180,000 Digital Subscribers , N.Y. Times (Nov. 2, 2022), https://perma.cc/93PF-TKC5. The Economist magazine had approximately 1.2 million subscribers in 2022. The Economist Group, Annual Report 2022 24 (2022), https://perma.cc/9HQQ-F7W2. Around the world, publications that reach one million subscribers are rare. These Are the Most Popular Paid Subscription News Websites , World Econ. F. (Apr. 29, 2021), https://perma.cc/L2MK-VPNX.
• 54 Lawrence Lessig, They Don’t Represent Us: Reclaiming Our Democracy 105 (2019).
• 55 Essential Facebook Statistics and Trends for 2023 , Datareportal (Feb. 19, 2023), https://perma.cc/UH33-JHUQ.
• 56 YouTube User Statistics 2023 , Glob. Media Insight (Feb. 27, 2023), https://perma.cc/3H4Y-H83V.
• 57 Brian Dean, WhatsApp 2022 User Statistics: How Many People Use WhatsApp , Backlinko (Jan. 5, 2022), https://perma.cc/S8JX-S7HN.
• 58 Confirmation bias, the tendency to seek out and favor information that reinforces one’s existing beliefs, presents an obstacle to critical thinking. Sachin Modgil et al., A Confirmation Bias View on Social Media Induced Polarisation During COVID-19 , Info. Sys. Frontiers (Nov. 20, 2021).
• 59 Minow, supra note 53, at 2.
• 60 Id. at 3, 11.
• 61 On the importance of the role of the press as an institution of public interest and its “crucial relationship” with democracy, see id. at 35. On the press as a “knowledge institution,” the idea of “institutional press,” and data on the loss of prestige by newspapers and television stations, see Jackson, supra note 20, at 4–5.
• 62 See , e.g. , Jack M. Balkin, How to Regulate (and Not Regulate) Social Media , 1 J. Free Speech L. 71, 89–96 (2021).
• 63 By possible truth we mean that not all claims, opinions and beliefs can be ascertained as true or false. Objective truths are factual and can thus be proven even when controversial—for example, climate change and the effectiveness of vaccines. Subjective truths, on the other hand, derive from individual normative, religious, philosophical, and political views. In a pluralistic world, any conception of freedom of expression must protect individual subjective beliefs.
• 64 Eugene Volokh, In Defense of the Marketplace of Ideas/Search for Truth as a Theory of Free Speech Protection , 97 Va. L. Rev. 595, 595 (May 2011).
• 66 Steven J. Heyman, Free Speech and Human Dignity 2 (2008).
• 67 A Global Dialogue to Guide Regulation Worldwide , UNESCO (Feb. 23, 2023), https://perma.cc/ALK8-HTG3.
• 68 Can We Fix What’s Wrong with Social Media? , Yale L. Sch. News (Aug. 3, 2022), https://perma.cc/MN58-2EVK.
• 69 Lessig, supra note 54, at 105.
• 71 See supra Part III.B.
• 72 Doeuk, supra note 48, at 804–13; see also John Bowers & Jonathan Zittrain, Answering Impossible Questions: Content Governance in an Age of Disinformation , Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. (Jan. 14, 2020), https://perma.cc/R7WW-8MQX.
• 73 Daphne Keller, Systemic Duties of Care and Intermediary Liability , Ctr. for Internet & Soc’y Blog (May 28, 2020), https://perma.cc/25GU-URGT.
• 75 Decreto No. 12.965, de 23 de abril de 2014, Diário Oficial da União [D.O.U.] de 4.14.2014 (Braz.) art. 19. In order to ensure freedom of expression and prevent censorship, providers of internet applications can only be civilly liable for damages resulting from content generated by third parties if, after specific court order, they do not make arrangements to, in the scope and technical limits of their service and within the indicated time, make unavailable the content identified as infringing, otherwise subject to the applicable legal provisions. Id .
• 76 Id. art. 21. The internet application provider that provides content generated by third parties will be held liable for the violation of intimacy resulting from the disclosure, without authorization of its participants, of images, videos, or other materials containing nude scenes or private sexual acts when, upon receipt of notification by the participant or its legal representative, fail to diligently promote, within the scope and technical limits of its service, the unavailability of this content. Id .
• 77 Balkin, supra note 2, at 2017.
• 78 Kate Klonick, The New Governors: The People, Rules, and Processes Governing Online Speech , 131 Harv. L. Rev. 1598, 1603 (2018).
• 79 Transparency Reporting Index, Access Now (July 2021), https://perma.cc/2TSL-2KLD (cataloguing transparency reporting from companies around the world).
• 80 Hum. Rts. Comm., Rep. of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, ¶¶ 63–66, U.N. Doc A/HRC/32/35 (2016).
• 81 Paddy Leerssen, The Soap Box as a Black Box: Regulating Transparency in Social Media Recommender Systems , 11 Eur. J. L. & Tech. (2020).
• 82 Daphne Keller, Some Humility About Transparency , Ctr. for Internet & Soc’y Blog (Mar. 19, 2021), https://perma.cc/4Y85-BATA.
• 83 Mark MacCarthy, Transparency Requirements for Digital Social Media Platforms: Recommendations for Policy Makers and Industry , Transatlantic Working Grp. (Feb. 12, 2020).
• 84 2022 O.J. (L 277) 1 [hereinafter DSA].
• 85 The DSA was approved by the European Parliament on July 5, 2022, and on October 4, 2022, the European Council gave its final acquiescence to the regulation. Digital Services: Landmark Rules Adopted for a Safer, Open Online Environment , Eur. Parliament (July 5, 2022), https://perma.cc/BZP5-V2B2. The DSA increases transparency and accountability of platforms, by providing, for example, for the obligation of “clear information on content moderation or the use of algorithms for recommending content (so-called recommender systems); users will be able to challenge content moderation decisions.” Id .
• 86 MacCarthy, supra note 83, 19–24.
• 87 To this end, American legislators recently introduced a U.S. Congressional bill that proposes a model for conducting research on the impacts of digital communications in a way that protects user privacy. See Platform Accountability and Transparency Act, S. 5339, 117th Congress (2022). The project mandates that digital platforms share data with researchers previously authorized by the Federal Trade Commission and publicly disclose certain data about content, algorithms, and advertising. Id .
• 88 Yifat Nahmias & Maayan Perel, The Oversight of Content Moderation by AI: Impact Assessment and Their Limitations , 58 Harv. J. on Legis. 145, 154–57 (2021).
• 89 Auditing Algorithms: The Existing Landscape, Role of Regulator and Future Outlook , Digit. Regul. Coop. F. (Sept. 23, 2022), https://perma.cc/7N6W-JNCW.
• 90 See generally Koshiyama et al., supra note 46.
• 91 In Article 37, the DSA provides that digital platforms of a certain size should be accountable, through annual independent auditing, for compliance with the obligations set forth in the Regulation and with any commitment undertaken pursuant to codes of conduct and crisis protocols.
• 92 Digit. Regul. Coop. F., supra note 89.
• 93 In a transparency report published at the end of its first year of operation, the Oversight Board highlighted the inadequacy of the explanations presented by Meta on the operation of a system known as cross-check, which apparently gave some users greater freedom on the platform. In January 2022, Meta explained that the cross-check system grants an additional degree of review to certain content that internal systems mark as violating the platform’s terms of use. Meta submitted a query to the Board on how to improve the functioning of this system and the Board made relevant recommendations. See Oversight Board Published Policy Advisory Opinion on Meta’s Cross-Check Program , Oversight Bd. (Dec. 2022), https://perma.cc/87Z5-L759.
• 94 Evelyn Douek, Content Moderation as Systems Thinking , 136 Harv. L. Rev. 526, 602–03 (2022).
• 95 The illicit nature of child pornography is objectively apprehended and does not implicate the same subjective considerations that the other referenced categories entail. Not surprisingly, several databases have been created to facilitate the moderation of this content. See Ofcom, Overview of Perceptual Hashing Technology 14 (Nov. 22, 2022), https://perma.cc/EJ45-B76X (“Several hash databases to support the detection of known CSAM exist, e.g. the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) hash database, the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) hash list and the International Child Sexual Exploitation (ICSE) hash database.”).
• 97 Jonathan Haidt, Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid , Atlantic (Apr. 11, 2022), https://perma.cc/2NXD-32VM.

Media and Democracy: The Long View

• Marc F. Plattner

Select your citation format:

Read the full essay here .

We are living in the midst of a communications revolution that is likely to have significant effects on democracy. Though it is too soon to know where this revolution will lead, it is an opportune moment for a broader historical inquiry into the relationship between democracy and the media. Representative democracy was born in the era of print media, but over the past century it has accommodated the rise of broadcasting and now is being shaped by new communications technologies. As a result, we seem to be heading toward a more pluralistic but also more fragmented media environment that may pose a threat to the shared civic arena essential to democracy.

About the Author

Marc F. Plattner  is a member of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) Board of Directors. He was on the NED staff from 1984 until 2020, serving first as the director of the grants program. In 1989, he became founding coeditor (with Larry Diamond) of the Journal of Democracy. He later served as codirector of the International Forum for Democratic Studies and as NED’s vice-president for research and studies.

View all work by Marc F. Plattner

Further Reading

Volume 5, Issue 1

Bosnia’s Beacon of Hope

• Kemal Kurspahić

Volume 21, Issue 2

The Freedom House Survey for 2009: The Erosion Accelerates

• Arch Puddington

Although the overall state of freedom in the world has clearly improved over the last two decades, more recent trends are worrisome. In 2009, declines in freedom outnumbered gains for…

Volume 11, Issue 2

Electoral Reform and Stability in Uruguay

• Jeffrey Cason

In the November 1999 presidential election, Uruguayans reaffirmed their strong commitment to democracy, while adjusting to a set of constitutional reforms that profoundly altered the electoral system.

12.1 The Media as a Political Institution: Why Does It Matter?

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Explain the importance of a free press both in the United States and abroad.
• Describe how the media acts as a watchdog and give examples.
• Understand and define how political information is mediated.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. —The 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution

The press is the only profession explicitly protected in the United States Constitution. Many attribute this protection to James Madison and his writings in the Federalist Papers , but the idea of a free press stretches back to well before Madison wrote out his ideas on what constitutes a perfect democracy. The origins of the free press in the United States can be traced back to Cato’s letters , a collection of essays written in the 1720s by two British writers, John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon . Using the pseudonym Cato, they published their articles in the British press, criticizing the British monarchy for its corruption and tyrannical practices. Decades later, American colonists felt the effects of these letters during their own struggles against the Crown, 1 and in 1776, Virginia became the first state to formally adopt a constitutional provision to protect press freedom. 2 Why is the idea of protecting the press so embedded in the United States’ concept of government, and why is this concept so important? Do other nations protect the media to the same extent, or even more? The next section will examine these questions.

The Fourth Estate and Freedom of the Press

The importance of a free press can be boiled down to a sentence from esteemed University of Illinois at Chicago lecturer Doris Graber ’s seminal work Mass Media and American Politics : “The mass media . . . serve as powerful guardians of political norms because the American people believe that a free press should keep them informed about the wrongdoings of government.” 3 Another common way of defining the media’s role is to say that it acts as the fourth estate , or the unofficial fourth branch of government that checks the others. The term fourth estate is credited to Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle , who wrote, “Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporter’s Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.” 4 In other words, people look to the media—the fourth estate—to keep the government in check. The role of the media must be protected if it is to carry out that task.

Throughout US history, the media has fulfilled this role as intended. In the late 1960s, Rand Corporation analyst Daniel Ellsberg provided classified documents to the New York Times and the Washington Post proving that the government was concealing protracted military involvement in the Vietnam War. The New York Times withstood government pressure and a Supreme Court case to go on to publish a series of articles now known as the Pentagon Papers , which revealed the extent to which the American public had been lied to about the country’s progress in that war. The Watergate scandal is perhaps the most famous example of press freedom and the role of the press as watchdog (another term for the fourth estate ). In this instance, a government informant known as Deep Throat fed Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein confidential information about then president Richard Nixon’s corrupt campaign practices. An ensuing series of investigative pieces by the two journalists revealed multiple abuses of power in Nixon’s reelection campaign, and their reporting ultimately led to the indictment of multiple presidential aides and the eventual resignation of the president himself.

In this video clip, investigative journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, editor Barry Sussman, and former executive editor Ben Bradlee recall how, when they worked for the Washington Post in 1972, they broke the story of the Watergate scandal, a story that started with an investigation of a break-in at a Washington, DC, hotel and led to a constitutional crisis, the resignation of President Richard Nixon, and almost 50 criminal convictions.

In the case of the Pentagon Papers, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the president’s argument—that prior restraint 5 was necessary in order to protect national security—was not enough “to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment ,” 6 and this is the most important First Amendment case because it addresses the sweeping right of the press and press protections in the 20th century. Watergate showed how a protected press is free to serve one of its main purposes, which is to reveal government misconduct. New Yorker staff writer Richard Harris wrote at the time that, “The press was potentially Mr. Nixon’s enemy—far more than the courts or Congress, because only the press could dig out and tell the story (whatever help reporters might get from the courts or Congress) in a way that would arouse the people to demand an accounting.” 7

Watchdogs do not have to be journalistic behemoths like the New York Times or the Washington Post. In the United Kingdom, a small, independent newspaper called the Rochdale Alternative Paper revealed decades-long abuse allegations against Liberal Party MP 8 Cyril Smith . The exposé in the paper, which had a circulation of 8,000 at its highest, 9 eventually led to both a police and an independent government investigation into a child abuse ring that involved several high-level government officials, including MP Peter Morrison, the private secretary to then prime minister Margaret Thatcher . 10 Another way to understand the watchdog function of the press is through the term muckraker , referring to reform-minded investigative journalists during the Progressive Era in the United States (late 1800s to early 1900s) who exposed the wrongdoings of industry leaders. One famous example of a muckraker was Upton Sinclair , who wrote the novel The Jungle based on the corrupt and inhumane practices in American meatpacking companies at the turn of the 20th century. The publication of The Jungle led to governmental action on food safety. In his 1919 work The Brass Check , Sinclair exposed the journalism industry’s penchant for yellow journalism , or journalism that relies on catchy titles and human interest stories to drive sales over well-researched articles or pieces on civic affairs. Sinclair was not afraid to take on media titans such as William Randolph Hearst , who owned the nation’s largest chain of newspapers at the time.

Watchdogs and muckrakers act as a check on government action and corruption. They play an important part in exercising the role of a free press as a cornerstone of a functioning democracy. As Yale University professor and member of the Council on Foreign Relations Timothy Snyder writes, “If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so.” 11 The media allows the public to understand what is happening in government in order to hold elected officials accountable. Or, perhaps more simply put, “A free press is important because it is the freedom upon which all of our other freedoms are contingent.” 12

How free is the press? The answer is not black and white, as evidenced by the 2021 World Press Freedom Index . Published every year by Reporters Without Borders , the Freedom Index measures freedom in 180 countries “based on an evaluation of pluralism, independence of the media, quality of legislative framework and safety of journalists in each country and region.” 13 The map in Figure 12.3 below shows that the press is freer in some countries (in pink and purple on the map) than in others (in blue and green).

According to the index and as reflected in the map, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Denmark have the freest presses in the world. Notably, Norway tries to discourage media concentration in order to ensure a variety of outlets, something that will be discussed in later parts of this chapter. The 2021 index ranked the United States 44th, after South Africa (32nd), Botswana (38th), and South Korea (42nd).

George Mason University professor Sam Lebovic explains that two main factors, the rise of concentration in ownership and increased state secrecy, are responsible for the inadequacy of press freedom in the United States, which is an ongoing and serious problem. 14 The modern US media faces unprecedented struggles against declining viewership and revenues, which work to limit the number of outlets and decrease the number of working journalists. At the same time, legislation such as the Patriot Act , passed after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, has made it more difficult for the press to verify state information because of increasing pressure on sources not to cooperate and prosecution of journalists who do ascertain information. In addition, the Trump administration further hampered press freedoms through the prosecution of news sources, public statements that discredited journalists, and encouragement of foreign leaders to take steps to restrict their own media. 15 The future of press freedom in America, while still unstable due to media concentration and surveillance laws such as the Patriot Act, may show some signs of improvement; in a speech on Press Freedom Day in 2021, President Joe Biden decried the imprisonment of 274 reporters worldwide, criticized the lack of local media outlets, and said that the United States “recognize[s] the integral role a free press plays in building prosperous, resilient, and free societies.” 16 Despite these laudatory comments about a free press, however, it is clear the United States faces challenges in protecting journalists’ ability to fulfill their roles.

A study of the United States and Latin America provides an example of how this idea of the importance of a free press is shared across cultures. In the study, journalists representing both cultures shared a common definition of a free press as one that functions without government pressure and to promote social and economic development. 17 This study considered whether or not a free press is related to increased economic development, a question that to date has not been conclusively answered. While the notion that political freedoms (such as freedom of the press) should naturally encourage economic growth and increased standards of living is a common one, current research has not found conclusive evidence either supporting or refuting the claim. 18

There is more of a consensus on the benefits of a free press when it comes to preventing corruption. Studies of press freedom around the world, conducted by scholars in England, Argentina, and Australia, confirm this theory. 19 In this way, the watchdog role that the press plays is based on democratic ideals and has real-world effects for the public.

The Mediated Nature of Political Information

The political information most people receive is mediated information . What does this mean? Unless they work directly in government, most citizen’s understanding of politics comes completely from the media, whether via television news, podcasts, or social media feeds. The media may be a gatekeeper, but it is also a storyteller. As such, it is important to realize that what people see in the media is actually a manufactured view of the political world. Journalists and others who create the news follow routines and are influenced by institutional values that manifest themselves in media content. As Columbia University professor Herbert Gans writes in his study of the American media, “The news does not limit itself to reality judgments; it also contains values, or preference statements. This in turn makes it possible to suggest that there is, underlying the news, a picture of nation and society as it ought to be.” 20 Gans acknowledges that professional journalists try to be objective, yet the news does in fact make judgments and value statements. For example, crime news alerts viewers to the idea that there are undesirable actors within society and that criminals should be punished. Judgments and value statements such as these are different from political bias; while some news outlets are overtly liberal or conservative, Gans’s study shows that the media produces stories with cultural values that people may not detect because they are so used to seeing stories presented this way. For example, according to Gans, ethnocentrism and altruistic democracy are two of the key enduring values in the news. Ethnocentrism in the news refers to the idea that the American media values the United States above all other nations. This manifests most obviously in war coverage, where the press rarely questions American involvement—and to do so would be unpatriotic. In a similar vein, Gans explains that the American news media emphasize an altruistic democracy , the ideal held up by the media that politics should be based on public service and for the public interest. 21 In these ways, the news makes statements about what is right and what is wrong and presents political news through these lenses.

Journalists also share other professional values as to what makes a “good” news story, such as proximity, negativity, scope (how big is the story?), timeliness, and unexpectedness (novelty). 22 Because journalists share these professional values, there is a certain homogeneous quality to the news, otherwise known as pack journalism . This means that people receive the same type of news story repeatedly, though this has been changing since the advent of online news, a topic that will be discussed later in the chapter. Journalists’ common ideas about what should be in the news and why color their coverage and presentation of the news—and, as a result, the public’s perception of politics.

It is important here to note that the concept of news values differs across countries—what is newsworthy in the United States may not be in other nations—and the role of the media differs as well. A study on the news in Japan found that strong cultural forces and local needs drive how news is produced and delivered. 23 Other scholars have found that Western news organizations highlight human interest stories, while Arabic news focuses more on social responsibility and Islamic values. 24 University of Leicester Professor Vincent Campbell echoes the sentiment that news organizations in different countries are fueled by different values and that this influences what stories their audiences see. In authoritarian countries, journalists focus less on performing the watchdog role and more on promoting state activities. 25 This is the case in countries such as North Korea and China, where the state government runs the media.

Related to the idea that the media in large part decides what is a good news story is the concept of the media’s gatekeeping role and its agenda-setting powers. In other words, according to agenda-setting theory , the media decides both what to ignore or filter out and what to show the public. As University of Texas professor Maxwell McCombs and University of North Carolina professor Donald Shaw write, “In choosing and displaying news, editors, newsroom staff, and broadcasters play an important part in shaping political reality. Readers learn not only about a given issue, but also how much importance to attach to that issue from the amount of information in a news story and its position.” 26 Whether it is a producer who selects the topics for the evening news or an algorithm that creates a social media news feed, people know what is “news” by what is fed to them, they know what is important based on how often it gets airtime, and they understand that there are lead stories and stories that don’t matter very much. The public doesn’t make these decisions; professionals within the news industry make them for the public. (Later parts of this chapter will discuss how this power dynamic has changed thanks to social media and how, in many ways, it is no longer media professionals who select what the public sees.)

If the media decides which stories to present, it also has a hand in deciding how stories are presented. According to framing theory , the way the media frames political information can affect people’s understanding of it. University of Illinois professor David Tewksbury and University of Wisconsin professor Dietram A. Scheufele explain:

“Artists know that the frame placed around a painting can affect how viewers interpret and react to the painting itself. . . . Journalists—often subconsciously—engage in essentially the same process when they decide how to describe the political world. They choose images and words that have the power to influence how audiences interpret and evaluate issues and policies.” 27

For example, a study on gubernatorial races found that female candidates were more likely to be framed in terms of personal characteristics than their male counterparts, who were more likely to be framed in terms of their positions on policy issues. 28 In a separate study, researchers found that one common way the Dutch national media framed news on the European Union (EU) was in terms of assigning responsibility for social problems to the government. This study suggests that the Dutch media’s presentation of political news reflects the public expectation that the government will provide social welfare programs. 29 By highlighting certain aspects of a story and ignoring others, frames can affect people’s judgments and opinions on policy issues, and just as with agenda setting, elected officials fight to make sure they are framed in the correct light.

The public, and individual viewers, should know that while the media is a critical tool that aids people’s political decision-making, it is guided by professional values that dictate the content. Individuals’ views on politics can sometimes be out of their control, but they can work to assemble a better picture of the world by turning to a variety of media outlets and becoming aware of what goes into story selection. While internal pressures (such as professional norms) or external forces (such as authoritarian governments) can influence how the media portrays information, ownership can also affect what the public sees. The next section will examine the different types of media—and, perhaps more importantly, who owns them and how this affects their role in the political world.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-political-science/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Mark Carl Rom, Masaki Hidaka, Rachel Bzostek Walker
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Political Science
• Publication date: May 18, 2022
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-political-science/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-political-science/pages/12-1-the-media-as-a-political-institution-why-does-it-matter

© Apr 26, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Part Two: Culture and Contexts

16 Media and Democracy

mwengenmeir

One key tenet of a liberal democracy , the dominant form of government today, is the separation of powers into the various independent branches of government, usually in the form of the legislature that makes the laws, a judiciary that interprets and applies the law and an executive that carries out the administration and operations of governing. Societies in the past were relatively small and citizens were able to engage face-to-face or via handwritten messages in their deliberation and decision-making process. As populations grew larger participation in a democracy required mediation, i.e. communication is now mediated. The earliest mass media was the newspaper, followed by the radio and television, and today, the Internet.

Because of its emerging function as a watchdog that monitors the running of the nation by exposing excesses and corruption, and holding those in power accountable, the media was regarded as the fourth estate , supplementing the three branches of government by providing checks and balances. The media also plays a more basic role as a provider of information necessary for rational debate. A healthy functioning democracy is predicated on the electorate making informed choices and this in turn rests on the quality of information that they receive. The media, as an institution, has for a long time enjoyed the position as a trusted primary source of news and information. Due to the enlarging population, it has become no longer possible for every citizen to participate directly in the democratic process. This led to the the representational form of democracy where representatives speak and act on behalf of individuals. The media, in this environment, took on the role of being a voice of the people to those in government.

This evolution of the media into a place where the public can participate in the democratic process prompted Dahlgrens (1995) to separate the mediated public sphere into four dimensions in order to understand it better. The media can be studied as an institution . Is the media independent or state owned? Do they serve the public’s interest or a narrow range of interests belonging to the owners of the media? Are government funded and government regulated media institutions used for public service or are they propaganda mouthpieces? When private corporations own the media are they furthering their own commercial interests or the public’s?

In the face of these developments, questions have also been raised about the media’s representation of the public. Because journalists, and by extension the media, are seen now as a representative of the public , questions are raised over whether there is a wide enough range of opinion to represent the public’s interests. As the media becomes increasingly commercial there are also questions about the quality of the news and information, which may be compromised when the media focus more on entertainment to retain their audiences’ attention. Entertainment is often seen as emotive and the antithesis of rational discussion. There are also concerns that the role of the citizens are now reduced to a passive observer whose only democratic function is to cast the final vote.

In the face of these developments, Dahlgren questions the general social structure that is now evolving and the role media play. What are the relationships between the public and the existing social structures? How do the newer, alternative media forms fit into the present environment? What is the relationship between them and the traditional media?

Finally, Dahlgren highlights the issues pertaining to the decline of face-to-face interaction. With the media taking over the space where people used to meet face-to-face, is the traditional social practice of people assembling together threatened? In the face of globalisation people are more dispersed. Can the media mitigate the loss of this human link? Is it essential that this human link be maintained?

Under this section democratic legitimation through the formation of publics and public opinion is discussed. This section will clarify “ who is the public ?” as well as an introduction of the fundamental model of Habermas’ public sphere .

• The last two paragraphs already draw the attention on the media’s role in democracy. What role should the media ideally play in your opinion?
• In contrast, what role is the media fulfilling now ?

Dahlgren, P. (1995). Television and the Public Sphere. London: Sage.

Dahlgren, P. (2001). The transformation of democracy. In Axford, B. & Huggins, R. (eds.). New Media and Politics. London: Sage. pp. 64-88.

Media Studies 101 Copyright © 2014 by mwengenmeir is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Media as the Fourth Estate of Democracy

7 Pages Posted: 25 Aug 2014

Prabhat Ranjan

Christ University School of Law; Karanjawala & Co

Sindhuja Kashyap

Christ University School of Law

Date Written: August 23, 2014

The power and significance of media in democratic society is world renowned. Though media and press have a persuasive authority yet its’ real ability is not a secret to the world. The existence of a free, independent and powerful media is the cornerstone of a democracy, especially of a highly mixed society like India. The pivotal role of the media is its ability to mobilize the thinking process of millions. Technically a democracy stands on the pillars of judiciary, executive and legislature. But with the rise of the press and its power to reach every nook and corner of the state it can also be considered as the fourth pillar of a democracy. In this paper the authors have presented the impact of press on the Indian democracy and Indian constitution and have tried to answer that whether considering press as fourth estate of democracy is correct. The authors here have tried to answer the above question in two parts. Firstly, by analyzing the historical evolvement of press from an ordinary means of mass communication to an instrument of revolution in democracy. Focus in this section would be on the role played by media in various fields especially in a heterogeneous society like India. Secondly, by studying the impact of press on the judiciary and till what extent press effects the constitution of India. This section analyzes the role of media on judicial trials and presenting new problems which need to be legally regulated. Finally the authors have concluded the article by answering the above raised questions. Here the authors have firstly answered whether press should be considered as the fourth estate of democracy or not and secondly what type of effect press puts on Indian democracy and Indian constitution.

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Prabhat Ranjan (Contact Author)

Christ university school of law ( email ).

Hosur Road Bangalore, Karnataka, 560029 India

Karanjawala & Co ( email )

4 factory road near safdrjung hospital delhi, Delhi 110029 India

HOME PAGE: http://www.karanjawala.in/

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, political behavior: cognition, psychology, & behavior ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Political Institutions: Parties, Interest Groups & Other Political Organizations eJournal

India law ejournal, law, politics & the media ejournal, political anthropology ejournal, communication & technology ejournal, political communication ejournal, journalism studies ejournal, visual anthropology, media studies & performance ejournal.

What is the role of the media in a democracy?

Lesson details, key learning points.

• In this lesson, we will examine what a democracy is, and the vital role that the media plays within our democracy. We will explore the political affiliations of newspapers, consider how the media 'sets the agenda' and learn about how the media has a duty to educate and inform.

This content is made available by Oak National Academy Limited and its partners and licensed under Oak’s terms & conditions (Collection 1), except where otherwise stated.

Starter quiz

5 questions, lesson appears in, unit citizenship / how does the media affect us, citizenship.

Introduction: Media, Democracy, Human Rights, and Social Justice

Cite this chapter.

• Sue Curry Jansen  

905 Accesses

3 Citations

M edia activism and critical media studies have always addressed social justice issues. Activists work to redress perceived inequities in media access, policies, and representations, while critical media scholars combine teaching, research, and publication with advocacy for democratic media, institutions, and representational practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Who Values the Media?

Media and the Neoliberal Swindle: From ‘Fake News’ to ‘Public Service’

Media Logic and the Mediatization Approach: A Good Partnership, a Mésalliance, or a Misunderstanding?

“Symbolically annihilate” appears in George Gerbner, “Violence in Television Drama: Trends and Symbolic Functions,” in Media Content and Controls , ed. George Comstock and Eli A. Rubenstein, vol. 1, Television and Social Behavior (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1972), 44.

Google Scholar  

Sean MacBride, Many Voices, One World: Report by the International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems (Paris: UNESCO, 1980).

Sen’s effort both builds on and departs from John Rawls’s theory of justice. Sen’s approach could be accurately described as a theory of social justice because his approach is nontranscendental and comparative, focusing on how people actually behave, rather than justice as an abstract ideal, with a primary focus on meeting basic human needs and human rights: hunger, medical neglect, poverty, torture, injustices based on race and gender exclusions, and so on. Sen’s approach seeks more justice than currently exists rather than perfect justice. Despite only brief attention to media and media freedom, Sen’s approach incorporates many communication-related ideas and assumptions, including communication competence (“capability”), criteria for public reasoning (which overtly recognizes some kinship with Habermas’s work), and more, all of which warrant unpacking—so much so that I dare to read it as a communication theory as well as an approach to justice. Amartya Sen, The Idea of Justice (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2009), 336–37.

Max Weber, From Max Weber , ed. H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946). Weber’s contemporaries, Wilhelm Dilthey and Georg Simmel, pushed the concept of sympathetic understanding even further than Weber; still, Weber is cited here because his concept has much broader currency in contemporary social science discourse.

Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982).

After the March on Montgomery in 1966, King, who was deeply impressed by the diversity of the marchers, described their solidarity: “As I stood with them and saw white and Negro, nuns and priests, ministers and rabbis, labor organizers, lawyers, doctors, housemaids and shopworkers brimming with vitality and enjoying a comradeship, I knew I was seeing a microcosm of the mankind of the future in this luminous and genuine brotherhood.” Martin Luther King Jr., Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community ? (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), 9, quoted in Kenneth L. Smith and Ira G. Zepp Jr., “Martin Luther King’s Vision of the Beloved Community,” Christian Century , April 3, 1974, 361–63, http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1603 .

Robert Coles, Doing Documentary Work (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).

At the most basic level, value commitments violate the normative ideal of objectivity. Add advocacy for social justice, and controversy is, and perhaps should be, inevitable. See Ronald L. Cohen’s introduction to Justice: Views from the Social Sciences (New York: Plenum Press, 1986), 1–10, for a brief but informative discussion of social justice as a contested concept.

Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York: Herder and Herder, 1970).

John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971). It is impossible to identify all the activists and scholars associated with social justice studies, but in addition to Rawls and Sen, some prominent contributors are Bruce Ackerman, Brian Barry, Seyla Benhabib, Joe Feagin, Andrew Kuper, Martha Nussbaum, Thomas Nagel, Thomas Pogge, and Thomas Scanlon.

Naomi Klein, No Logo: Taking Aim At the Brand Bullies (New York: Picador, 2000).

Sociology, for example, was largely conceived in the United States as a form of applied Christianity; in the view of the social gospelers, theology attended to the first commandment while sociology addressed the second, focusing on labor injustices and the other pathologies of industrialization and urbanization. Similarly, historical economics was posited as counter to classical economics and laissez-faire and exposed the inequitable distribution of surplus value produced by labor. To our ears, this may sound like vintage Marxism, but it was largely a homegrown response to the rapid development and national expansion of capitalism in the post—Civil War era. See Charles Howard Hopkins, The Rise of the Social Gospel in American Protestantism, 1865–1915 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1940).

Dorothy Ross, The Origins of American Social Science (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

For an exhaustive statistical analysis of escalating social inequality in the United States, see Larry M. Bartels, Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age (New York: Russell Sage Foundation and Princeton University Press, 2008).

See also Joe E. Feagin, “Social Justice and Sociology: Agendas for the Twenty-First Century: Presidential Address,” American Sociological Review 66, no. 1 (2001): 1–20.

Article   Google Scholar  

J. T. Rajaratnam et al., “Neonatal, Postneonatal, Childhood, and Under-5 Mortality for 187 Countries, 1970–2010: A Systematic Analysis of Progress Towards Millennium Development Goal 4,” Lancet 375, no. 9730 (2010): 1988–2008.

The concept of “life chances,” originally coined by Weber, is used by Brian Barry to illustrate the way that deliberate policy choices—what he calls “the machinery of social injustice”—made by rich countries and international institutions like the International Monetary Fund can have devastating effects on the life chances of people in poor countries. See Barry, Why Social Justice Matters (Cambridge: Polity, 2005); and Feagin, “Social Justice and Sociology.”

Nicholas Johnson, quoted in Robert W. McChesney, Communication Revolution: Critical Junctures and the Future of Media (New York: New Press, 2007), 149.

The media reform movement has had greater success in some other nations, such as Canada. See Robert A. Hackett and William Carroll, Remaking Media: The Struggle to Democratize Public Communication (New York: Routledge, 2006).

Philip M. Napoli, “Public Interest Media Activism and Advocacy as a Social Movement: A Review of the Literature,” McGannon Center Working Paper Series, Fordham University, 2007, http://fordham.bepress.com/mcgannon_working_papers/21 .

Robert A. Hackett, “Taking Back the Media: Notes on the Potential for a Communicative Democracy Movement,” Studies in Political Economy 63 (2000): 61–86, cited in Napoli, “Public Interest Media Activism.”

Robert B. Horwitz, “Broadcast Reform Revisited: Reverend Everett C. Parker and the ‘Standing Case’ ( Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. the Federal Communication Commission ),” The Communication Review 2, no. 3 (1997): 311–48.

Horwitz, “Broadcast Reform Revisited”; and Robert W. McChesney, Telecommunications, Mass Media, and Democracy: The Battle for the Control of U.S. Broadcasting, 1928–1935 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).

Dan Schiller, “Social Movement in Telecommunications: Rethinking the Public Service History of U.S. Telecommunications, 1804–1919,” in Communication, Citizenship, and Social Policy , ed. Andrew Calabrese and Jean-Claude Burgelman (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999), 137–55.

Elizabeth Fones-Wolf, Waves of Opposition: Labor and the Struggle for Democratic Radio (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2006).

Lawrence R. Frey et al., “Looking for Justice in all the Wrong Places: On a Communication Approach to Social Justice,” Communication Studies 47, nos. 1–2 (1996): 110–27.

Mark A. Pollock et al., “Navigating between Scylla and Charybdis: Continuing the Dialogue on Communication and Social Justice,” Communication Studies 47, nos. 1–2 (1996): 142–51. Frey coedited, with Kevin Carragee, two large volumes of reports of social justice studies undertaken by speech communication scholars and activists: Communication for Social Change , vol. 1, Communication Activism (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2007); and Media and Performative Activism , vol. 2, Communication Activism (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2007).

Sue Curry Jansen, “Rethinking Social Justice Scholarship in Media and Communication,” Communication, Culture and Critique 1, no. 3 (2008): 329–34. The review also included a third collection, also written from a speech communication (rhetorical) perspective.

Omar Swartz, ed., Social Justice and Communication Scholarship (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2006).

W. B. Gallie, “Essentially Contested Concepts,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56 (1956): 167–98.

This does not mean, of course, that all communication scholars have lived up to the demands of these norms. To the contrary, we know that some of the founders of the field paid lip service to them in public even as they were deeply involved in secret Cold War—era government-sponsored research on techniques to advance the effectiveness of propaganda and psychological warfare. See Christopher Simpson, Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare, 1945–1960 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).

Jefferson Pooley, “The New History of Mass Communication Research,” in The History of Media and Communication Research: Contested Memories , ed. David W. Park and Jefferson Pooley (New York: Peter Lang, 2008), 43–69.

Sen, The Idea of Justice ; see also Ronald Dworkin, Is Democracy Possible Here? Principles for a New Political Debate (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006).

We believe that our rationale meets Stanley Fish’s well-known objections to social activism in academe on two grounds. First, liberal arts colleges, especially private colleges, with social justice or religious histories are, by definition, value-oriented; Fish specifically excuses them from his indictment. Second, even Fish presumably does not object to scholarship based on the First Amendment or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the classroom, especially when it is secured, as Sen requires, by public reasoning. See Stanley Fish, Save the World on Your Own Time (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Copyright information.

© 2011 Sue Curry Jansen, Jefferson Pooley, and Lora Taub-Pervizpour

About this chapter

Jansen, S.C. (2011). Introduction: Media, Democracy, Human Rights, and Social Justice. In: Jansen, S.C., Pooley, J., Taub-Pervizpour, L. (eds) Media and Social Justice. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230119796_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230119796_1

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, New York

Print ISBN : 978-1-349-29139-7

Online ISBN : 978-0-230-11979-6

eBook Packages : Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies Collection Political Science and International Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Democracy — Role of media in a democracy

Role of Media in a Democracy

• Categories: Democracy Media

About this sample

Words: 686 |

Published: Mar 14, 2019

Words: 686 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Majority rules system implies, effect of media, works cited.

• Freedom House. (2021). Freedom and the Media. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-media/freedom-media-2021
• McQuail, D. (2013). McQuail's Mass Communication Theory (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Norris, P. (2000). A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies. Cambridge University Press.
• Curran, J., & Seaton, J. (2010). Power Without Responsibility: Press, Broadcasting, and the Internet in Britain (7th ed.). Routledge.
• Chadwick, A. (2017). The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. Oxford University Press.
• Lichtenberg, J. (2017). Democracy and the Mass Media: A Collection of Essays. Routledge.
• Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge University Press.
• Esser, F., & Strömbäck, J. (2014). Mediatization of Politics: Understanding the Transformation of Western Democracies. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Papathanassopoulos, S. (2020). Media and Politics in Democracies: A Comparative Perspective. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication.
• Tumber, H., & Waisbord, S. (2017). The Routledge Companion to Media and Human Rights. Routledge.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Government & Politics Business

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 773 words

1 pages / 616 words

2 pages / 1081 words

4 pages / 1986 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Propaganda plays a powerful role in manipulating public opinion and influencing societal attitudes towards certain ideologies or agendas. Throughout history, propaganda has been used as a tool for shaping public perception and [...]

While democratic political systems offer numerous advantages, it is crucial to acknowledge and address their drawbacks for the sake of continuous improvement. The tyranny of the majority, political polarization and gridlock, the [...]

Democracy is a concept that has been the subject of much discussion and debate throughout history. It is a form of government in which power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or through their elected [...]

The Importance of the Legislative BranchIn the intricate tapestry of any democratic society, the legislative branch emerges as a vital thread, woven with the purpose of representing the will of the people and ensuring the [...]

Voting is a fundamental component of any democratic society, as it allows individuals to have a say in the decisions that affect their lives. It is a right that has been fought for and protected by countless individuals [...]

According to Max Weber (1968), legitimacy is power in which its acquisition and exercise conforms to established law, power which interprets legal rules and is rational. As such it emphasizes rule of law, constitutionalism and [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Study Notes
• Current Affairs
• Getting Started

NEW!   The Gist (AUG-24)  | E-BOOKS

HOT!   UPSC IAS COMPLETE PDF NOTES  

(Essay) An Essay: Role of media in a democracy

An essay: role of media in a democracy, introduction.

Democracy means "A system of government in which all the people of a country can vote to elect their representatives". Media came into existence in 1780 with the introduction of a newspaper namely The Bengal Gazette and since then it has matured leaps and bounds. It has been playing a very important role in shaping human minds.

Role of media

Media plays a crucial role in shaping a healthy democracy. It is the backbone of a democracy. Media makes us aware of various social, political and economical activities happening around the world. It is like a mirror, which shows us or strives to show us the bare truth and harsh realities of life. The media has undoubtedly evolved and become more active over the years. It is the media only who reminds politicians about their unfulfilled promises at the time of elections. T.V news channels' excessive coverage during elections helps people, especially illiterates, in electing the right person to the power. This reminder compels politicians to be upto their promises in order to remain in power. Television and radio have made a significant achievement in educating rural illiterate masses in making them aware of all the events in their language. Coverage of exploitative malpractices of village heads and moneylenders has helped in taking stringent actions against them by attracting government's attention. The media also exposes loopholes in the democratic system, which ultimately helps government in filling the vacuums of loopholes and making a system more accountable, responsive and citizen-friendly. A democracy without media is like a vehicle without wheels. In the age of information technology we are bombarded with information. We get the pulse of the world events with just a click of a mouse. The flow of information has increased manifolds. The perfect blend of technology and human resources (journalist) has not left a single stone unturned in unearthing rampant corruption in politics and society. We all are well aware of what tehelka did. Thanks to technology that has brought a kind of revolution in journalism.

Impact of media

The impact of media is really noteworthy. Excessive coverage or hype of sensitive news has led to communal riots at times. The illiterates are more prone to provocations than the literates. Constant repetition of the news, especially sensational news, breeds apathy and insensitivity. For instance, In Dhananjoy Chatterjee case, the overloaded hype led to death of quite a few children who imitated the hanging procedure which was repeatedly shown in most of the T.V. news channels. There is a plethora of such negative impacts. Media should take utmost care in airing or publishing such sensational news. Commercialization has created a stiff competition in media. In order to outdo each other print media has often gone one step further in publishing articles, cover stories, etc. on sex. Media experts say this is one of the means of attracting readers who are glued to T.V. news channels, which have cropped up swiftly in a recent past and they believe this is a cheap form of journalism.

No one is perfect in this world and so is the media. Here I am not degrading the media, rather I would say there is still a lot of scope for improvement by which media can raise upto the aspirations of the people for which it is meant. I cannot think of a democracy without active and neutral media. Media is like a watchdog in a democracy that keeps government active. From being just an informer it has become an integral part of our daily lives. With the passage of time it has become a more matured and a more responsible entity. The present media revolution has helped people in making an informed decisions and this has led to beginning of a new era in a democracy.

Courtesy : ias aspirant 

• Iasguru's blog

NEW!   UPSC IAS COMPLETE NOTES

NEW!   UPSC MAINS G.S. 12 Years Solved Papers

NEW! UPSC Exam Complete Study Notes (PDF Available)

• ALERT: UPSC IAS, IPS, IFS 2025-2026 Exam...
• Download UPSC IAS PRELIM (GS+CSAT) Question...
• (Download) UPSC Toppers Study Notes PDF
• UPSC Exam Complete Study Notes 2024-2025-...
• (Download) UPSC, IAS MAINS Exam Previous...
• Getting Started for UPSC, IAS Exam - FAQ for...
• UPSC Civil Services PRELIM Exam 2024, 2025...
• UPSC आईएएस प्रारंभिक परीक्षा पिछले वर्ष के...
• Download E-Books PDF for UPSC IAS Exams
• (Date Sheet) UPSC IAS EXAM Calendar 2024
• New! THE HINDU, YOJANA, PIB PDF
• New! UPSC PRELIM Papers 2004-2024
• IAS परीक्षा पेपर in Hindi 2004-2024
• UPSC Syllabus PDF Download
• New! IAS MAINS Papers 2010-2023
• PDF Study Notes for UPSC (Hot!)
• E-books PDF Download  
• NCERT Books Download  | NCERT Hindi PDF
• New! UPSC MAINS SOLVED PAPERS PDF
• OLD NCERT PDF  
• UPSC 2024 Exam Calendar

UPSC 2024-25  |  Papers  |  PDF Notes  | Coaching  | E-Books

UPSC Hindi  |  यूपीइससी 2024-25   |  पेपर्स  |  IAS HINDI NOTES  

Disclaimer: IAS EXAM PORTAL (UPSC PORTAL) is not associated with Union Public Service Commission, For UPSC official website visit - www.upsc.gov.in

About Us | Contact Us | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

© 2006-2024 IAS EXAM PORTAL - India's Largest Online Community for IAS, Civil Services Aspirants.

• Classroom Programme
• Interview Guidance
• Online Programme
• Drishti Store
• My Bookmarks
• My Progress
• Change Password
• From The Editor's Desk
• How To Use The New Website
• Help Centre

Achievers Corner

• Topper's Interview
• About Civil Services
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus
• GS Prelims Strategy
• Prelims Analysis
• GS Paper-I (Year Wise)
• GS Paper-I (Subject Wise)
• CSAT Strategy
• Previous Years Papers
• Practice Quiz
• Weekly Revision MCQs
• 60 Steps To Prelims
• Prelims Refresher Programme 2020

Mains & Interview

• Mains GS Syllabus
• Mains GS Strategy
• Mains Answer Writing Practice
• Essay Strategy
• Fodder For Essay
• Model Essays
• Drishti Essay Competition
• Ethics Strategy
• Ethics Case Studies
• Ethics Discussion
• Ethics Previous Years Q&As
• Papers By Years
• Papers By Subject
• Be MAINS Ready
• Awake Mains Examination 2020
• Interview Strategy
• Interview Guidance Programme

Current Affairs

• Daily News & Editorial
• Daily CA MCQs
• Sansad TV Discussions
• Monthly CA Consolidation
• Monthly Editorial Consolidation
• Monthly MCQ Consolidation

Drishti Specials

• To The Point
• Important Institutions
• Learning Through Maps
• PRS Capsule
• Summary Of Reports
• Gist Of Economic Survey

Study Material

• NCERT Books
• NIOS Study Material
• IGNOU Study Material
• Yojana & Kurukshetra
• Chhatisgarh
• Uttar Pradesh
• Madhya Pradesh

Test Series

• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Mains Test Series
• UPPCS Prelims Test Series
• UPPCS Mains Test Series
• BPSC Prelims Test Series
• RAS/RTS Prelims Test Series
• Daily Editorial Analysis
• YouTube PDF Downloads
• Strategy By Toppers
• Ethics - Definition & Concepts
• Mastering Mains Answer Writing
• Places in News
• UPSC Mock Interview
• PCS Mock Interview
• Interview Insights
• Prelims 2019
• Product Promos

Make Your Note

Biased Media is a Real Threat to Indian Democracy

• 29 Mar 2024
• 10 min read

Whoever controls the media, controls the mind

― Jim Morrison

Media plays a crucial role in any democratic society by providing information, shaping public opinion, and holding those in power accountable. However, the rise of biased media poses a significant threat to the democratic fabric of India. In recent years, Indian media has come under scrutiny for its biased reporting, sensationalism, and lack of objectivity. 

Media serves as the fourth pillar of democracy, alongside the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches. Its primary function is to inform citizens, facilitate debate, and act as a watchdog over the government and other powerful institutions. In India, a diverse and vibrant media landscape has emerged since independence, comprising print, broadcast, and digital platforms. However, the proliferation of biased media outlets has blurred the lines between news and propaganda, posing a grave danger to democracy.

Biased media outlets in India often prioritize sensationalism over substance, resorting to inflammatory rhetoric and divisive narratives to attract viewership or readership. This sensationalism contributes to the spread of misinformation and the polarization of society along religious, ethnic, and political lines. Moreover, biased reporting can sway public opinion, influence electoral outcomes, and undermine the credibility of democratic institutions.

The phenomenon of biased media in India is exacerbated by various challenges to press freedom , including political pressure, corporate influence, and legal threats.  The concentration of media ownership in the hands of a few conglomerates limits the diversity of viewpoints and fosters self-censorship among journalists. These challenges impede the media's ability to fulfill its democratic mandate and hold power to account.

Political pressure on media outlets is a common phenomenon in India, where governments often seek to control the narrative and suppress dissenting voices. Media outlets are made manipulated by giving them ads by the political parties for suppressing the truth and spreading rumours and fake news.

Corporate interests often wield significant influence over media organizations through ownership or advertising revenue. A prime example is the Reliance Group , one of India's largest conglomerates with interests in various sectors, including media. Reliance's ownership of a certain media platform, which controls several news channels and digital media platforms, has raised concerns about editorial independence and bias. Critics argue that Reliance's business interests may influence media coverage to favor its corporate agenda, thereby compromising journalistic integrity.

The consequences of biased media on Indian democracy are far-reaching and multifaceted. It erodes public trust in the media as an impartial source of information, leading to widespread cynicism and apathy towards democratic institutions. It undermines the pluralistic fabric of Indian society by fostering intolerance and bigotry towards marginalized communities. It compromises the integrity of electoral processes by manipulating public opinion and influencing voter behavior. Overall, biased media contributes to the erosion of democratic norms and values, posing a serious threat to the future of Indian democracy.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, misleading stories about the death toll and government responses deepened the crisis. Twitter censorship of critical tweets and pro-government channels blaming farmers’ protests for oxygen shortages distorted the truth and undermined trust in the media. This jeopardizes their ability to report objectively and hold those in power accountable. Attacks on journalists who expose corruption or criticize political leaders endanger press freedom and democratic functioning.

Sonam Wangchuk, the renowned climate activist and educationalist , recently concluded his 21-day climate fast in Leh, Ladakh. During this period, he sustained himself solely on water and salt, drawing attention to critical issues affecting the region.

Wangchuk’s fast was a powerful statement, emphasizing the need to protect Ladakh’s fragile ecology and indigenous culture . He emphasized the importance of character and foresight in addressing Ladakh’s concerns. Wangchuk’s fast garnered support from various socio-political bodies in Ladakh, including the Kargil Democratic Alliance . Members of the KDA also joined him in hunger strikes, amplifying their collective voice but big news channels and media houses ignored incident and did not provided proper coverage.

Moreover, the Sushant Singh Rajput case became a media frenzy, with sensationalism overshadowing more critical matters. The media’s obsession with Sushant Singh Rajput’s death transformed a tragic suicide into a relentless investigation, streamed live day after day.

Instead of focusing on the actual tragedy, the spotlight shifted to an actress portrayed as the evil intriguer and the perfect cinematic vamp.

The arrest of actress, after relentless pursuit, was celebrated by those addicted to this media spectacle. The media’s gossipy edge often carries deep shades of misogyny. The private-public separation blurred. While the media chased actresses and sensationalized the Rajput case, other crucial issues in the country were sidelined. The Bombay High Court recognized the harm caused by trial by media, obstructing fair criminal case investigations. The media’s role should be to inform, not to manipulate public sentiment.

The practice of accepting money from political parties to publish favorable stories or suppress negative ones, often referred to as "paid news," undermines the integrity of journalism and erodes public trust in the media. This phenomenon is particularly prevalent during election campaigns when political parties seek to manipulate public opinion and gain an unfair advantage. One notable example of paid news occurred during the run-up to the 2014 general elections in India. 

Media showed one sided news about CAA-NRC and misled minorities that led to widespread protest in country. The media played a significant role in shaping public perception of the CAA. Some channels sensationalized the issue, focusing on specific narratives while ignoring broader implications. The trial by media approach led to polarization and misinformation . Social media also played a role, with fact-checkers attempting to correct misinformation. 

Addressing the issue of biased media requires concerted efforts from multiple stakeholders, including policymakers, media professionals, civil society organizations, and the general public. There is a need for stringent regulations and mechanisms to hold media outlets accountable for ethical breaches and misinformation. Media literacy programs should be implemented to educate citizens about the importance of critical thinking and discerning reliable sources of information. Independent media watchdogs and ombudsmen should be empowered to monitor media content and address complaints from the public. Additionally, promoting diversity and plurality in the media industry through initiatives such as community media and public broadcasting can help counteract the influence of biased media conglomerates.

Biased media poses a grave threat to Indian democracy by undermining the principles of transparency , accountability, and pluralism. Its sensationalism, misinformation, and propaganda have the potential to subvert democratic processes and foster social division. Therefore, it is imperative to address the root causes of biased media and implement reforms to safeguard press freedom and media integrity. Only by upholding the highest standards of journalistic ethics and promoting media pluralism can India realize its democratic aspirations and uphold the rights of its citizens.

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth. 

—Mahatma Gandhi

Democracy challenged

‘A Crisis Coming’: The Twin Threats to American Democracy

Credit... Photo illustration by Matt Chase

Supported by

• Share full article

By David Leonhardt

David Leonhardt is a senior writer at The Times who won the Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the Great Recession.

• Published Sept. 17, 2022 Updated June 21, 2023

Listen to This Article

The United States has experienced deep political turmoil several times before over the past century. The Great Depression caused Americans to doubt the country’s economic system. World War II and the Cold War presented threats from global totalitarian movements. The 1960s and ’70s were marred by assassinations, riots, a losing war and a disgraced president.

These earlier periods were each more alarming in some ways than anything that has happened in the United States recently. Yet during each of those previous times of tumult, the basic dynamics of American democracy held firm. Candidates who won the most votes were able to take power and attempt to address the country’s problems.

The current period is different. As a result, the United States today finds itself in a situation with little historical precedent. American democracy is facing two distinct threats, which together represent the most serious challenge to the country’s governing ideals in decades.

The first threat is acute: a growing movement inside one of the country’s two major parties — the Republican Party — to refuse to accept defeat in an election.

The violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on Congress , meant to prevent the certification of President Biden’s election, was the clearest manifestation of this movement, but it has continued since then. Hundreds of elected Republican officials around the country falsely claim that the 2020 election was rigged. Some of them are running for statewide offices that would oversee future elections, potentially putting them in position to overturn an election in 2024 or beyond.

“There is the possibility, for the first time in American history, that a legitimately elected president will not be able to take office,” said Yascha Mounk, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins University who studies democracy.

Vote Margins by State in Presidential Elections since 1988

Senate representation by state.

Residents of less populated states like Wyoming and North Dakota, who are disproportionately white, have outsize influence.

1 voter in Wyoming

has similar representation as

1 voter in North Dakota

6 voters in Connecticut

7 voters in Alabama

18 voters in Michigan

59 voters in California

has similar

representation as

Landslides in 2020 House Elections

There were about twice as many districts where a Democratic House candidate won by at least 50 percentage points as there were districts where a Republican candidate won by as much.

Landslide (one candidate won

by at least 50 percentage points)

Barbara Lee

Calif. District 13

Jerry Nadler

N.Y. District 10

Diana DeGette

Colo. District 1

Donald Payne Jr.

N.J. District 10

Jesús García

Ill. District 4

Landslide (one candidate won by at least 50 percentage points)

Presidential Appointments of Supreme Court Justices

Supreme Court appointments

Presidential election winners

Popular vote

Electoral College

Party that nominated a justice

David H. Souter (until 2009)

Clarence Thomas

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (until 2020)

Stephen G. Breyer (until 2022)

John G. Roberts Jr.

Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Sonia Sotomayor

Elena Kagan

Neil M. Gorsuch

Brett M. Kavanaugh

Amy Coney Barrett

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Supreme Court

Presidential election

nominated a justice

Souter (until 2009)

Ginsburg (until 2020)

Breyer (until 2022)

State Legislators and Election Lies

The share of Republican state legislators who have taken steps, as of May 2022, to discredit or overturn the 2020 presidential election results

Pennsylvania

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Advertisement

• Ground Reports
• 50-Word Edit
• National Interest
• Campus Voice
• Security Code
• Off The Cuff
• Democracy Wall
• Around Town
• PastForward
• In Pictures
• Last Laughs
• ThePrint Essential

New Delhi, Aug 29 (PTI) Then prime minister Manmohan Singh’s brief to his new Information and Broadcasting Minister Manish Tewari on what should be the government’s approach to the media was simple — it should be an essay in persuasion not coercion.

The anecdote was narrated by Tewari during an interaction at PTI as he stressed the need to fix the “completely flawed” revenue models of the media and asserted that the The Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024 was not the answer to the problems plaguing the flow of news and information.

Tewari, who was the Information and Broadcasting Minister in UPA-II from October 2012 to May 2014, said that when he became the minister he asked then prime minister Manmohan Singh what should be the government’s approach vis-a-vis the media at a time when the government was at the receiving end of the “most ghastly, irresponsible and malicious” media coverage at that particular point in time.

“So I asked him what should be our approach to the media and he said that ‘it should be an essay in persuasion and not an essay in coercion’. And he added that, ‘If you were to put yourself in the shoes of the Opposition and if let us suppose coercion becomes the order of the day, how is it that you would feel’,” Tewari said.

“I have reflected at this statement at length over the past 10 years and I come to only one conclusion that you need to have an inherently democratic temperament to be able to maintain the equilibrium, notwithstanding what you are being subjected to in terms of an all out assault at times of unverified and malicious allegations, a campaign of calumny and innuendo,” the Congress MP from Chandigarh said.

Tewari said he believes that intrinsically Manmohan Singh, who headed the UPA-I and UPA-II government from 2004-2014, had imbibed the basic fundamentals of what running a democratic state is all about.

Asked about the proposed Broadcasting Services Bill, Tewari said curtailing of freedom of speech in the name of fixing aberrations is not the solution as the real problem lies somewhere else.

“Ten years have gone by but the time that I spent in the Information and Broadcasting Ministry gave me a chance to see the back end of the media upclose. I believe that the solution to the problem at hand is not the broadcast bill,” he told PTI.

“If you remember when Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi was the Information and Broadcasting Minister, a broadcast service regulation bill was brought in. The biggest issue and I am not talking about any particular organisation is that the revenue models of the media are completely flawed.

“Till you do not fix those revenue models you cannot fix the front end problem for which you want to bring in this regulation architecture that will not achieve its objective,” he said.

Asserting that TRPs were a flawed index, Tewari said if one decides advertising of Rs 25,000-30,000 crore on a flawed index then you have ensured that the medium of information and publicity is based on dog-eat-dog principle. “The real challenge is to work with the media industry to somehow fix the revenue models of the media industry,” he said.

Tewari said it was for this reason that the ministry under him had brought in the entire process of digitisation with the objective to mitigate some of these problems and the revenue model gets fixed.

“Unfortunately that has not happened in the past 10 years,” he added.

The government had earlier this month said it will hold further consultations for preparing a fresh draft of the broadcasting bill, amid concerns in some quarters over restrictions on social and digital media space in the proposed law.

The draft Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, circulated by the government among a few stakeholders, drew criticism from media bodies such as DigiPub and the Editors Guild of India which claimed that digital media organisations and civil society associations were not consulted on the move.

The Congress leader asserted that unfortunately in the past 70 years of India’s democratic experiment “we have not really made a transition from the ‘mai-baap sarkaar’ to a belief in the participatory form of democracy”.

“You go down to any district of the country, the deputy commissioner is the lord and master of everything that he or she surveys. There would be a very courageous journalist to challenge the diktats of that lord and master,” Tewari said.

“If you look around India especially South Asia. There seems to be something intrinsically feudal in our DNA. That manifests itself in various ways. Look at Pakistan, sending the PMs to jail is a national pastime out there. You look at what’s been happening in other parts of the neighbourhood. So fundamentally may be because the democratic experiment if you measure it in the relativity of time, is very nascent,” he said.

Tewari said the prevailing feeling of intimidation is not limited to journalists and as a columnist, he also cannot write in as carefree a manner as 10 years ago.

“Not because I fear the government or any person but when you create a climate whereby everything critical is going to land up in some court of law through a defamation matter… it does have a chilling effect on free speech,” he said.

“That oppressive feeling of the big brother watching you and by extension forces which are inherently or intrinsically illiberal having the upper hand in the larger public discourse thereby being able to stifle a contra opinion is the product of a culture that we have created,” he said. PTI ASK AS AS

This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube , Telegram & WhatsApp

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here .

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Most Popular

Cyclist jankidas never represented india at olympics. the flag story isn’t true, in shivaji statue collapse, uddhav sena sees window to reclaim konkan. mva steps up attack on mahayuti, medieval indian rulers prided themselves on trafficking women. even queens weren’t safe.

Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2024 Printline Media Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved.

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Key things to know about U.S. election polling in 2024

Confidence in U.S. public opinion polling was shaken by errors in 2016 and 2020. In both years’ general elections, many polls underestimated the strength of Republican candidates, including Donald Trump. These errors laid bare some real limitations of polling.

In the midterms that followed those elections, polling performed better . But many Americans remain skeptical that it can paint an accurate portrait of the public’s political preferences.

Restoring people’s confidence in polling is an important goal, because robust and independent public polling has a critical role to play in a democratic society. It gathers and publishes information about the well-being of the public and about citizens’ views on major issues. And it provides an important counterweight to people in power, or those seeking power, when they make claims about “what the people want.”

The challenges facing polling are undeniable. In addition to the longstanding issues of rising nonresponse and cost, summer 2024 brought extraordinary events that transformed the presidential race . The good news is that people with deep knowledge of polling are working hard to fix the problems exposed in 2016 and 2020, experimenting with more data sources and interview approaches than ever before. Still, polls are more useful to the public if people have realistic expectations about what surveys can do well – and what they cannot.

With that in mind, here are some key points to know about polling heading into this year’s presidential election.

Probability sampling (or “random sampling”). This refers to a polling method in which survey participants are recruited using random sampling from a database or list that includes nearly everyone in the population. The pollster selects the sample. The survey is not open for anyone who wants to sign up.

Online opt-in polling (or “nonprobability sampling”). These polls are recruited using a variety of methods that are sometimes referred to as “convenience sampling.” Respondents come from a variety of online sources such as ads on social media or search engines, websites offering rewards in exchange for survey participation, or self-enrollment. Unlike surveys with probability samples, people can volunteer to participate in opt-in surveys.

Nonresponse and nonresponse bias. Nonresponse is when someone sampled for a survey does not participate. Nonresponse bias occurs when the pattern of nonresponse leads to error in a poll estimate. For example, college graduates are more likely than those without a degree to participate in surveys, leading to the potential that the share of college graduates in the resulting sample will be too high.

Mode of interview. This refers to the format in which respondents are presented with and respond to survey questions. The most common modes are online, live telephone, text message and paper. Some polls use more than one mode.

Weighting. This is a statistical procedure pollsters perform to make their survey align with the broader population on key characteristics like age, race, etc. For example, if a survey has too many college graduates compared with their share in the population, people without a college degree are “weighted up” to match the proper share.

How are election polls being conducted?

Pollsters are making changes in response to the problems in previous elections. As a result, polling is different today than in 2016. Most U.S. polling organizations that conducted and publicly released national surveys in both 2016 and 2022 (61%) used methods in 2022 that differed from what they used in 2016 . And change has continued since 2022.

One change is that the number of active polling organizations has grown significantly, indicating that there are fewer barriers to entry into the polling field. The number of organizations that conduct national election polls more than doubled between 2000 and 2022.

This growth has been driven largely by pollsters using inexpensive opt-in sampling methods. But previous Pew Research Center analyses have demonstrated how surveys that use nonprobability sampling may have errors twice as large , on average, as those that use probability sampling.

The second change is that many of the more prominent polling organizations that use probability sampling – including Pew Research Center – have shifted from conducting polls primarily by telephone to using online methods, or some combination of online, mail and telephone. The result is that polling methodologies are far more diverse now than in the past.

(For more about how public opinion polling works, including a chapter on election polls, read our short online course on public opinion polling basics .)

All good polling relies on statistical adjustment called “weighting,” which makes sure that the survey sample aligns with the broader population on key characteristics. Historically, public opinion researchers have adjusted their data using a core set of demographic variables to correct imbalances between the survey sample and the population.

But there is a growing realization among survey researchers that weighting a poll on just a few variables like age, race and gender is insufficient for getting accurate results. Some groups of people – such as older adults and college graduates – are more likely to take surveys, which can lead to errors that are too sizable for a simple three- or four-variable adjustment to work well. Adjusting on more variables produces more accurate results, according to Center studies in 2016 and 2018 .

A number of pollsters have taken this lesson to heart. For example, recent high-quality polls by Gallup and The New York Times/Siena College adjusted on eight and 12 variables, respectively. Our own polls typically adjust on 12 variables . In a perfect world, it wouldn’t be necessary to have that much intervention by the pollster. But the real world of survey research is not perfect.

Predicting who will vote is critical – and difficult. Preelection polls face one crucial challenge that routine opinion polls do not: determining who of the people surveyed will actually cast a ballot.

Roughly a third of eligible Americans do not vote in presidential elections , despite the enormous attention paid to these contests. Determining who will abstain is difficult because people can’t perfectly predict their future behavior – and because many people feel social pressure to say they’ll vote even if it’s unlikely.

No one knows the profile of voters ahead of Election Day. We can’t know for sure whether young people will turn out in greater numbers than usual, or whether key racial or ethnic groups will do so. This means pollsters are left to make educated guesses about turnout, often using a mix of historical data and current measures of voting enthusiasm. This is very different from routine opinion polls, which mostly do not ask about people’s future intentions.

When major news breaks, a poll’s timing can matter. Public opinion on most issues is remarkably stable, so you don’t necessarily need a recent poll about an issue to get a sense of what people think about it. But dramatic events can and do change public opinion , especially when people are first learning about a new topic. For example, polls this summer saw notable changes in voter attitudes following Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential race. Polls taken immediately after a major event may pick up a shift in public opinion, but those shifts are sometimes short-lived. Polls fielded weeks or months later are what allow us to see whether an event has had a long-term impact on the public’s psyche.

How accurate are polls?

The answer to this question depends on what you want polls to do. Polls are used for all kinds of purposes in addition to showing who’s ahead and who’s behind in a campaign. Fair or not, however, the accuracy of election polling is usually judged by how closely the polls matched the outcome of the election.

By this standard, polling in 2016 and 2020 performed poorly. In both years, state polling was characterized by serious errors. National polling did reasonably well in 2016 but faltered in 2020.

In 2020, a post-election review of polling by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) found that “the 2020 polls featured polling error of an unusual magnitude: It was the highest in 40 years for the national popular vote and the highest in at least 20 years for state-level estimates of the vote in presidential, senatorial, and gubernatorial contests.”

How big were the errors? Polls conducted in the last two weeks before the election suggested that Biden’s margin over Trump was nearly twice as large as it ended up being in the final national vote tally.

Errors of this size make it difficult to be confident about who is leading if the election is closely contested, as many U.S. elections are .

Pollsters are rightly working to improve the accuracy of their polls. But even an error of 4 or 5 percentage points isn’t too concerning if the purpose of the poll is to describe whether the public has favorable or unfavorable opinions about candidates , or to show which issues matter to which voters. And on questions that gauge where people stand on issues, we usually want to know broadly where the public stands. We don’t necessarily need to know the precise share of Americans who say, for example, that climate change is mostly caused by human activity. Even judged by its performance in recent elections, polling can still provide a faithful picture of public sentiment on the important issues of the day.

The 2022 midterms saw generally accurate polling, despite a wave of partisan polls predicting a broad Republican victory. In fact, FiveThirtyEight found that “polls were more accurate in 2022 than in any cycle since at least 1998, with almost no bias toward either party.” Moreover, a handful of contrarian polls that predicted a 2022 “red wave” largely washed out when the votes were tallied. In sum, if we focus on polling in the most recent national election, there’s plenty of reason to be encouraged.

Compared with other elections in the past 20 years, polls have been less accurate when Donald Trump is on the ballot. Preelection surveys suffered from large errors – especially at the state level – in 2016 and 2020, when Trump was standing for election. But they performed reasonably well in the 2018 and 2022 midterms, when he was not.

During the 2016 campaign, observers speculated about the possibility that Trump supporters might be less willing to express their support to a pollster – a phenomenon sometimes described as the “shy Trump effect.” But a committee of polling experts evaluated five different tests of the “shy Trump” theory and turned up little to no evidence for each one . Later, Pew Research Center and, in a separate test, a researcher from Yale also found little to no evidence in support of the claim.

Instead, two other explanations are more likely. One is about the difficulty of estimating who will turn out to vote. Research has found that Trump is popular among people who tend to sit out midterms but turn out for him in presidential election years. Since pollsters often use past turnout to predict who will vote, it can be difficult to anticipate when irregular voters will actually show up.

The other explanation is that Republicans in the Trump era have become a little less likely than Democrats to participate in polls . Pollsters call this “partisan nonresponse bias.” Surprisingly, polls historically have not shown any particular pattern of favoring one side or the other. The errors that favored Democratic candidates in the past eight years may be a result of the growth of political polarization, along with declining trust among conservatives in news organizations and other institutions that conduct polls.

Whatever the cause, the fact that Trump is again the nominee of the Republican Party means that pollsters must be especially careful to make sure all segments of the population are properly represented in surveys.

The real margin of error is often about double the one reported. A typical election poll sample of about 1,000 people has a margin of sampling error that’s about plus or minus 3 percentage points. That number expresses the uncertainty that results from taking a sample of the population rather than interviewing everyone . Random samples are likely to differ a little from the population just by chance, in the same way that the quality of your hand in a card game varies from one deal to the next.

The problem is that sampling error is not the only kind of error that affects a poll. Those other kinds of error, in fact, can be as large or larger than sampling error. Consequently, the reported margin of error can lead people to think that polls are more accurate than they really are.

There are three other, equally important sources of error in polling: noncoverage error , where not all the target population has a chance of being sampled; nonresponse error, where certain groups of people may be less likely to participate; and measurement error, where people may not properly understand the questions or misreport their opinions. Not only does the margin of error fail to account for those other sources of potential error, putting a number only on sampling error implies to the public that other kinds of error do not exist.

Several recent studies show that the average total error in a poll estimate may be closer to twice as large as that implied by a typical margin of sampling error. This hidden error underscores the fact that polls may not be precise enough to call the winner in a close election.

Other important things to remember

Transparency in how a poll was conducted is associated with better accuracy . The polling industry has several platforms and initiatives aimed at promoting transparency in survey methodology. These include AAPOR’s transparency initiative and the Roper Center archive . Polling organizations that participate in these organizations have less error, on average, than those that don’t participate, an analysis by FiveThirtyEight found .

Participation in these transparency efforts does not guarantee that a poll is rigorous, but it is undoubtedly a positive signal. Transparency in polling means disclosing essential information, including the poll’s sponsor, the data collection firm, where and how participants were selected, modes of interview, field dates, sample size, question wording, and weighting procedures.

There is evidence that when the public is told that a candidate is extremely likely to win, some people may be less likely to vote . Following the 2016 election, many people wondered whether the pervasive forecasts that seemed to all but guarantee a Hillary Clinton victory – two modelers put her chances at 99% – led some would-be voters to conclude that the race was effectively over and that their vote would not make a difference. There is scientific research to back up that claim: A team of researchers found experimental evidence that when people have high confidence that one candidate will win, they are less likely to vote. This helps explain why some polling analysts say elections should be covered using traditional polling estimates and margins of error rather than speculative win probabilities (also known as “probabilistic forecasts”).

National polls tell us what the entire public thinks about the presidential candidates, but the outcome of the election is determined state by state in the Electoral College . The 2000 and 2016 presidential elections demonstrated a difficult truth: The candidate with the largest share of support among all voters in the United States sometimes loses the election. In those two elections, the national popular vote winners (Al Gore and Hillary Clinton) lost the election in the Electoral College (to George W. Bush and Donald Trump). In recent years, analysts have shown that Republican candidates do somewhat better in the Electoral College than in the popular vote because every state gets three electoral votes regardless of population – and many less-populated states are rural and more Republican.

For some, this raises the question: What is the use of national polls if they don’t tell us who is likely to win the presidency? In fact, national polls try to gauge the opinions of all Americans, regardless of whether they live in a battleground state like Pennsylvania, a reliably red state like Idaho or a reliably blue state like Rhode Island. In short, national polls tell us what the entire citizenry is thinking. Polls that focus only on the competitive states run the risk of giving too little attention to the needs and views of the vast majority of Americans who live in uncompetitive states – about 80%.

Fortunately, this is not how most pollsters view the world . As the noted political scientist Sidney Verba explained, “Surveys produce just what democracy is supposed to produce – equal representation of all citizens.”

• Survey Methods
• Trust, Facts & Democracy
• Voter Files

Scott Keeter is a senior survey advisor at Pew Research Center .

Courtney Kennedy is Vice President of Methods and Innovation at Pew Research Center .

How do people in the U.S. take Pew Research Center surveys, anyway?

How public polling has changed in the 21st century, what 2020’s election poll errors tell us about the accuracy of issue polling, a field guide to polling: election 2020 edition, methods 101: how is polling done around the world, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Harvard’s Institute of Politics Announces Fall 2024 Resident Fellows

Introduction

CAMBRIDGE, MA - The Institute of Politics at Harvard Kennedy School today announced the appointment of six Resident Fellows who will join the IOP for the Fall 2024 semester. The fellows bring diverse experience in politics, elected office, polling, journalism, and economic development to address the challenges facing our country and world today.

"We are thrilled to welcome this Fall's cohort of Resident Fellows to Harvard to engage and collaborate with our students and community, and to get their thoughts and insight in the final few months of this year's historic election. Their diverse experiences will no doubt inspire our students to consider careers in public service and prepare them to provide essential political leadership in the months and years ahead," said IOP Director Setti Warren .

"We are excited to have such a remarkable group of Fellows at the IOP this Fall. They bring varied perspectives on how to best approach some of our country's most consequential challenges, and I am confident our students will gain important insight into the fields of politics, civic engagement, journalism, and more," said Michael Nutter , Chair of the Institute of Politics' Senior Advisory Committee, and former Mayor of Philadelphia.

"We are thrilled to welcome the incredibly accomplished members of the 2024 Fall Fellows Cohort as we begin the fall semester prior to the incredibly important U.S. election. As we close out the 'biggest election year in history,' our world remains in the throes of a major period of democratic backsliding. American voters, including many Harvard students, will once again face the possibility of reactionary backsliding and threats to fundamental rights. Closer to home, we are keenly aware of the threats to free speech on campus. While this semester will bring renewed challenges to and debates concerning those fundamental rights, we are hopeful that study groups will remain a source of vibrant, productive, and gratifying discussions on Harvard's campus. In that spirit, this semester's cohort of Fellows will bring in critical perspectives from the varied worlds of governing, policymaking, polling, reporting, and campaigning to equip students with the tools necessary to create a better tomorrow. We are confident that this cohort of Fellows will help this program to remain a bastion of freedom of speech and civil discourse on Harvard's campus," said Éamon ÓCearúil ‘25 and Summer Tan ‘26 , Co-Chairs of the Fellows and Study Groups Program at the Institute of Politics.

IOP Resident Fellows are fully engaged with the Harvard community. They reside on campus, mentor a cohort of undergraduate students, hold weekly office hours, and lead an eight-week, not-for-credit study group based on their experience and expertise.

Fall 2024 Resident Fellows:

• Betsy Ankney: Former Campaign Manager, Nikki Haley for President
• John Anzalone: One of the nation's top pollsters and strategists, and founder of Impact Research, a public opinion research and consulting firm
• Alejandra Y. Castillo: Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development
• Asa Hutchinson: Former Governor of Arkansas and 2024 Presidential Candidate
• Brett Rosenberg: Former Director for Strategic Planning, National Security Council and Deputy Special Coordinator for the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, Department of State
• Eugene Scott: Host at Axios Live, and former reporter who has spent two decades covering politics at the local, national and international level, including at the Washington Post and CNN

Brief bios and quotes can be found below. Headshots are available upon request.

Betsy Ankney Ankney is a political strategist with over 15 years of experience on tough campaigns. She has been involved in campaigns and Super PACs at the national and state level and played a role in some of the biggest upsets in Republican politics. She has been an advisor to Ambassador Nikki Haley since 2021, serving as Executive Director for Stand for America PAC and most recently as Campaign Manager for Nikki Haley for President. After starting with zero dollars in the bank and 2% in the polls, the campaign defied the odds, raised $80 million, and Nikki Haley emerged as the strongest challenger to Donald Trump. Ankney served as the Political Director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee for the 2020 cycle. She advised senate campaigns across the country, working directly with candidates and their campaigns on budgets, messaging, and fundraising. Prior to her work at the NRSC, Ankney managed multiple statewide campaigns, including Bruce Rauner for Governor in Illinois and Ron Johnson for Senate in Wisconsin. For her work on Ron Johnson’s race, she was named “Campaign Manager of the Year” by the American Association of Political Consultants for 2016. Ankney got her start in politics at the 2008 Republican National Convention and served in various roles at the Republican National Committee as well as on multiple campaigns and outside efforts. She serves on the boards of The Campaign School at Yale and The American Association of Political Consultants. She is from Toledo, Ohio and attended Vanderbilt University.

"I am honored to be a part of the fantastic program at the Harvard Institute of Politics. As we enter the final stretch of one of the wildest and most unpredictable election cycles in modern history, I look forward to having conversations in real time about our political process, what to look for, and why it matters." – Betsy Ankney

John Anzalone Anzalone is one of the nation’s top pollsters and messaging strategists. He has spent decades working on some of the toughest political campaigns in modern history and helping private-sector clients navigate complex challenges. He has polled for the past four presidential races, most recently serving as chief pollster for President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign. In that role, he helped develop the messaging and strategy that drove paid communications, major policy rollouts, speeches, and convention thematics. He has also polled for the campaigns of President Obama and Hillary Clinton, and has helped elect U.S. senators, governors, and dozens of members of Congress. Anzalone works with governors across the country, including current Governors Gretchen Whitmer (MI) and Roy Cooper (NC). He polls regularly for the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Senate Majority PAC, and AARP. With more than 30 years of experience in message development and strategic execution, he has been called on by key decision-makers, executives, and CEOs to provide counsel in a changing world and marketplace. He has extensive experience using research and data to break down complex subjects into digestible messages that resonate with target audiences. He grew up in St. Joseph, Michigan, and graduated from Kalamazoo College in Kalamazoo, Michigan. He is married and has four children, two dogs, and lives in Watercolor, Florida.

"After a 40-year career in politics I am so excited to give back by sharing and mentoring politically active and curious students, but also to have an opportunity to learn from them myself. During the next three months we will be living the 2024 elections together in real time. There is nothing more exciting than that regardless of your political identity." – John Anzalone

Alejandra Y. Castillo The Honorable Alejandra Y. Castillo was nominated by President Biden and sworn in as U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development on August 13, 2021, becoming the first women of color to hold this position. Ms. Castillo led the Economic Development Administration (EDA) between August 2021-2024 through an unprecedented moment of growth and opportunity. As the only federal agency focused exclusively on economic development, she guided EDA’s the implementation of over $6.8 billion dollars in federal funding, powering EDA and its mission to make transformational placed-based investments to support inclusive and equitable economic growth across America. Spanning over two decades of public service and non-profit work, she has served in three Presidential administrations --Biden, Obama and Clinton. Her career has also included a drive to shattering glass ceilings and providing inspiration to multiple generations of diverse leaders. Castillo is an active member in various civic and professional organizations, including the Hispanic National Bar Association, the American Constitution Society, as well as the Council on Foreign Relations. Castillo holds a B.A. in Economics and Political Science from the State University of New York at Stony Brook; a M.A. in Public Policy from the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin; and a J.D. from American University, Washington College of Law. A native of Queens, NY., the daughter of immigrants from the Dominican Republic.

"I am excited to join this Fall semester IOP Fellowship class and have the opportunity to engage with students and faculty members across the University. The IOP fellowship presents a great forum to discuss and evaluate the future of U.S. industrial strategy and economic growth in light of the historic federal investments in place-based economic development during the last three years. I am honored to join my colleagues in making this an exciting and informative semester for students." – Alejandra Y. Castillo

Asa Hutchinson Governor Asa Hutchinson is a former Republican candidate for President of the United States. He served as the 46th Governor of the State of Arkansas and in his last election, he was re-elected with 65 percent of the vote, having received more votes than any other Republican candidate for governor in the State’s history. As a candidate for President, Hutchinson distinguished himself as an advocate for balancing the federal budget, energy production and enhanced border security. He also was a clear voice for the GOP to move away from the leadership of Donald Trump. Hutchinson’s time as governor is distinguished by his success in securing over $700 million per year in tax cuts, safeguarding the retirement pay of veterans from state income tax, shrinking the size of state government, creating over 100,000 new jobs and leading a national initiative to increase computer science education. The Governor’s career in public service began when President Ronald Reagan appointed him as the youngest U.S. Attorney in the nation for the Western District of Arkansas. In 1996, he won the first of three consecutive terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. During his third term in Congress, President George W. Bush appointed Governor Hutchinson to serve as Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration and later as the nation’s first Undersecretary of Homeland Security for Border Protection. He is a former Chairman of the National Governors. He grew up on a small farm near Gravette. He and his wife, Susan, have four children and seven grandchildren. Governor Hutchinson is currently CEO of Hutchinson Group LLC, a security consulting firm.

"After 8 years as Governor it is time to teach and mentor. I am honored to have the opportunity this fall to share my experiences and perspective but to also learn from the students and my colleagues who will also be resident fellows at the IOP. The timing is historic with our democracy facing a critical choice this fall as to the direction of our country." – Asa Hutchinson

Brett Rosenberg Rosenberg is a foreign policy expert who has served in the White House, Department of State, and Senate. During the Biden Administration, Rosenberg was the inaugural Deputy Special Coordinator for the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, President Biden’s and the G7’s flagship program designed to meet infrastructure needs in low- and middle-income countries. At the White House, Rosenberg served on the National Security Council as Director for Strategic Planning, working on shaping and realizing approaches to issues spanning from international economics to Western Hemisphere engagement, as well as helping to write the National Security Strategy. Prior to her service in the Biden administration, Rosenberg was Associate Director of Policy for National Security Action, where she remains a senior advisor. Rosenberg began her career in Washington as a legislative aide to then-Senator Kamala Harris, where she advised the senator on a range of domestic and economic policy issues. Rosenberg is a Nonresident Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and her writing has appeared in outlets including Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The New Republic, and McSweeneys. She received her A.B. in History from Harvard College and her PhD (DPhil) in International Relations from the University of Oxford, where she was a Rhodes Scholar.

"What a privilege it is to be part of this incredible community in this incredible moment. I can't wait to learn from the students, faculty, and other fellows as we dive in together to discuss some of the most pressing issues facing the United States and the world." – Brett Rosenberg

Eugene Scott Eugene Scott is a host at Axios Live, where he travels the country interviewing political and policy leaders. He was previously a senior political reporter for Axios covering 2024 swing voters and voting rights. An award-winning journalist, Scott has spent two decades covering politics at the local, national and international levels. He was recently a national political reporter at The Washington Post focused on identity politics and the 2022 midterm election. Following the 2020 presidential election, he hosted “The Next Four Years,” then Amazon’s top original podcast. He also contributed to “FOUR HUNDRED SOULS: A Community History of African America, 1619-2019,” which topped the New York Times’ bestseller list. In addition to writing, Scott has regularly provided political analysis on MSNBC, CBS and NPR. Scott was a Washington Correspondent for CNN Politics during the 2016 election. And he began his newspaper career at the Cape Argus in Cape Town, South Africa not long after beginning his journalism career with BET News’ “Teen Summit.” Scott received his master’s degree from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and his bachelor’s from the University of North Carolina Hussman School of Journalism and Media. He is a D.C. native and continues to live in the Nation’s Capital.

"Learning from and with the professionals that visited the IOP during my time on campus was one of the highlights of my time at the Kennedy School. I am eager to help lead students in understanding the press and this country as we navigate the final weeks of arguably the most consequential election of our time." – Eugene Scott

Additional information can be found here .

About the Institute of Politics Fellows Program The Institute of Politics at Harvard Kennedy School was established in 1966 as a living memorial to President John F. Kennedy. The Institute’s mission is to unite and engage students, particularly undergraduates, with academics, politicians, activists, and policymakers on a non-partisan basis to inspire them to pursue pathways in politics and public service. The Institute blends the academic with practical politics and offers students the opportunity to engage in current events and to acquire skills and perspectives that will assist in their postgraduate pathways.

The Fellows Program has stood as the cornerstone of the IOP, encouraging student interest in public service and increasing the interaction between the academic and political communities. Through the Fellows Program, the Institute aims to provide students with the opportunity to learn from experienced public servants, the space to engage in civil discourse, and the chance to acquire a more holistic and pragmatic view of our political world.

For more information on the fellowship program, including a full list of former fellows, visit: iop.harvard.edu  

Press Releases