Representing readers
| 13:31 UK time, Tuesday, 20 June 2006
Is it the job of a newspaper to "represent" its readers?
Tweak (or wrench) the paper鈥檚 news agenda to reflect readers鈥 prejudices 鈥 I get. Argue for and defend those prejudices 鈥 I get that too. And campaigning on their behalf 鈥 of course.
All good stuff, well within the finest traditions of Britain鈥檚 lippy, gutsy, argumentative, pluralist press.
But 鈥渞epresent鈥?
That鈥檚 what the claims it does 鈥 or has been doing with its campaign for a so-called 鈥淪arah鈥檚 Law鈥; a law that would enable local people to find out if a convicted paedophile were living in their neighbourhood.
It was in response to the , the Chief Constable of Dyfed-Powys and the child protection spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (listen to it here).
The Chief Constable鈥檚 criticisms of both the paper and Government was tough; likening the relationship between Ministers and the tabloid press to that between blackmailer and victim. And the World Tonight listeners who joined the debate seemed to share his view.
It鈥檚 absurd to argue that newspapers aren鈥檛 political players; campaigning does 鈥 and probably should 鈥 influence Governments, change public sentiment or the law. All the best campaigning journalism has a moral component; 鈥渟top this evil now.鈥
But can campaigning newspapers 鈥渞epresent鈥 anyone?
They can speak for them; articulate their views, or what they perceive them to be; hunt out the facts to confirm their readers鈥 views of the world. Press the case hard. And in doing all of that they play an important role in our messy and sometimes fuzzy democracy 鈥 but do they, can they, 鈥渞epresent鈥 anyone?
There鈥檚 a confusion here about the role of elected politicians and their non-elected critics. Editors have the right - the duty - to call for the heads of elected politicians they and their readers think have failed; and they have the right and duty to put the evidence that they鈥檝e failed in front of their readers. That鈥檚 accountability.
But that doesn鈥檛 put them in the same place in our democracy as elected politicians - for the simple reason that they represent no-one but themselves.
I can鈥檛 un-elect the editor of the News of the World, even if I want to. I can鈥檛 hold him to account for the consequences of his campaigns - intended and unintended.
That鈥檚 fine so long as he doesn鈥檛 claim to 鈥渞epresent鈥 me - for better or worse, I am one of his readers.
But once he does claim to represent me, then I want to ask him some awkward questions.
The obvious ones, like - how does he choose which readers he represents and which he doesn鈥檛 ? How do I change his mind or get him fired?
Or; what if he fails the readers he chooses to 鈥渞epresent鈥? What if the Government decides in the end that 鈥淪arah鈥檚 Law鈥 would be the charter for vigilantism that some claim and ? Does he apologise to those he 鈥渞epresents鈥 and resign because he鈥檚 failed to get them the law?
Or; what if he succeeds and 鈥淪arah鈥檚 Law鈥 is enacted? And grows? Does he take responsibility for the unintended consequence and compensate the victims? And does he resign, just as he鈥檇 call for an elected politician to resign whose legislation went similarly awry?
The press may be many things; argumentative and campaigning; a powerful and legitimate force in democracy, certainly.
But 鈥渞epresentative鈥? I think not.
Comments
You raise an interesting question, Kevin. You're right, of course, that newspapers don't represent their readers in the same way that politicians represent voters. But you could argue, I think, that they respond to readers -- and, perhaps more importantly, to proprietors. Look what happened to The Sun over Hillsborough and its slurs against Liverpool fans. If the NoW thought it was losing its readers over Sarah's Law, I suspect it would stop campaigning pretty sharpish. And if Mr Murdoch objected strongly, the campaign would grind to a stand-still. Do papers misrepresent in order to maximise sales? Yes. Do they campaign for something they know their readers disagree with? I doubt it. Only rarely -- for example, The Observer over Suez, and more recently, by coming out in favour of military intervention in Iraq -- do editors deliberately and knowingly go against what they perceive to be their readers' views. And of course readers do have one course of action open to them -- they can stop buying the paper. It may not always make for accurate journalism -- but reflecting readers' fears back at them usually pays commercial dividends.
Its true that newspapers tend not to represent their readers but enforce already exsisting stereotypes or ideas that the reader may already have. So readers will either agree or disagree with an article that they are reading, so it is most unlikely that a newspaper will represent the same values and attiutudes as all its readers in every article. However as they tend to have at least one article that has the opinion similar to a reader they have the power to change our our existing views of other topics, as we might question our own views (as the newspaper has supported one of our views so could or disagreeing views be wrong?) and be persuaded by the newspaper to change it. Such as the topic of 'sarah's law', the newspaper could influence public opinion effecting the result of whether the law is enforced or disgarded. But the newspaper would not have the blame of the result of the law, as it would have been the public opinion that made it so. So you could say that the newspaper represents our views but as a cause rather than an effect.