Does the 4th estate of journalism exist?
This question is discussed, among other media related topics, by the PBS show ‘Frontline’ in its series ‘News War.' Viewers may watch episodes on Tuesday nights at 10p.m. on PBS station WJCT or on pbs.org at any time.
Some background:
The concept of four estates classifies all members of society into economic casts beginning with the clergy (Modern government officials), second the aristocracy (modern business leaders), third are serfs and peasants (modern consumers) and most recently the fourth(the free speakers) whom are press or mass media members.
The problems arise when people in the fourth estate are members of the second estate or are constrained by the first estate's powers.
Our constitutional amendments entitle this country’s citizens to certain legal rights and privileges. Among those detailed within the first amendment are freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.
The fourth estate's members of the media are, in certain situations, above the prohibitive influence of the government but are always charged with being fair and balanced in their reporting. There are exceptions to the powers of the press.
According to the first amendment, government may limit (censor) the press in situations of libel, obscenity, use of words that might cause violence or present a clear and present danger to the Commonwealth.
The goal of the amendment according to justicelearning.org is "to ensure a free exchange of ideas even if the ideas are unpopular."
The NewsWar site states that in 1972 the court case Branzburg v. Hayes may have determined whether the fourth estate of journalism actually exists based on the amendments of the constitution.
In a 5 to 4 ratio the powers that be ruled that there were no special privileges allotted for members of the press. That means that reporters could be punished criminally by the courts for refusing to divulge their sources.
The first amendment debate rages on with lingering ambiguity from the specific wording used by the justices’ ruling in the Hayes case. For those in the legal professions, meanings are open to maneuvering and interpretation. But over the past 30 years there have been many cases in which the highest court has refused to make a place for the fourth estate to protect journalistic sources.
The Fore Granted Opinion:
Even in cases like the Valerie Plame/CIA leak investigation I believe in a reporter’s commitment to preserve the integrity of their source by keeping it a secret. Many governmental officials will cry foul and seek the source for treasonous prosecution or to “protect national security” but to betray the source is to destroy the freedom of the press. I would make allowances for a reporter’s discretion when the government is involved. Confidentiality is a must. Incriminating witnesses need to feel confident that their identities will be kept secret. Otherwise, they will not feel free to come forward when government officials are in authority and in the wrong.
In my estimation, nothing could be better for this country than an unbiased fourth estate. A dose of healthy skepticism is the ultimate method of “checks and balances” to keep governmental officials honest and accountable to the public through the media’s voice.
The Fore Granted Final Question:
Do you think government officials should have the power to rebuke journalists for refusing to expose their sources?
1 comment:
The government always has their 25 cents in all matters. The answer to that question is the same as if you were to ask me if we should have to pay taxes. No! But hey, what the government says always goes and they're in control. Don't you just hat the man? Lol!
Post a Comment