Media is often regarded as the fourth pillar of democracy for the kind of intermediary role it plays between those with and those without access to power. In this blog, I try to break down how the role of media is not limited to just acting as a binding force between the two poles of a democracy. Through economic analysis, it is possible to also regard it as a stabilising agent in democratic functioning, one which can’t be done away with.
Responsible media operations are the ones which induce discussion amongst the general public and deliberation amongst the other public that has access to power. When media houses expose different dimensions of an issue, they essentially break down the zero-sumness in the interaction between the parties concerned. In economic parlance, a zero-sum game is a win-lose situation wherein one party’s loss is another party’s gain. If media houses promote a singular narrative, they are essentially reducing the interaction between the parties involved in the issue via the public into a zero-sum game. Suppose one side is given more representation and backing by the media in its coverage of the issue. Intuitively, people will be more inclined towards forming an opinion similar to the one already projected by the media and thus freedom of speech/opportunity of speech to one party gains them a supporter whereas the lack of opportunity of speech to the other party looses them a supporter. Hence, whichever side is talked about more in the media will end up winning regardless of the moral implications behind it. Whereas if different dimensions to the issue are presented, the interaction in no way can be a zero-sum one. Giving a side representation increases its chances of winning the trust of the people. However, when all the sides are given representation then all the sides have different probabilities of being chosen based off of how convincing each side’s stance is. Here the lost supporter to a party may not be a gained supporter to the other. He may form a perspective which is neutral of the two sides, a clear disassociation from extremism. A wide range of opinions can be formed amongst the public. Thus, a party may loose supporters while the other party gains none. Since representation was equal in the first place, the opinion is bound to be formed based on the characteristics of the argument/stance presented by the sides through the media.
Additionally, as different dimensions to the issue are revealed, individuals have a higher tendency to even discuss their differing opinions over the matter with one another. Interestingly what will happen over time is that each party would want to talk on the matter more to increase their support base. Now because the media is judicious in giving representation to all sides, it’ll try to gain more insights from all other parties involved as well. As more and more information, facts, and details will come out to the public, the discussion will take into consideration each of these factors and will likely reach a conclusion that is most agreeable and based on hard facts. Hence, the essence of democracy will be maintained. Thus, media can be understood as the invisible hand which stirs discussion in a democracy and then brings it to the equilibrium point where the majority of the public is more informed on the issue and is thus taking a stance which is free from bias and which is closer to reality. Consequently, any ill intent will be exposed and the parties involved will be taken off power, maintaining the good health of the democracy. In stark contrast to this, in the initial case, where media was playing a polarising role, an equilibrium of a healthy and effective democracy will not be attained because neither will there be much deliberation nor will there be a certainty that the real culprits are punished and not brought back to power.
Gaurika Bhanot
Commentaires