Is ‘watchdog’ journalism a Western myth?

IN January 2003, French communications professor Ignacio Ramonet told an audience of over 5,000 young people, mainly from Latin America, attending the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre in Brazil, that corporations now own and produce not only traditional media, but everything we call culture and communication. They are also involved in leisure, pop music, cinema and sports. They have no objective of being the “fourth estate” to protect the citizenry from abuse of power by governments. “They have come together as a power,” he argued. “The fourth power [estate] is now exploiting and oppressing the populations

transformed from friends of the citizenry to its enemy?”

Throughout the period that

Iattempts to get

out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London and extradited to the US to face espionage charges were gathering steam. One would argue that Assange was practicing “watchdog” journalism to its core, but for the

and a security threat. Now many governments, the latest his home country Australia, are enacting laws to jail whistleblowers who expose governments’ abuse of power.

This dilemma is the central fo

with numerous examples, that the so-called “liberal free media” in the West has jettisoned its watchdog role as news turns into a commodity for sale.

when as a young reporter, I interviewed veteran Indian journalist

and he told me that “exception later when

in chief of the Reuters news agency, he told me: “No one is interested

but,

if you

I put this question to

fell under a bus, they

So, that is what is news — reporting about exceptional circumstances, not the everyday reality. Thus, we have set ourselves up for the current era of news as entertainment. How India’s most popular TV news anchor Arnab

heights with his rating- topping panel discussions where every on one shouts at each other, is discussed in length in the chapter that

ever had a truth era.

Today, the mainstream media (MSM) battles for relevance in an age of excessive commercialization and challenges from the Internet. Ironically, the wave of media “liberalization” that has been pushed through around the world by West

premise of the Libertarian Media Function Theory (LMFT).

As the broadcast media in particular, transforms from a public enterprise to a commercial entity, it has changed the way journalism is practiced globally. News media has drifted towards a public relations and influencer- pedaling paradigm that is manufacturing consent to suit the interests of whoever owns the media.

Time to review media theory

We have been teaching in journalism programs for over half a century that for the media to be free it has to be privately owned. It is only then, that the media is able to play the watchdog role of a fourth estate. It is also what differentiates a “free” media from a “controlled” one in an authoritative state, where the media are owned by the government. The “four theories of the press” that were prescribed in the 1950s and still widely taught in mass communication programs, assign the LMFT to describe the former, and the authoritarian media function

the media owners owned the media. But, when the media — both at international and national levels — began to be owned by business conglomerates that are sometimes more powerful than government, the libertarian model of the “free media” began to un

describes it, journalism has become a system of “manufacturing consent” to promote the interests of media owners. Unfortunately, this propaganda model, which he developed with Herman and McChesney is not often discussed

mass communication programs across the world.

In this context, President Trump’s continuing outbursts

MSM, even going to the extent of describing it as “enemies of the American people” — echoing similar sentiments of Professor Ramonet — though for different reasons, should be welcomed. Unfortunately, the American media has responded

than paying attention to his message of why the media may not be reflecting the sentiments of the people that voted for him. What made them embrace his message? Just labeling them as “xenophobic” or “racist” is not watchdog journalism.

The socioeconomics of why they are against free trade deals, globalization and immigration need to be investigated and analyzed. This is also a concern expressed by millions of people across the world. A whole chapter has been devoted to discussing how neoliberalism is breeding inequality across the globe while the MSM is largely ignoring.

MSM’s global news agenda

such as, why are people who are

among the top 10 richest people in the world? They need to investigate the power of the pharmaceutical

the cost of affordable medicines for most of the world’s population; how 911 has scuttled a growing “global justice movement”; why mining companies should be taxed more; how the world’s rich and the corrupt exploit globalization

migration

is a 21st century slave issues and MSM’s failures.

Subjectivity as objectivity

This leads to where Western-centric news values are questioned, and it is argued that imbalances in the news — especially at international level — occur because the truth is subjective.

of the Asian Press Union, Tarzie Vittachi, argued in a column

news values practiced by Western media was colored by their cul

symbol of civilization than a sari or a chador,” he said. This theme is further expanded in the

reporting and its cultural biases — such as in the reporting of the defeat of the Tamil Tiger terror

2004 Asian tsunami reporting; focusing on China’s Belt and Road Initiative as a “debt trap”; why US war crimes are not addressed when reporting Obama’s visit to Hiroshima and Laos; and many others. Dr Shashi Tharoor, former head of UN Information Division, points out that such

Dr S Gurumurthy, an Indian chartered accounted turned journalist and

which says “I am the only truth that I

become the greatest threat to freedom of expression. He argues, that “the media cannot produce right communication, because the ecosystem

drolls.” This is discussed at various

donor-funded nongovernment organization (NGO) media that have

Singaporean strategic communication specialist Viswa Sadasivan warns that freedom of expression is being threatened by organized syndicates (such as Western donordriven local NGOs) or organized government regimes employing these powerful platform to reach

for something to believe in. “(They) are manipulating these minds, using the same platforms that they have come to trust. That for me is grossly unethical,” he argues.

Fake news hysteria

With the advent of new communication technologies, the alternative

— is today able to compete with

The latter’s hysteria is fueled mainly by the fear of this competition, and often exposure of the MSM’s shortcomings, especially in terms of subjective neo-liberal biases.

British MSM’s attempts to delegitimize Jeremy Corbyn and his successful use of social media to brand himself; Philippines Rodrigo Duterte’s successful presidential campaign using young cybertroop

internet news portal’s success in

Malaysia are examples of how the alternative has made an impact.

that is a worry with the low-cost distribution model of the Internet, disinformation is not a new phenomenon. We need to be careful

Mindfully non-adversarial

The watchdog journalism model we have been teaching and practicing is too adversarial and today

rather than helping to resolve these. Balance we have been told is giving two sides to a story, which

- cusses a mindful journalism model drawing from philosophical ideas from Asian (mainly Buddhist) wisdom, to develop a journalism culture of cooperation and promoting harmony in society. There are many

why the media need to investigate and expose the “structural violence” of the global economic system, which is driving conflict and inequality. The real watchdog journalism is to expose those who are abusing their power and they are not necessarily

Mindful Communication for Sustainable Development: Perspectives from Asia,