 |
|
Dialogues@RU is published
annually
by the
Writing Program at
Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey
Volume 4
Fall 2005
Polemical Hacks, Bastardized Gonzo,
and the Death Of Democracy - Page 1
By Eric Kaufmann
Democracy in the United States is gradually deteriorating. Youth interest in politics is especially telling, as apathy is compounded with a growing detachment from, and cynicism of, democratic and legislative processes. Voter turnout has been steadily declining since the beginning of the twentieth century, such that dialogue and compromise on important issues are now virtually nonexistent. This is a result of a turn toward anomic democracy, as citizen confidence in government deteriorates. Contrary to popular belief, the usual scapegoats - interest groups and negative campaign tactics - are not to blame. Due to the structured nature of interest group interaction, lobbyists can actually be controlled by legislators, and they are useful as indicators of an issue's electoral salience, as well as providers of specialized knowledge. Campaigning, in contrast to its negative portrayal, provides voters with relevant information upon which to base decisions. Media outlets, above all, are responsible for this state of affairs due to their prioritizing of profit over accurate and informative reporting.
The media was originally conceptualized by the Founding Fathers as a forum for ideas to provide citizens with the information necessary to perform their civic responsibilities. It is clear that that this forum has not developed. Political discourse in the news has fallen victim to three developments: the bastardized use of Gonzo journalism as evidenced by the "new pamphleteers"; a shift in media coverage toward the sensational and marketable; and the lack of civic education provided to graduates of communications programs. Feigned objectivity, bias, and uninformed generalizations are considered acceptable, if not desirable, in contemporary political reporting and publishing. Yet the media presents themselves in the opposite manner through the use of slogans such as "FOX: Fair & Balanced," and "NBC News has got you covered." Thus, news organizations imply that they are exclusive arbiters of accurate information, and that they desire, at least on the surface, to provide information as a public service. As Gans points out in a report on the 2004 election, the media has "claimed constitutionally-mandated special access privileges to government information and facilities on the grounds that they are the most likely purveyors of information needed by citizens to perform their civic duties" (264). The public has come to believe that the media actively fulfills this role, and uncritically accepts news outputs. Media sources have been allowed to position themselves in this manner, without being held accountable for the results. Whether or not the media should be held responsible for shouldering certain public functions may have once been a relevant question, but at this point in time, due to the current state of media-public relations, such an investigation would be fruitless.
Because of media focus on the simple and profitable, citizen perception of, and participation in, government has shifted. Presently, the United States is in the midst of a dangerous type of democracy that might be described by Emile Durkheim's sociological concept of anomie, or a state characterized by feelings of purposelessness and the absence of social norms. With respect to democracy, this describes an alienated citizenry, hostile to perceived government ineptitude and unaccountable bureaucracy. In an article in Political Science Quarterly, Durrant argues that "a 'democratic deficit' lies at the heart of this nation's disastrous slide into anomic democracy" (25). By "democratic deficit," Durrant means a distorted version of governance that exists when
considerations of policy and program effectiveness get lost in a pell-mell rush to please voters who are simultaneously insisting on the effective delivery of the public goods, services, and opportunities that they continue to cherish. To disappoint those voters by enervating government's capacity to deliver on its responsibilities could be equally hazardous to politicians' careers. (30)