In their work on democratic erosion, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt point to the importance of what they term as “gatekeepers” in keeping democratic backsliders from consolidating power [1]. Parties, courts, institutional structures, and voters can all act as gatekeepers in different ways, whether it be by keeping a candidate off of the ballot or by not electing them. Another important organization that can act as a gatekeeper is the media. They can do so by reporting on the actions of democratic eroders and by providing news that helps voters make informed decisions. However, despite the potential of the media to act as an effective gatekeeper, it cannot be trusted to effectively keep democratic backsliders from pursuing harmful policy.
One reason not to be overly optimistic about the role of media as a gatekeeper is its potential for polarization. This is especially true in the United States where media has become some of the most polarized in the world. While polarization of media does not necessarily necessitate backsliding, it does logically nurture polarization of the masses that consume it. Polarized media such as Fox News and CNN are quick to throw barbs at each other and each other’s viewer base. For example, Fox News satirized a Jim Acosta quote, arguing he said anyone who didn’t agree with CNN wasn’t American. This sort of divisive reporting is common place on both sides of the aisle, and increases the wedge between voters. In Milan Svolik’s work in Venezuela, he finds that the more extreme ideological views a voter has, the more likely they are to tolerate backsliding policies of their parties candidate. While more work is required on the topic of polarization and democratic erosion, there appears to be a link between backsliding and the increasing extremism of parties. Polarized media tends to exacerbate this widening gap.
Another reason that we can’t solely rely on media as an effective gatekeeper against democratic erosion is that it can perpetuate what is known as “fake news.” This fake news has been found by many to impact the outcome of elections. In a study on the 2016 elections, it was found by Ohio State University researchers that fake news did impact the outcome. Furthermore, research has been done to show that fact checking fake news does not necessarily help correct voting behavior. In a study based on the French candidate Marie La Pen’s wide dissemination of fake news, researchers found that people exposed to fake news will indeed correct their factual information when they are later told the truth, but tend to continue to vote for the same politician sharing incorrect information [2]. In fact, they found that sometimes after learning the truth people are even more likely to vote for that fake news-spreading politician. They argue this may be because the fact checking raises the salience of the issue, therefore increasing support for the backslider. While fact checking organizations such as Politico are helpful in general, their effectiveness should not be overstated.
Finally, media can be used by backsliders to consolidate their own support. In his work on Russia, Scott Gehlbach discusses how in the early 2000’s Putin quickly seized control over major TV networks that had previously been privately owned, reversing the more democratic practices under the prior administration [3]. Furthermore, he tailored the propaganda message such that fact was mixed with fiction. It became hard to determine whether the news was indeed fact or fiction. While American media has not fallen under state control the same way Russia has, there are many ways that the current administration has used media to their advantage. Many have argued that Trump’s rhetoric has been used to confuse and distract the public from true crises. When Trump states something that is blatantly not true, he understands that it will be repeated over and over by news outlets, distracting them from commentating on other, more immediate matters. In this way, the media can be employed to a backslider to consolidate power.
While media, the courts, Constitutional institutions, and voters all have the potential to be gatekeepers, we should be cautious regarding the degree to which we place our trust in their abilities. Ultimately, all of these checks can actually be used by backsliders to support their own cause. In particular, the increasing polarization of media brings into question its ability to stop eroders. Furthermore, media may actually not be as effective at curbing fake news as we would like. Finally, media has the potential to become a tool of the backslider. While there is no silver bullet to keeping out backsliders, the media must fight to remain its autonomy from the state and to deliver high-quality journalism.
*Photo “P9280033” by Bruno Pin is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
[1] Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2019). How democracies die. London: Penguin. [2] Barrera Rodriguez, Oscar and Guriev, Sergei M. and Henry, Emeric and Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, Facts, Alternative Facts, and Fact Checking in Times of Post-Truth Politics (December 14, 2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3004631 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3004631 [3] Scott Gehlbach (2010) Reflections on Putin and the Media, Post-Soviet Affairs, 26:1, 77-87, DOI: 10.2747/1060-586X.26.1.77
Samuel Reeder
I think your blog post does raise an important issue when it comes to the media acting as gatekeepers of democracy. It is true that the news in the United States is highly polarized these days. It also does not help that in the 2016 campaign, it was estimated that Donald Trump received 2 billion dollars worth of free media time and coverage due to the news covering his out of the blue and crazy comments/actions. The news media, in giving Donald Trump this platform, essentially gave Donald Trump a megaphone to espouse and spread his populist agenda and create an environment that puts the reputation of news station up fro scrutiny. I also can not help but think that part of this was due to the US citizens as well and not solely on the media. Many people in 2016 wanted to hear and see what Donald Trump was saying/doing, regardless of whether they supported him or not. It could be argued that if the media were to ignore Donald Trump that they would not gain the viewers and consumption of media they would have received if they covered Donald Trump. I do think part of it is also on the populace who wanted to know more about what Donald Trump was saying/doing throughout 2016, and the news media adjusting its content to meet the demands of their consumer base. Does this mean the media is not to blame for failing at gatekeeping? No. I would just argue that the media was also replying to what the voters and their viewers were wanting and demanding coverage of.
Christine Castillo
I agree that the media has a role in preserving a country’s democracy and it is not an effective one. The three reasons that you mentioned above are correct, especially in the ability of the media to harbor fake information. In particular, supporters of several politicians in the Philippines use their social media accounts as a way to spread false rumors and attack the opposing party. Today, people have never been more receptive than they ever were. And so, reading fake information published in the media can lead to misguided conclusions. In this regard, the media deepens polarization, reinforces social cleavages, and thus, digs a grave for democracy.
On one note, I liked that you pointed out government control of the media because this raises issues on the authenticity it ought to have. Think of Thailand, where the public and the media are banned to speak ill of the government and the monarchy. One may think that a simple control such as this will not do great harm. But I argue that simple actions, restrictions, and manipulation can sum up to a democratic breakdown, democracy being slowly eviscerated while no one even notices. On another note, I can’t totally blame the media. After all, it is a wide field that covers truth, entertainment, and fiction, among others. The manipulation of media is also a reality. Sometimes, the media presents what the public wants to be presented. There are times when objectivity is blended with subjectivity and the truth is covered with a lie.
This blog post can be further developed through citing a country or two that has either a government-controlled media or one that respects and knows what it truly is. But to reiterate, I believe that the media, in general, is not an effective gatekeeper of democracy, most especially given the toxic and very dangerous media culture that has emerged at present.