The Media as the Fourth Estate in Democracy

Introduction

The media has been referred to as the fourth estate — a bedrock element of democratic society. The term has its origins in the critical role that media plays in society. The first three estates are traditionally taken to be the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners. This concept derives from England, and is attributed in particular to something Thomas Carlyle wrote in 1841 about there being three estates in parliament, with the reporters in the gallery constituting the fourth estate. Carlyle argued that they were the most important of all (Crichton et al., 2010).

When applied to a country's media, the terms "free" and "independent" reference privately-owned media that operate without undue interference from government. The media is considered a bedrock of democracy because it is responsible for the flow of information to the populace. More specifically, this refers to organized media companies prior to the digital age. Today's digital and social media are different, and unorganized or unofficial sources of information are not included in the concept of media when referencing the fourth estate and its role in democracy. With these terms defined, the role that the media plays in conveying information is straightforward: an independent media provides scrutiny and criticism of those in power in order to hold them to account.

Democracy

The fundamental concept of democracy is that it is government by the people, for the people. The moral foundation of democracy is that it is intrinsically more ideal than other forms of government (Christiano, 2006). People in a nation have the inherent right to self-determination. Under other systems of government — be they monarchy, communism, or any other form of totalitarianism — the people living in a nation do not have self-determination. They are subject to the whims of the ruler or ruling party of the time. By allowing people the ability to determine how their country is run, democracy is morally superior because it does not subject any person to undue influence by another person, unless all parties were able to participate in the process of selecting the leadership. Of course, this was not always the case — voting rights took time to diffuse to all citizens.

There are differences in specific democratic structures, such as whether one has the ability to directly elect the head of state, but in general the foundational democratic principle is self-determination: citizens have the right to elect their leaders. Going along with this, and differentiating democracy from other systems, is that all citizens have the right to run for elected office — opposition groups are permitted participation in the political process.

Information and the Role of the Media

Democracy can exist simply if people have the right to vote and to participate in the political process. However, voting alone does not make for a well-functioning democracy. This is where the media comes into play. Media plays a critical role in the dissemination of information. Since the 17th century, the media has fulfilled this role because of its ability to transmit information at scale. In theory, anybody can gather information, but dissemination at scale has — until the Internet — required a certain amount of capital investment (Coronel, n.d.). First came printing presses, then broadcast towers, but there was always some capital investment required. While information had previously traveled through informal channels such as word of mouth, media allows for the consistent transmission of messages to large audiences.

The ability of the media to transmit information at scale also gives it considerable power. Consistent messaging at scale allows ideas to diffuse quickly, granting media outlets considerable influence. With respect to printing presses, the barriers to entry are relatively small, making it possible for many individuals or groups to gain access to this form of media, though larger presses carry higher barriers to entry. The advent of broadcast media — first radio and then television — raised those barriers further. Not only was the cost of investment higher, but bandwidth restrictions applied: devices to receive transmissions were limited in what bandwidths they could handle, placing a significant barrier on entry into broadcast media. Combined with high barriers to entry for large-scale print media, the power of established media grew considerably during the 20th century.

Media outlets thus found themselves with only a handful of competitors. This concentration of power means that the messages they disseminate come to dominate common discourse. People know what their information sources tell them. The media therefore plays a role in educating people and in shaping public discourse — it determines what subjects are discussed and what the tone and content of that discussion will be. For many adults, and especially in the pre-Internet era, the media was the dominant way that information about politics, the economy, and other subjects of national importance was disseminated. Even today, formal media maintains a substantial competitive advantage over informal channels, though recent events suggest that this influence may be waning in favor of social media propaganda (The Economist, 2017). That is a discussion for another day.

Privately-Owned Versus Government Media

The high level of influence that the media has over public discourse naturally makes it a powerful tool in any society, but especially in societies where people elect their political leaders. The way that discourse is shaped influences public opinion about critical election issues, about candidates, and about perceptions of government in general. By shaping discourse and influencing public opinion, media not only leads society on issues but also has the ability to hold politicians accountable for their actions.

Therein lies the critical difference between state-owned media and independent, privately-owned media. Independent media has the ability to hold government to account, whereas state-owned media typically has incentive to avoid controversial discussion and, certainly, motivation to avoid criticism of leadership. Where government controls the purse-strings of media, it has the power to dictate — through a variety of means — what issues are subject to discussion and how those issues should be framed in public discourse. Government can therefore use such media to serve its own interests. A privately-owned media is not beholden to government in the same way and thus has far more freedom to investigate, report on, and otherwise discuss issues pertaining directly to government leadership.

The result is a more informed populace, and it is this informed populace that is the critical element of a well-functioning democracy. Where people who vote are utterly uninformed or misinformed about issues, their votes will not necessarily be a true reflection of their desires. For democracy to function effectively, people need to be empowered with information to vote in a way that best supports the government they wish to see. If this occurs, they will in general receive the government they want; if it does not occur, they will not. Given that democracy is fundamentally about people having the government they want, a well- and accurately informed population is critical. Only a free, independent media can deliver that; state-owned media has perverse incentive toward biased coverage of the present leadership (Prat & Stromberg, 2013).