- Подробности
-
Категория: Английский язык
Despite enjoying a period of unsurpassed wealth and influence in the 1970s and 1980s, the American media is troubled by rising public dissatisfaction. Critics complain that journalists are unfair, irresponsible or just plain arrogant.
They complain that journalists are always emphasizing the negative, the sensational, and the abnormal rather than the normal. President Reagan's science adviser expressed the irritation of many when he accused the press of "trying to tear down America".
Some observers link the criticism to rising standards in journalism. "The press is more professional, more responsible, more careful, more ethical than it ever has been", said David Shaw, media critic for the Los Angeles Times. In fact, the rise of ombudsmen (spokesmen for groups with a grievance), "opinion-editorial" pages in newspapers, television time for statements of opinion and media review journals suggest that ways are being found for individuals and groups to present their views. During the early 1980s, a number of organized groups from both sides of the political spectrum were formed to monitor and critique the news media.
Surveys show that the American public — on both sides of the political fence— holds strong opinions about the press. According to a 1984 Gallup poll (survey of public opinion) 46 per cent of Americans believe the news media's bias is liberal, while 38 per cent said it is conservative. In contrast, most journalists — 59 per cent — described their political views as "middle of the road".
But there is a feeling that the press sometimes goes too far, crossing the fine line between the public's right to know, on the one hand, and the right of individuals to privacy and the right of the government to protect the national security. In many cases, the courts decide when the press has overstepped the bounds of its rights. Sometimes the courts decide in favor of the press. For example, in 1971 the government tried to stop the New York Times from publishing a secret study of the Vietnam War known as the Pentagon Papers, claiming that publication would damage national security. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that since the government had not proved that the damage to national security would be so great, the newspapers should be free to publish the information.
One growing pressure on reporters and editors is the risk of being sued. Even though the First Amendment protects the press from government interference, the press does not have complete freedom. There are laws against libel and invasion of privacy, as well as limits on what reporters may do in order to get a story.
Americans' right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the Constitution, has provoked many of media battles. Judges have often ordered journalists — many times unsuccessfully — not to publish damaging information about a person on trial. Also, in most states journalists may be jailed for contempt of court for refusing to identify the sources for their story if demanded by a court.
TV news people operate under an additional restriction called the Fairness Doctrine. Under this rule, when a station presents one viewpoint on a controversial issue, the public interest requires the station to give opposing viewpoints a chance to broadcast a reply.
In recent years, more news organizations are settling cases out of court to avoid costly and embarrassing legal battles. Editors say that major libel suits which generally ask for millions of dollars in damages are having a "chilling effect" on investigative reporting. This means that for fear of being involved in a costly libel suit, the reporter or news organization may avoid pursuing a controversial story.
In short, the United States confronts a classic conflict between two deeply held beliefs: the right to know and the right to privacy and fair treatment. It is not a conflict that can be resolved with a single formula, but only on a case-by-case basis.
