Public v. media interests

the press and the public interest: a definitional dilemma
Everette E. Dennis

A response: Representative or democratic modes – who wins and who loses?
Jeffrey B. Roth

The public buys its opinions as it buys its meat, or takes in its milk, on the principle that it is cheaper to do this than keep a cow. So it is, but the milk is more likely to be watered.
Samuel Butler, Notebooks, 1912

Formerly a public man needed a private secretary for a barrier between himself and the public. Nowadays he has a press secretary, to keep him properly in the public eye.
Daniel J. Boorstin, The Image, 1962

Majority versus minority versus individual interests

Majority versus minority versus individual interests is a quick summary of the themes contained in the abstract written by Everette E. Dennis, et. al, first published in Enduring Issues in Mass Communication, St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company (1978).
To respond to the inherent philosophies forwarded by Dennis, a schema is required to outline the historical and evolutionary basis for the socio-political operational definition of the term “public interest.” Dennis notes that Plato and Aristotle provided the foundation for centuries of scholarly debate on what in fact constitutes either the public or their interest. While Dennis did not elaborate on those theories, by induction, it is obvious that the definitions were based on their society’s mores’. The Golden Age of Pericles – the womb of Democratic theory, restricted its political largesse to free, property holding adult males. Only they had a voice. They were, in fact, a minority of the total population, but they held political power through a form of Democratic oligarchy.
Under the Roman Republic, ending with the death of Gaius Julius Caesar at the hands of Senate, representative Democracy quickly withered, died and was replaced by tyranny (tyrannous rex in human form).
The Republic represented more strata of Roman society – not only property owners, but any free Roman citizens – either native born or naturalized through service in the Legions had a voice in the operation of the government. Even women had rights. While wives did not vote, they could own property and divorce their husbands.

More recent history

Without dipping into the history of the Magna Charta and the steady, yet erratic evolution of democracy in the western world, by the time of Rousseau, common interest theory – the common good and the general will or as Dennis termed it in modern parlance, “shared interest and mutual trust … unitary formulation is based on universal moral precepts.” In this way … “individual interests cannot justifiably conflict with the public interest or with each other. Only a universal moral order can confer validity, or justifiability…. ”
Two later philosophers, Hobbes and Hume were exponents of preponderance theory – “preponderance of force.” For Hume that force was one of opinion. Dennis also notes that Bentham advanced the idea of “superior sum of individual interests.” That approach, Dennis said, described the relationship between the Federal Communications Commission and the television networks – the “lowest common denominator idea.”

Competing interests – Hocking, Held and the U.S. Supreme Court

At this point, the nexus between the public interest and media interest can be illustrated by that of William Ernest Hocking, who said freedom of the press “has always been a matter of public as well as individual importance. Inseparable from the right of the press to be free has been the right of the people to have a free press.”
In a similar strand, Dennis noted that Professor Francis E. Rourke said that “motivation for legislative attacks on executive secrecy” has resulted from efforts by the press and the members of the scientific community. This trend represents “the wide variety of interests [but] each … can also point to a clear public interest in the success of its special efforts.”
Clearly, theoretically speaking, there has been a clear historical convergence of the rights and interests of the public with the rights and interests of the media. The U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion issued by Mr. Justice Brennan – New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, according to Dennis said there needs to be a “profound national commitment to the principle of debate on public issues which he said should be ‘uninhibited, robust and wide open.”
Others have disagreed, Dennis notes, among them Jerome A. Barron, who commented that holding “newspaper publishers’ interests and the public interest … identical … was romantic and lopsidedly pro publisher.”
Another voice, which of Virginia Held, a political scientist, said the issue would be better defined in terms of preferences of the majority and the interests of the minority. The result is a conceptual definition that suggests majority role might be in conflict with public interest, because it can be in conflict with the essential need to preserve minority rights and other less popular, but no less valid interests.

The courts

Dennis noted the courts have generally held in press freedom cases: the free flow of information, information about public affairs, the publication of newsworthy information, communications diversity, government regulation of certain communications activities affected by the public interest or matters in the public interest are usually immune from libel and privacy recovery.
Professor Hans Morgenthau noted that by being free the press is automatically involved in the public interest because the press “belongs to all of the people.” The abolition of competition between media outlets goes against that idea. There are many times that the interest of the public and hence the press is at odds with individual or government interests.

Patriot Act and the death of open government

Dennis wrote this article prior to the implementation of the Patriot Act and the governmental response to terrorism. In the name of national security, the executive branch, primarily, but certainly enabled by the legislative and judiciary as well as has increased the government’s ability to intrude on the privacy of its citizens without worry of violating fair trial, legal search and seizure and other equal protection rights offered in the U.S. Constitution.
At that time strides were being made in eroding government’s blanket of covert operations and secrecy through FOIA and other Sunshine and Open Records laws. With 9/11 and the Patriot Act government is trying to curtail that access. An affect of this change of political whimsy is the increasing arrogance of elected officials who openly flaunt their disdain of information access laws. It is happening at all levels of government.
In the past three weeks, I have had to butt heads with two school boards and one municipality over flagrant open records violations. In on case, the solicitor of a school board attempted to tell me that my assertion about an access issue regarding the use of recording devices at public meetings was flawed.
With tape recorder in hand, I insisted that he open his little law book and check, just in case the dumb reporter was right. Guess what? Not so dumb afterall.
Rather arrogantly -- because he didn't like being proven wrong in a public forum, especially, in his supposed area of expertise -- he managed a chuckle and said "keep us on our toes."

I also informed him that rather than file some toothless civil action in trying to fight violations of the Sunshine Law, my preference was to utilize the barely used provision that allows summary charges be filed against officials who intentionally violate the law.
On top of that, I informed him that a summary conviction would erase any immunity from civil or criminal litigation resulting from a decision made while in violation of the Sunshine Law. It would in essence destroy their shield.
Needless to say, I am not often popular with some public officials. A number of years ago, a state official lied to me, with no reason, about his military record. I found out about the deception. When I confronted him about it, he changed his story, but still lied. I ultimately exposed him and he was ridiculed by fellow members of the state legislature who were actually Vietnam War Veterans. They protested by carrying signs in front of his senatorial office.
Again, he accused me of lying, even though I recorded everything. I was interviewed by the Associated Press and various local, regional and national media organizations about his accusations. I had the evidence provided by the U.S. Department of Defense. He was lucky I did not release his entire military record, because there was some much more damaging information than that about where he was stationed while in the Army.

Why do I bother?

I believe that whenever a public official attempts to hide information that by law is open to the public, then it is my duty as a journalist, on behalf of the public interest, to challenge each incident.
It does not earn me extra money to go through the hassle. Often, it makes me persona non gratis. I do my job to satisfy my values and ethics. Not for the recognition, awards or money apparently – I do it because it needs to be done. I do not go after officials for the fun of it. It is much easier to be lazy and acquiescent.
Sorry – that is just me.