Besides, media also keep the general public informed in making the right choice

during electoral process to ensure states accountability and openness in serving

public interests.

The notion of watchdog journalism is long established. Theorists argue that, in

a libertarian model of press, news media, which are free from government control
hold the social responsibilities to self-regulate a good practice in providing
information that the public has the right to know (Sierbert, Peterson and Schram 1956:
56 & 73). Ideally, the watchdog media is responsible to perform a check-and-balance
on state operation and expose wrong conduct or abuse of power of the public servant.
Besides, media also keep the general public informed in making the right choice
during electoral process to ensure states accountability and openness in serving
public interests. The media in modern day democracy however, are criticised and
questioned for their role in performing successful watchdog.
Conglomeration &Concentration of ownership
Information distributed by media creates a foundation of knowledge that
attract viewers attentions and trigger perceptions of worlds reality, known as agenda
setting (Lipman 1922: 29). Agenda setting is a very powerful tool in determining
what information media is giving to the public. According to Bernard Cohen (1963:
13), news media may not be telling people what to think but instead telling them
what to think about. Media holds the power to reconstruct the reality and select
information received by the public. This lead the audience to presume that the issues
often covered by the media are more worthy compared to those unreported or given
less concentration to. Specific news agenda setting usually affect how watchdog
function in their reporting. There are uprising concerns on disappearing role of
watchdog in current news agenda setting.
In contemporary democracy, news agenda setting are highly influenced by
corporations and conglomerates that own the media. In contrast to news media in
totalitarian regime like China and Middle East, where obvious government
propaganda and control are exerted on information distribution, media in democratic
countries such as America are privately owned. Initially, the idea of self-regulating
media is to provide extralegal check on the state activities (Sierbert, Peterson and

Schram 1956: 56). Majority of the media in US today are own by giant multinational
conglomerates. These conglomerates own an extensive amount of mass media
companies including multiple news outlets. News Corporation, winged under
Murdoch Empire for example, is also the owner of the Wall Street Journal, FOX
News Channel and many other Australian and London newspapers (Landler 1995).
Over the past 30 years, the number of American conglomerates who owns the
mass media reduces from 50 separate corporations in 1983 to six media moguls
(Bagdikian 2004: 3). Today, the six giant conglomerates are, Time Warner, Disney,
New Corporations, Viacom and General Electrics. The concentration of ownership in
the news media empire is threatening watchdog role in democracy. According to
Chomsky (1988: ?), one of the main role of mass media is to mobilize support for
special interest that dominate both government and private interest. The conflict of
interests of media corporations leads to the dumbing down of watchdog role in news
reporting. Corporations interests in this context are both economical and political.
The decision on information production, distribution and how the society function, are
made by the minority group of wealthy elite groups (Chomsky 2012). This monopoly
of news source could lead to exploitation and alteration of information produced, in
order to cater their corporate interests and agenda, leaving some information
uncovered. Instead of objective reporting, media could be used as a tool to propagate
owners ideology and interests.
According to Davies (2008: 135), News is a way of making money []. No
one believes that news and journalisms are simply a service to democracy.
Since media owners themselves are apart of elite group and states economic
generators, alongside government and other big business tycoon, some information
reported may be bias and uncovered. This can be done with owners interference in
production of news. Conglomerates predominate news agenda setting in monitoring
topic selections as well as granting or denying access to publish certain information.
For instance, (banned article/info example)
Media Ethics & News framing
Influence from owners can also put pressure on media ethics of journalists and
editors. Pressure can be in the form of threats, laws and regulations as well as getting

the stories banned from employers (The News Manual 2014). Along the investigative
process, pressure may come n a form of violence, detentions or blackmails imposed
by subject being investigated and also censorship by government, or gatekeeping by
editors and owners. As media play a big role in shaping public opinion and
knowledge, this could alter the content produced. Pressure faced by journalists and
editors may result in violation of journalism ethics as well as influence on their
agenda in reporting news. Media agenda setting can be positive and aid in public
awareness to democratic issue or biased to the interest of certain elite groups.
Chomsky (1989: ?) added:
[] those who occupy managerial positions in the media [ program
directors and editors in chiefs] belongs to the same privileged elites [].
Journalists entering the system are unlikely to make their way unless they
conform to these pressures []
Besides, investigative journalism can also be a tedious, time consuming and
expensive process and may result in dead ends (Haines 2012), thus less financial
revenue are invested in such reporting. Instead, mainstream news media has lost its
identity in producing hard news. In the note of Langer (1992: 113), news media
undermined the watchdog role of journalism in liberal democracy by turning the
most important stories into irrelevant and inconsequential news. Majority of
current news media appears to be focussing more on ratings and popularity rather than
quality of serious news (Irkitated 2014). Despite projecting poor coverage of
important events, current news structure has derived its attention to lightweight and
tabloid news coverage involving crime, scandals, celebrities and human interests
stories. Journalists today are perceived as lazy, they live in a goldfish bowl and are
not interested in breaking out [investigative stories] themselves. (Edwards and
Cromwell 2006: 184). Nowadays, the activity of watchdogging seems to be more
active in investigating stories regarding celebrities scandals rather than other vital
world related issues or misconducts of the governments.
In relation to Gerbners cultivation theory (1997: 383) of information, trivial
news that is framed in such prominent way will eventually influence the audience to
regard the information is important. The line between real news and entertainment is
now blurred (Haillin 1990). Media agenda today tends to bend towards infotainment

instead of heavy muckraking and investigative issues. According to McCombs &

Shaw, the importance of an issue is usually judged based on the amount of attention
given to the reporting and how it is positioned (1972: 176). It can be seen from the
front page of most newspapers or breaking news sections of broadcast news, which
are usually, occupied with crime or scandal related stories. Such stories are seen to
bring more profit and boost channels ratings, unlike plain boring serious news.
Constant exposure to sensational and trivial news will convince audience that these
stories are actually important.
Political Interest & Relations
Advertising, Consumerism, Ads in News

References
Cohen, B (1963). The Press and Foreign Policy. p13. Princeton University Press.
Edwards, D and Cromwell, D (2006). Guardians of Power, p184. London: Pluto.
Haines, R (2012). Investigative Journalism in Digital Age. The Bureau of Investigative
Journalism, [Blog]. Available at: http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/05/02/insearch-of-the-truth-investigative-journalism-in-a-digital-age/ (Accessed: 29 November 2014).
Hallin, D (1990). Whatever Happened to News. In Center for Media Literacy. 50.
Irkitated, (2014). Enough Fluff, Where Did the Real News Go. Irkitated [Blog]. Available
at: http://www.irkitated.com/2014/06/fluff-news-real-news.html (Accessed: 28 November
2014).
Langer, J (1992). Truly Awful News on Television. Journalism And Popular Culture. In
Dahlgren P and Sparks C (eds). p113. London: Sage Publication.
Lippmann, W (1922). Public Opinion, p.29. New York: Macmillan.

McCombs, M, Shaw, D (1972). The Agenda Setting Function of Mass Media. Public
Opinion Quarterly. 36 (2). p176. doi: 10.1086/26799
Siebert, F, Peterson, T & Schramm, W (1956). Four Theories of the Press: The Authoritarian,
Libertarian, Social Responsibility & Soviet Communist Concepts of What the Press Should Be
and Do. p56, p73. University of Illinois Press.
The News Manual (2014). Pressures on Journalists. 3(58). [Online]. Available at:
http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Manuals%20Volume%203/volume3_58.htm (Accessed: 29
November 2014).

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/23/us/turner-to-merge-into-time-warner-a-7.5-billiondeal.html
http://www.corporations.org/media/
http://pasulukanlokagandasasmita.com/mind-control-theories-and-techniques-used-by-massmedia-2/
http://www.globalissues.org/article/159/media-conglomerates-mergers-concentration-ofownership