The accountability of leaders
The lack of accountability and the limited perspective of leaders are problems even in a democracy. A leader is usually advised and guided by a small group of persons who have the same values and views as the leader. The processes of decision making in groups further limit a leader’s perspective.17 Following the Bay of Pigs fiasco (the attempted invasion of Cuba by CIA-trained Cuban exiles), President Kennedy wondered how he could have been so ignorant. Apparently, in the course of lengthy deliberations, two facts that most members of the group knew were never discussed. First, the invaders would face an enemy that had a 140:1 numerical superiority. Second, CIA investigation showed that the Cuban people would not rise up to support the invaders. The decision to invade had been made, so nobody brought forth this information. Human beings cannot commit themselves to a course to action while contemplating information that makes it unreasonable; such information may submerge in their consciousness and disappear from working memory.
Great power is another danger. Power and the leadership role easily lead to a belief in special knowledge and the devaluation of those who dare to oppose. Leaders may come to believe that they have the right to use whatever means are necessary to achieve their desired ends.
For all these reasons, it is essential to decrease the insulation of leaders and increase their accountability. One way to achieve this would be to increase direct contact between leaders, especially the president, and the public, in ways that are conducive to dialogue. Leaders might be obliged to attend town meetings or other comparable public gatherings on a regular basis to answer questions and hear varied views. Exposure to a broad range of views and the need to talk to a broad range of people in settings that are not “managed” (like news conferences) would require leaders to seriously think about perspectives different from their own and the human consequences of their policies.
Freedom, pluralism, and self-censorship
Freedom requires the free flow of information that makes people aware of discrepancies between their ideals and existing realities. Awareness of such discrepancies led to the civil rights movement. A BBC television program depicting the famine in Ethiopia produced an outpouring of help. The visions of blood and suffering in Vietnam on the daily television news were important impetus to the antiwar movement. Seeing the homeless freezing on the streets of New York City can mobilize movement for change.
Without free public discourse a uniformity of views can be imposed on the population. Barry Goldwater, a political conservative, showed the spirit of pluralism when he spoke out against the Moral Majority’s attempt to censor television and against Jesse Helms’s attempt to deny the courts the authority to rule on cases involving the separation of church and state in public schools.18 Censorship and intimidation of the media are one mark of a repressive system. Government “disinformation” (falsehoods intended to affect international or domestic conditions) also deprives the people of a fair knowledge of reality on which to base their judgments.
“Self-censorship” by the media (biased and selective reporting) has the same effect, and it is widespread. A well-documented example was the reporting of the extermination of Jews during World War II. Reports in American newspapers were rare and mostly buried inside the papers. America’s response would certainly have been different had the horrendous story screamed at the people from the front page. When Franco ruled Spain, the editors of Time magazine rejected a report on Spanish communists because “it made the communists look too good.”19 In 1963, their reporters from Vietnam submitted an article that depicted a losing war. The article was rejected and replaced by one that stressed, among other things, improved fighting by government troops.20 Nuclear alerts because of computer malfunction are frequent, and some proceed to the last stage before launch, but stories about them are reported in small articles inside newspapers. The attitude of the population toward the huge nuclear arsenal might have changed and the pressure for disarmament might have intensified if lead articles had called attention to this situation.
Social systems use “propaganda of integration” to promote citizen support.21 The media tend to report in ways that support and maintain the system, sometimes consciously, at other times not. One reason is that editors and newspaper and television reporters share with their audience dominant cultural perspectives or biases. Like almost everyone else in the United States, when the Vietnam War started, they saw not a freedom fight or a civil war, but dominoes falling.
The suppliers of information and opinion may also fear straying too far from culturally dominant views because it would mean breaking with the group and might result in social sanctions: disapproval, criticism, loss of readers. Reporters may incur problems with their editors if their point of view is “radical,” even if this is expressed simply in their choice of facts to report. After all, facts acquire significance by their meaning, which derives from the perspective of the reporter – and the reader or viewer. Adherence to currently dominant views often occurs automatically, as a result of shared views and a natural tendency to conform. However, a conscious choice to avoid controversy may explain such things as the problems citizens’ groups had in 1984-88 when they tried to get films about Central America on television. Editors and reporters may also want to “protect” the people and not cause panic or social discord. It is clear, however, that such protection is selectively employed.
The value systems dominant in organs of the media are known to reporters and influence their reporting.22 In a pluralistic society different orientations can counterbalance each other, but dominant values and views tend to result in overall biases, limiting the picture of reality.
The economic factor is also a subtle and
