The Fifth Estate
The advent of new communication technologies
has facilitated the emergence and subsequent growth of the so-called fifth
estate, the activities of which are proving to be of particular significance to
the world of Journalism. This essay will explore the impacts which the fifth
estate has made on this traditional estate and analyse the extent to which it has benefited and
complicated its environment. Despite bearing some similarities to the preceding
fourth estate of journalists, the fifth estate holds a position unhindered by
the need for qualification, skill or appreciation for the ethical connotations
of their work and is therefore able to act in ways which would be deemed
unethical by journalistic standards. In terms of government and politics, the
fifth estate has, in recent times been approached with a feeling of distaste, a
feeling which has frequently risen to outrage as governments struggle to come
to terms with and decide how to cope with the incessant campaign for
accountability waged by organizations such as Wikileaks. It is this insistent nature, though, which
has seen the influence of the fifth estate grow infinitely within the last
decade and allowed the public greater access to a diverse and varied range of
information, thus revitalising the democratic process.
In recent times, it has become increasingly
evident that the “gate-keeper” role of the fourth estate is no longer held by
journalists alone but has become as much the role of the fifth estate’s
“network of networks”, individuals who are not bound by journalistic
qualifications or principles (Dutton, 2009). Bainbridge, Goc and Tynan (2011) define the fifth estate within a
journalistic context, stating that it is “the new media technologies, such as
the internet, as modes of news delivery...” Expanding on this idea, Dutton (2009) develops this explanation of the fifth estate to position it
within a broader social context, offering that the fifth estate is a network of
individuals that comprise “a new source of accountability in government,
politics, and other sectors.” In this
way, the fifth estate is similar to its predecessor in that its function is
largely to hold power accountable.
However, despite this parallel the work of the
journalist and the work of the fifth estate are significantly different. One of
the most argued points regarding the growth of the fifth estate is that it has
“erod[ed] the quality of the public’s information environment” as some Internet
users producing online content are “spewing misinformation”, “trivial
non-information” and “marginalising high-quality journalistic coverage.” This
argument posits that rather than being a phenomenon complimentary to the fourth
estate, the activities of the fifth estate are instead a threat to the
integrity of the journalist who strives to provide a “realist worldview, an
ethical regard for the audience, and good writing” (Windschuttle,
1997).
Idealistically, the work of the fourth estate is largely governed by these
three principles i.e. objectivity, ethics, and quality, with many countries
compiling codes of ethics which rationalise these principles into a set of guidelines. Australian journalists work
within the ethical framework of the MEAA (n.d.) code
of ethics while
Journalists in the UK operate under the principles of NUJ
(n.d.) Code of Conduct. The fifth estate operates under no such tangible framework and is
therefore able to produce content of any nature, regardless of whether the
content is obtained, produced or represented unethically. Furthermore in
supporting the view that the fifth estate has weakened the quality of
information available to the public, Keen (2008) and Coddington (2013) argue that these sources particularly
neglect to observe the journalistic necessity of quality (Dutton, 2009). With Wikileaks as his principal focus, Coddington (2013) states that the "three primary
markers distinguish[ing]...[a journalist]'s practices" from those of Wikileaks are the "adding [of] context...[the]
filtering [of] information through news judgment; and providing
expertise." Wikileaks is primarily concerned with documents and
allows the documents it publishes to stand alone as "raw material",
largely without the inclusion of any explanatory information (Coddington,
2013). It
is this information that journalists are obliged to provide, as they are tasked
with the job of presenting information to the public in a way they can
comprehend and apply as part of the democratic process. The facts alone are
insufficient to provide readers with a rational and understandable source of
information and so must be given "certain definable shape" to be
effective (Lippmann,
1922). Wikileaks as a body of the fifth estate is not required to
provide this additional information, demonstrating that in this particular
area, the fifth estate can be seen as comparatively deficient. Therefore, in
assessing the claim that the fifth estate “erod[es] the quality of the public’s
information” it is evident that this concern is not invalid as this “network of
networks” is able to produce work without consideration for ethics or quality.
However, this deficiency is not characteristic of the fifth estate as a whole
and nor does it override the fact that the activities of the fifth estate can
also be supportive of the fourth estate (Dutton, 2009).
Despite
the criticisms of some such as Keen (2008) who views all user-generated media as
“the cult of the amateur”, the fifth estate
cannot simply be defined as a threat to journalism but must also be viewed as a
source of great potential benefit. The role of the journalist is to hold power
accountable as Thomas
Carlyle (1840) acknowledged years ago in
recalling Edmund Burke’s statement regarding the fourth estate. Burke claimed
that though “there were three states in the parliament…in the reporters’
gallery…sat a fourth estate more important far than they all” for Burke realised the responsibility
journalists held in their writing. This task of holding power accountable
through informing society about itself is an assignment also undertaken by the
fifth estate and is thus supportive of the fourth estates efforts (Harcup,
2009). Wikileaks is a major advocate of government
answerability and declares its political ideology is built upon the platform of
“transparency,
accountability [and] justice.” In 2010, Wikileaks released a series of leaks in the form of a
video evidencing US military killing civilians and journalists in Baghdad, as
well as thousands of documents detailing the operations of US armed forces in
both Iraq and Afghanistan. These document leaks served to fulfill Wikileaks’ declared goal to “to
bring important news and information to the public” in order to hold those in
power accountable for their actions (Wikileaks, n.d).
In spite of this self-declared goal, Wikileaks has been criticized as much as it has been
praised for its activities by academics such as Fenster (2012) who deemed the organisation reckless in its “vigilante approach to massive
document leaks.” These leaks “produced a furor in Washington” and saw
businesses and organisations associated with Wikileaks pressured to stop doing business with the organisation. The Chairman of the Homeland Security
committee openly called for businesses to cease assisting the Assange led organisation and directly triggered Tableau Software to
withdraw its services from Wikileaks. This governmental “outrage” proved that the
documents released by Wikileaks totally fulfilled their ultimate purpose: making
those in power stand accountable for their actions (Roberts,
2012). Regardless
of the radical means by which Wikileaks achieved the result, journalists and the fifth
estate share this ultimate goal of accountability and thus can be complimentary
to one another.
In terms of the less radical parallels, the fifth
estate also presents itself as a space which provides “news that in part
compliments, or even helps to sustain, the fourth estate” (Dutton, 2009). The fifth estate offers individuals the opportunity
to access information which can help them better understand the writings of the
fourth estate by providing context and additional information that in turn
constitutes “a related but independent” alternative news source (Dutton, 2009). It ensures that the public has access to a variety
of conflicting and consenting opinions and provides the means by which they can
engage in the democratic process. As a journalist must always take into account
the equality of perspectives provided in their work, this is a matter with
which the fifth estate can effectively contribute. It allows for a diverse
range of perspectives to be discovered and considered and thus contributes
towards a pluralist democracy which exposes the public to “different ways of
seeing the world” (Bainbridge et al, 2011). It is therefore evident that the fifth estate
cannot merely be viewed as a danger to the public’s access to quality
information, but must also be considered within the context of its benefits to
both journalism and society as a whole.
The growth of new communication technologies
such as the internet has given birth to a fifth estate of “networked
individuals” who have emerged as both a complimentary and contradictory
phenomenon in relation to both journalists and government (Dutton, 2009). Lacking the structure and physical nature of the other estates, the
fifth estate occupies a virtual space which is hampered by no necessity for
skill, qualification or ethical consideration in obtaining or producing its
content. Therefore, the work produced by the fifth estate is often criticised as a threat to the public’s access to quality
information and as a danger to the integrity of journalism itself. This danger,
however, is more strongly felt in the realm of government as organizations such
as Wikileaks strive to achieve “radical transparency” in
its campaign for accountability (Roberts, 2012). Despite this, at times, controversial nature
of the fifth estate, it is also of great benefit to society as it compliments
journalistic material and provides the opportunity for citizens to access a
diverse range of perspectives. This complimentary role enables the public to
engage with pluralist media and ultimately results in a revitalised democratic process.
Word Count: 1 604
References
Dutton, W. H.
(2009) The
Fifth Estate Emerging through the Network of Networks. Prometheus, 27(1), 1-15.
Baibridge,
J., Goc, N., Tynan, L. (2011) Media And Journalism: New
Approaches to Theory and Practice. Melbourne, Victoria:
Oxford University Press.
Carlyle,
T. (1840) Sartor Resartus, and On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in
History.
London:
James Fraser.
Coddington,
M. (2013) Defending
judgment and context in ‘original reporting’: Journalists’ construction of
newswork in a networked age. Journalism, 0(0), 1- 18.
Fenster,
M. (2012) Disclosure’s
Effects: WikiLeaks and Transparency. Iowa Law Review, 97(753),
753-807.
Keen,
A. (2008) The Cult of the Amateur: How Blogs, MySpace, YouTube, and the Rest of
Today's User-generated Media are Destroying Our Economy, Our Culture, and Our
Values. New York: Doubleday.
MEAA
(n.d.) Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance - Journalists' Code of Ethics. Retrieved from: http://www.alliance.org.au/code-of-ethics.html.
Roberts,
A. (2012) WikiLeaks:
the illusion of transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 116-133.
No comments:
Post a Comment