Press Regulation in the UK

Introduction:   For many, self regulation of the press is not seen as being a popular idea. This is probably due to the numerous excesses of the tabloid media´s salacious reporting as well as other unethical practices. It is, however, still an important element of a democratic society which affects and influences the public in different ways. James Curran and Jean Seaton recently asserted that “…the press has four key functions in liberal theory; informing the public; scrutinizing government; staging a public debate; and expressing public opinion.” (Curran & Seaton, 2003, p.346).These responsibilities that the press has towards the society have led to the struggle and need for the preservation of a number of rights, including right to freedom of expression which, when underpinned, could lead the press to demand for the regulation of itself. According to John Keane, “A fourth defence of liberty of the press is guided by the idea of attaining Truth through unrestricted public discussion among citizens.” (Keane, 1998, p. 17) The rationale behind press freedom has led to the demand for “…a Royal Commission to inquire into the ownership, control, and management of the British newspaper press – and to make recommendation.” (Jordan, 1947-1948, p. 558)  The ‘Royal Commission’ of 1947 – 49 came out with the conclusion that the press can, as a whole, handle its own excesses and therefore, state meddling could no longer be seen as being justified. And since then, “the UK press has been subject to this system of self-regulation since the middle of the twentieth century,” (Harcup, 2007, p. 108). There have also been continuous reviews including Calcutt’s 1^st and 2^nd Committees in 1990 and 1993 respectively.

Today, the responsibility for ensuring that the media can handle its own excesses through self-regulation – and that no statutory constraint is necessary – falls on the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) which has a Code of Practice that stipulates the guiding principle in the industry. Bob Franklin asserted that “The hub of the system since 1991 has been the Press Complaints Commission which, armed with a code of conduct drafted by editors and journalists, seeks to police standards of journalistic probity within the newspaper industry.” (Franklin, 1997, p. 229)  But the purpose for which PCC was constituted has remained a national discourse today. The rising problems of alleged invasion of privacy and other unethical practices by some journalists have revived similar public discomfort with the press of mid-twentieth century Britain. According to Bob Franklin, “Public disquiet about newspaper reporting has been a perennial feature of life in post-war Britain, prompting three royal commissions on the press (1947-49, 1961-62 and 1974-77), the Younger Committee on Privacy (1972) and most recently the Calcutt reports of 1990 and 1993.” (Franklin, 1997, p. 216) Unfortunately, Calcutt reports raised further questions about the effectiveness and independence of PCC, which is funded by the media industry and, whose role is to manage complaints from the displeased public.

These issues arising from self-regulation of the press in the UK will be used to discuss the questions concerning the weaknesses of the PCC and the survival of press self-regulation in Britain. Criticism of self-regulatory system under PCC will be discussed in order to explain what may have been considered its weakness. A focus on some of the existing legislations and PCC ethical Code of Practice will be used to illustrate areas of contention with the public. Other excesses in the media and the reason for which they exist will be highlighted. Liberal theoretical perspective on press freedom will be used to evaluate the strength and arguments of the opponents of statutory regulation in the UK press. References to some PCC adjudications on complaints over alleged breach of Clauses 3, 6 and 10  of Code of Practice will be employed to further illustrate ambiguities in the functions of PCC and the reason(s) for the massive support, or, discontent in existing press self regulatory system.

            Public discontent and unethical journalism practices are often translated into claim of failure and attributable as a weakness to the PCC. It is often accused of selectiveness when handling public complaints – which are often resolved through mediation in favour of the media – and lack of independence from the media industry. Richard Shannon stated that “Maximizing nice conciliation and minimizing nasty adjudication could of course, be interpreted by persistent critics of self-regulation as evasion rather than resolution of underlying problem of the PCC´s independence.” (Shannon, 2001, p. 337) The alleged PCC´s inclination to the interests of the media while handling series of complaints underpins the broader public claim of PCC´s vulnerability as a self-regulatory body. Claims of selectiveness when elevating public complaints to adjudication forms major part of general discontent. Statistics from, PCC’s “Complaint Summary Report Number 79 for the months of  April to September 2009,” revealed a stunning number of “complaints not investigated under the Code” which is in the range of 1856 out of a “total of all complaints of 2752” (PCC, 2010) received within that period. To most critics of press self-regulation, it is indicative of ineffectiveness in the PCC´s role to the public. In this vein, Shannon commented that “Critics of the PCC´s management of self-regulation point out that in no year has the number of adjudications upholding complaints exceeded the number of rejections”. (Shannon, 2001, p. 337) Consequently, the suspicion that the PCC gives adjudicatory preference to high profile cases, involving complainants that can afford to sue the commission in the court,  has further amassed more accusation of failure to the self regulatory system. James Curran and Jean Seaton advised that “To fulfill its public adjudication role, the Press Commission needs to be independent.” But waved all criticism of the PCC´s affiliation with the press, stating that, “…in order to be an effective professionalizing agency, the Commission needs to be rooted in the industry.” (Curran & Seaton, 2009, p. 369) But critics think otherwise, that PCC should be farther separated from the industry which its ethical standards it self-regulates.

                To compound PCC´s public discontent, the number of adjudications involving Clause 3 of Code of Practice soared as the public became increasingly concerned over their privacy rights violations. Eventually, the public found refuge in Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which contains deterrent actions against Clause 3 of PCC ethical Code which has no sanctions. For this reason, the public saw PCC merely as being reactive, acting only when wrong is already done and being incapable of anticipating the problem and stopping it. James Curran and Jean Seaton recently stated that “the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) has no sanctions…it exists not because it is the product of an internal reform movement, but in response to external pressure from politicians.” (Curran & Seaton, 2009, p. 369) For this reason, PCC could be susceptible to accommodate legislations such as the Official Secret Act of 1989, Contempt of Court Act of 1981, Law of Defamation of 1996 and Data Protection Act of 1998 in order to have deterrent legislative provisions that deal with issues such as the recent phone hacking scandal. But, given that PCC does not exclusively serve the media, it is not entirely certain whether these legislations interfere with, and undermine PCC´s regulatory powers or supplement them. The PCC Chairman Baroness Buscombe recently acknowledged that, on situation like in the phone hacking scandal involving the dissolved News of The World newspaper, “…statutory regulation now exist for this criminal activity.” (Buscombe, 2011)  But problem with most critics is that they seek to find a proactive self-regulatory body that can stop the violation of its Code on privacy and inaccuracy questions before it is published in the press. In other words, that PCC should embark on censorship that it seeks to prevent under press self-regulation.

             A look into PCC adjudication on Ms Sarah Baskerville´s complaints about Daily Mail newspaper´s possible violation of Clause 3 & 1 of the PCC Code would suggest that the claim of right to privacy are, in most cases, unfounded. According to the complaint report, “Ms Sarah Baskerville complained to the Press Complaints Commission that an article headlined "Oh please, stop this twit from Tweeting, someone", published in the Daily Mail on 13 November 2010, intruded into her privacy in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy)…” But the case was not upheld on the argument that “there was no dispute that the material posted by the complainant was open to public view, and could be accessed by anyone who wished to read it.” (Ms Sarah Baskerville vs Daily Mail, 2011) A proactive PCC, on this matter, would have censored a legitimate publication of public interest.   O’Malley and Soley stated that “It is necessary to remove these kind of control rather than add to them...” (O`Malley & Soley, 2000, p. 180) Seemingly, a choice between press censorship and freedom inclined in favor of the later as editors are trusted to make the right judgment over what goes to the prints each day.

             Furthermore, when freedom of expression is faced with so much limitation, legislated and constrained by laws in order to protect the state and some individuals; the existence of unethical practices becomes rampant and failure to check them are blamed on PCC. Chris Frost recently said that “the law can help guarantee the element of society´s moral values that are perhaps not shared by journalists, but the danger is that if the journalists moral sense in the area is eroded, then they will spend time trying to circumvent the law; because they cannot see it as a moral necessity, just an impediment to publishing material of public interest.” (Frost, 2000, p. 114) Evidently, the ethical sense of some journalists diminishes when the government subjects the press to a series of statutory control mechanism such as general legislative restrictions which usurp the function of PCC Code of Practice. But Lord Wakeham warned that “…if you remove the code, and substitute the law, a completely different situation arises, editors might well take the chances that someone will not be prepared to take a legal action…and intrude into their lives without retribution.” (Wakeham, 2002)

                The lack of absolute atmosphere of freedom of expression or the feeling of it compounds PCC´s functional problems because it compels journalist to adopt some unethical behaviours in order to obtain report. Mike Feintuck explained that “The long lenses of the paparazzi and the use of surveillance devices, together with tactics approaching mass picketing by ‘the media scrum’ of the homes and workplaces of those in the news have played a significant role in the battle for circulation...” (Feintuck, 2001, p. 142) Evidence of the veracity of this claim is found in the PCC adjudication on Liberal Democratic Party complaint against The Daily Telegraph newspaper´s breach of Clause 10 of the Code. The complainant alleged that “…a series of articles in The Daily Telegraph on 21 December 2010, 22 December 2010 and 23 December 2010 contained information which had been obtained using subterfuge in breach of Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors' Code of Practice.” And, the complaint was upheld because, according to Clause 10 of PCC Code, “newspapers ‘must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices’. It also makes clear that "engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge...can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means". (Democratic-Party, 2011) “Its become evident that PCC does not condone sting operation and does work in accordance with its code of practice and as O’Malley and Soley concluded, “whilst the code might be criticized for lacking a precise definition of ‘public interest’, it did at least recognize that there was a conflict between the personal lives of individuals and the aims of newspapers.” (O`Malley & Soley, 2000, p. 165) Tensions over what is private or public interest continued to raise questions about PCC´s effectiveness in defining this standard which the public think it did favorably to journalists and the press.

              Issues related to privacy rights invasion attracted public outcry against PCC and criticism from Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee for being, merely, reactive. Stephen Abell stated that “…the Select Committee has failed to acknowledge the current level of proactive work undertaken by the PCC, and the extent to which the PCC is already concerned with the raising of standards.” (Abell, 2010) The consideration is that the Code is more ethical than deterrent, making PCC look more like a mediator than a regulator in the media industry´s activities and obligations to the society. Simple cases of ‘inaccuracies’ in news publications and concerns for right to privacy as enshrined in Article 8 of the ECHR, tend to undermine the social and political efforts to guarantee press freedom of expression through self regulatory mechanisms such as the PCC Code of Practice. Mike Feintuck, in allusion to the PCC, asserted that “It established a sixteen clause Code of Practice in an attempt to define standards. Though the majority of complaints it dealt with related to alleged inaccuracy’ in reporting, the highest profile cases remained those concerning to ‘invasion of privacy’.” (Feintuck, 2001, p. 145) But it seems like PCC Code is insufficient to deal with the sort of complaints from the public over privacy right breach which the invocation  of  ‘public interest’ have served as an effective defence argument by journalists.  Wakeham, according to Richard Shannon, praised the introduction of Codes by the PCC saying that “on the central issue of privacy – an area where the PCC and the Code have made huge advances over the last ten years – I am certain that the first question any editor asks of himself is ‘can I justify this if challenged?’ (Cited in Shannon, 2001, p. 350) Still, the PCC is accused of lacking in clarity when defining public interest, prompting increasing number of court applications for injunctions based on Article 8 of ECHR.

                 Liberals are leading strong opposition to any mention of statutory constraint in the UK media industry. James Curran and Jean Seaton stated that, “the state was portrayed as a threat to media freedom, and regulation was attacked as an obstacle to satisfying the consumer” (James Curran, 2009, p. 357) It is implicit that the media is a vital part of the social and political structure of a democratic society, therefore, the ideal regulation in Britain should be in conformity with the need for freedom from direct censorship and control by the government. According to Tom O’Malley and Clive Soley, “Self-regulation to this sense meant the Press Council and the Press Complaints Commission promoting actively the interests of the industry as defined by them and dealing with the growing number of complaints they received about press conduct.” (Tom O'Malley, 2000, p. 120) Reiterating self-regulation as idyllic, it is inconceivable for some ardent supporters of the existing system to admit anything else, arguing that it would lead to censorship and that any little element of censorship will undermine democratic values of the society. According to Tom O’Malley and Clive Soley, “Another concern is that even a good law might be ‘turned’ or abused by the state or by powerful private interests to produce an outcome contrary to the original intentions of the legislators.” (Tom O'Malley, 2000, p. 181) Similarly, in her defense of press self regulation, Baroness Buscombe said that “….we have to be very careful about a newspaper industry that is regulated by the state…at the end of the day, I also care about freedom of the press, responsibly, to be able to investigate any wrong doing.” (Buscombe, 2011) The Leveson Committee, constituted after the ‘phone hacking’ scandal could quite be a grave a error because the matter for which they seek to review press self-regulation are criminal cases, typified in the law. Even, some media lawyers lauded the effectiveness of PCC functions. Nick Armstrong stated that “An essential aspect of the PCC´s work which is underrated is the assistance it can provide behind the scene, as part of the negotiation process which underlies the successful resolution of the majority of media-related issues…only rarely is immediate recourse to law appropriate.” (Armstrong, 2011) The existence of strong stance to the introduction of statutory regulation is evident and most of all “Journalists and editors”, according to Bob Franklin, “…routinely muster six arguments against statutory intervention. They believe: it is wrong in principle and constitutes censorship; it is impractical and unworkable; there are already too many statutory controls on press freedom; there is no evidence that it is necessary (complaints about privacy for example constitute of a mere 15 per cent of total complaints received by the PCC); self-regulation is more flexible and allows a discourse, mediated by PCC, between readers and publishers; self-regulation offers the most effective sanction against potential offenders…” (Franklin, 1997, p. 224)

CONCLUSION:

The UK press self regulatory body PCC is faced with enormous task of putting some balance between the media, the state and the society. As a non-statutory body which Code of Practice serves as a guiding principle for media ethical practices, critics consider it insufficient and ineffective in dealing with regular public complaints against the media. Issues related to inaccuracy, privacy invasion, sting operations and other media malpractices underpin the general public discomfort with the media. The PCC is, mostly, blamed for being soft on those media malpractices. I have highlighted some of the weaknesses of the commission using theoretical views, committee reports and statistics from its past adjudications.  Some of those weaknesses of the commission, as I have argued, are the lack of independence from the media industry. Critics believe that because the commission is funded by the industry, it´s Code of Practice contain most arguments journalists employ to justify their acts, therefore, lacked independence to regulate it. Arguments of `public interest´ has remained conspicuous in most adjudication in the PCC complaint file. But, isn’t it what self regulation is all about? Besides, it is all unfounded because PCC has an independent Governance body which reviews its activities annually and makes recommendations for changes.

 I have also mention the issue of selectiveness in elevating adjudication based on the criteria of who can afford to sue the press. Furthermore, the issue about the Commission´s inaction or inability to adopt a proactive stance towards stopping offensive materials from being published is considered indicative of PCC´s ineffectiveness and weakness by critics. Citing three different adjudications, I illustrated how free and fair the commission has been in handling every complaint. But I also reveal a statistics which indicate more number of rejected of complaints than admitted.  I also contended that the problem is not entirely PCC´s but the use of government legislations to usurp the role of the Commission´s Code of Practice which many consider non-deterrent enough to stop journalists from invading on their privacy.

My belief is that a reactive Commission which intervenes when a complaint is raised preserves freedom of expression than a proactive body which will adopt censorship. I adopted the views of many liberal theorists in order to illustrate the enormous support against statutory regulation of any kind in the UK media. Coming from a country – Nigeria - where Journalists were forced to exile, jailed or assassinated for their views expressed, I hope supporters of statutory regulations such as Dr. Calcutt will bear my disrespect for any kind of regulation which suggests curtailing press freedom. I did acknowledge the existence of some unethical practices within the media industry. However, I insisted that these are constrained by the legislative provisions such as Official Secret Act, etc, which are used to deprive journalist and the public of information.

Bibliography

Abell, S. (2010, March 24). Letter fromt he PCC Director to the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. Press Complaints Commission , pp. 1 -6.

Adjudication, P. (n.d.). http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=NzI2NQ==. Retrieved October 14, 2011, from http://www.pcc.org.uk: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=NzI2NQ==

Armstrong, N. (2011, May 17). http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/may/17/pcc-clare-balding. Retrieved October 11, 2011, from http://www.guardian.co.uk: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/may/17/pcc-clare-balding

Buscombe, B. (2011, July 5). Press Complaints Commission on phone hacking. (A. Neil, Interviewer) BBC. Daily Politics, London.

Dadak, R. (2011, May 17). http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/may/17/pcc-clare-balding. Retrieved October 11, 2011, from http://www.guardian.co.uk: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/may/17/pcc-clare-balding

Democratic-Party, L. (2011, May 10). http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=NzEyMA==. Retrieved October 14, 2011, from http://www.pcc.org.uk: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=NzEyMA==

Feintuck, M. (2001). Media Regulation, Public Interest and the Law. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.

Franklin, B. (1997). Newszak and News Media. London: ARNOLD.

Frost, C. (2000). Media Ethics and Self-Regulation. England: Pearson Education Ltd.

Geoffrey Robertson, A. N. (2007). Media Law. London: Penguin Books.

Harcup, T. (2007). The Ethical Journalist. London: SAGE Publications.

James Curran, J. S. (2003). Power without Responsibility: the press, broadcasting and new media in Britain. London: Routledge.

James Curran, J. S. (2009). Power without Responsibility: the press, broadcasting and the internet in Britain. London: Taylor & Francis .

Jordan, H. D. (1947-1948). The British Press Inquiry. The Public Opinion Quarterly , 11 (4), 558 - 566.

Keane, J. (1998). The Media and Democracy. Polity Press: Cambridge UK.

Ms Sarah Baskerville vs Daily Mail (Press Complaints Commission February 8, 2011).

PCC. (2010). PCC Response to the Independent Governance Review. London: http://www.pcc.org.uk/assets/111/PCC_Response_to_Governance_Review_2010.pdf.

PCC. (2010). Press Complaints Commission. Retrieved October 11, 2011, from http://www.pcc.org.uk: http://www.pcc.org.uk/401d1f1493.html

Shannon, R. (2001). A PRESS FREE AND RESPONSIBLE: Self-regulation adn the Press Complaints Commission 1991-2001. London: John Murray Publishers Ltd.

Tom O'Malley, C. S. (2000). Regulating The Press. London: Pluto Press.

Wakeham, L. (2002, January 23). Press, Privacy, Public Interest and the human Rights Act. Press Complaints Commission , pp. 1 - 10.

Who Makes US Foreign Policy?

Introduction: There are several actors and stakeholders that ought to be discussed in order to determine who determines the U.S. foreign policy. Some of those actors are enshrined in the constitutional provisions for the separation of institutional power in every sphere of governance, including in the foreign affairs related matters. This separation of power that is aimed at allowing checks and balances also granted the three major institutional organs of power, namely the executive, legislative and the judiciary, to influence foreign policy in the United States of America. According to Dobson and Marsh, “formal power in foreign policy-making lies largely with the Executive and the Legislature: the Judiciary has only a peripheral role” (Dobson and Marsh, 2006, p. 8).   The manner in which this shared responsibility, as established in the constitution, is defined will help determine who actually determines the foreign policies. Apart from the aforementioned actors, there are other stakeholders in the foreign policy decision.

These stakeholders include ethnic pressure groups, such as the Jewish and Latino communities, whose public opinion and lobby strategies propel ancestral, ethnic, economic and political interests into political public debate in the U.S.  Mearsheimer and Walt defined these important stakeholders and contended that “In the United States, interest groups routinely contend to shape perceptions of the national interest and to convince legislators and presidents to adopt their preferred policies” (Mearsheimer and Walt, 2007, p. 111). Nevertheless, their influence in decisions regarding foreign relations seems to be less determinant, compared to that of the National Security Council (NSC). The NSC was established under the presidency and has gained notoriety for accommodating several agencies that routinely supply intelligence reports, which are often used to determine aspects that are of interest to the nation, to both the Congress and the President.

A careful evaluation of congressional, presidential and judicial institutional functions will help to structure the essay discussion as well as to ascertain the manner in which the U.S. foreign policy is shaped within the constitutional prerogative of separation of powers. This is in consideration of the assertion of Killian, Costello and Thomas that “The doctrine of separation of powers, as implemented in drafting the Constitution, was based on several principles generally held: the separation of government into three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial…” (Killian, Costello and Thomas, 2004, p. 64) Other stakeholders, such as the lobbyists and ethnic groups – especially the Israeli lobby – will be introduced in order to illustrate their modus operandi and their impact on U.S. foreign policy. Emphasis on the activities of the National Security Council will indicate my inclination towards the answer to the essay question.

Body of the essay:

An evaluation of some legal establishments on foreign policy matter, as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, allows margin for broader political discourse and institutional squabbles, due to the cautiousness of the constitutional fathers in trying to ensure that power is properly distributed. Therefore, it is correct to assume that ‘In the area of foreign affairs, the Constitution does not establish a strict, legalized process for decision making. Instead, it establishes a flexible system permitting a variety of procedures’ (Yoo, 2005, p. 10). Yet, the underpinning issue here is the existence of two organs of power, each having a legal authority to decide the manner in which America is represented in the world. In areas of diplomacy, trade, military and legislation, each is endowed with constitutional rights that can be interpreted relatively to suit a particular purpose and definition. Quirk and Binder summarized the role of both the Congress and the Executive in major policy decisions of foreign relations and stated that “In foreign policy, which generally involved treaty making and diplomacy, executive authority and capacity would predominate. In defence and commercial policy, which necessarily involved taxation and legislation, Congress would predominate” (Quirk and Binder, 2005, p. 352) In order to understand this succinct explanation of the functions of these arms of government, it is important to consult the U.S Constitution itself in order to review the proper terms in which the laws are stipulated.

 For example, while Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants the Congress sole powers “to regulate commerce with foreign nations…declare war…and to make laws which shall be necessary  and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers,…,” (Sullivan, 2011, pp. 60-1), Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution explicitly prohibits the President and States in the Union from “…entering into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engaging in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay…without the consent of the congress…”(Sullivan, 2011, pp. 65-6) The discourse here, therefore,  is on the reconciliation of powers to declare war with the power to conduct wars; because, while the Congress enjoys the exclusive right to declare war, the President also enjoys an equal exclusive right to conduct war, as the commander- in-chief of the armed forces of the United States of America. In other words, can either of the two organs of power manage this important foreign policy tool exclusively? Perhaps, for this reason, John Yoo affirmed that “…the Constitution requires that the President and the Congress share the authority in foreign affairs and that the federal courts adjudicate disputes between the branches to enforce that principle” (Yoo, 2005, p. 6). Moreover, if this affirmation is true, what is the influence and impact of those aforementioned stakeholders in the U.S. foreign relations policies?

In reality, the Executive and congressional divide in foreign affairs material leaves the Congress with many options of influencing decisions. The congress can determine the country´s foreign policy by passing legislations which hinder the efforts of the executive branch in a particular area of interest. They can also block government appointments or funds meant for the continuity of such foreign relations policy. One example is the refusal of the Senate to cast a vote on Ambassador John Bolton´s UN appointment confirmation hearing. The refusal to confirm President GW Bush´s choice of the U.S. representative to the UN created a foreign affairs power tussle between the two arms of the government. One arm has the power to legislate and confirm official appointments; the other has the constitutional powers to appoint and oversee diplomacy-related issues. Mackenzie stated that “a nominee´s weakness may become a convenient peg on which to hang policy disagreement…” (Mackenzie, 2001, p.28) President GW Bush used executive powers in Article II, Section 2 (Clause 3) of the Constitution, which stated that “the President shall have the power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate…” (Sullivan, 2011, p. 72).This was done to effectuate the appointment of Ambassador Bolton to the United Nations until the maximum duration of time granted by law. There is a wide belief that voting was denied for his nomination in the Senate committee, as the committee was interested in establishing some level of authority and relevance in foreign policy questions against President Bush´s deliberate intent to provoke a political clash with the Congress. Mackenzie asserted that “Senators vote against nominees, and nominations fail, because the appointment process has become a policy battleground” (Mackenzie, 2001, pp.27-8). In view of this action of the Senate, it is clearly understood that the Congress can use its legislative powers to block the foreign policy of Presidents and exact its relevance on that subject. Evidently, the Constitution of the United States of America has consented to this policy dilemma between the Executive and the Congress.

Analysts and political scholars have evaluated this fundamental provision of the law and have criticized or applauded it for one reason or another.  Some consider the Congress as the bearers of U.S foreign policy and that the Executive has substantial powers to determine how it is run; however, critics see a clash between both the arms of power, especially in the important area of U.S. foreign policies, which concerns the military and the declaration of war.  On this note, Alan P. Dobson and Steve Marsh stated that “The President´s power as CIC to commit US military forces overseas is extensive, but limited by both the Congress´s constitutional prerogative to declare war and the War Powers Act (1973)” (Dobson and Marsh, 2006, p. 9). It has been a major source of contention between the Executive and Congress and, more recently, was back in the public debate over President Obama´s commitment of the U.S. military in a NATO led intervention in Libya. Critics had raised a constitutional question over the involvement of the U.S. military in Libya and the President´s role in that decision, until it was realized that the War Power Act of 1973 also “…allows a president to commit troops to action overseas only for a maximum of 90 days without congressional approval” (Dobson and Marsh, 2006, p. 9). Remarkably, the War Power Act of 1973 was enacted under Article II, Section 2 (Clause 2) constitutional prerogative which, apart from specifying presidential powers and congressional required consent, also stated that “…the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments” (Sullivan, 2011, p. 71). This means that the Constitution allows Congress to regulate its constitutional powers and obligation and also to transfer jurisdiction of this matter to other institutions in the state.

Consequently, the Congress made efforts to delegate some of its powers to the President in order to facilitate the governance of the country and a rapid decision making process. According to Dobson and Marsh ,“the control of foreign trade and commerce…has been delegated extensively to the President since the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, but what the Congress can delegate, it can recall” (Dobson and Marsh, 2006, p. 10). This allowed and gave rise to the creation of the office of the Commerce Secretary by the Executive, along with the necessary powers and relevance to conduct foreign trade relationships with friendly countries across the world.

However, U.S. foreign policy making does not depend entirely on the institutions that have legal obligations for deciding a particular focus and area of national interest. Other power groups including the National Security Council (NSC) and the ethnic groups are also well-acknowledged by theorists and political analysts. Wittkof and McCormick asserted that “…the organizations constituting the foreign affairs government are often described as “fourth branch of government” (Wittkopf and McCormick, 2004, p. 137). This so-called “fourth branch of government” consists of agencies, such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Pentagon, the State department, etc., whose technical activities greatly influence foreign policy decisions. A similar consideration can be made about ethnic groups whose lobbyists have also contributed to the defining of the ‘national interest’ rhetoric in the U.S. foreign relations politics. This rhetoric has consolidated the influence of one of the most powerful U.S. ethnic political pressure groups – the Israeli lobbyists. Their method seems to be based on the tradition carried over the years, of conveying the political and economic needs of their ancestral home into the primary interest of the U.S.  John Mearsheimer strongly stated that “the Israel lobby has successfully convinced many Americans that American and Israeli interests are essentially identical” (Mearsheimer and Walt, 2007, p. 8). Primarily, the U.S. foreign policies with respect to the Middle-East tend to be inclined to the needs of Israel. Evidence shows that “…AIPAC does have a strategic advantage in the current policymaking environment, at least in comparison to groups that may oppose strong US relations with Israel, because it is protecting the status quo” (Paul and Paul, 2009, p.15). This implies that Israel enjoys enormous political privilege over other U.S. allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Moreover, their leverage is the most courted Jewish vote which, virtually, every successful U.S. politician covets towards the proximity of an election.

On the other hand, the President seems to have exploited the incompetence and the lack of knowledge of the bearers of foreign policy constitutional rights on this subject and created an organization in which its functions in foreign policies are exclusively created and designed to influence and facilitate decisions on this material. It was, perhaps, a smart move by the executive powers to funnel the monopoly of foreign policy decisions to their inclination. Rothkopf, in allusion to NSC, stated that “the function of the Council shall be to advise the President with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security…” (Rothkopf, 2005, p. 5) Their advice and annual policy reports may have systematically afforded the presidency a vital tool in influencing congressional decisions on foreign affairs. NSC was legitimized under “the National Security Act of 1947” which “…created the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Central Intelligence Agency…” (Rothkopf, 2005, p. 5) These are powerful military organizations with strong influence among the U.S. public and the government. The advice or recommendations of any of the above- mentioned organizations are not easily discarded either by the Congress or the Executive. In fact, they serve the needs of both organs of power. In case of the Congress, it provides insights for any ongoing investigation of the president’s action, while for the President it helps to sway congressional decisions in his/her favour. The NSC is seen by many political analysts as the brain behind U.S. foreign affairs and, in most cases, it works discreetly in designing, influencing and facilitating foreign policy decisions.

Conclusion:                                                                              

The foreign relations policy of the United States of America seems to be motivated by a combination of jurisdictional considerations, between the Executive and the Congress, whose legal endowment is enshrined in the U.S fundamental law and other political ramifications – such as ethnic political pressure groups – that influence foreign relations policy in the day-to-day politics of the country. In this essay, I have endeavoured to discuss every area of U.S. foreign policy influence, namely, the Congress, Executive, Judiciary, Ethnic groups and the National Security Council (NSC). I have argued that legal provisions in the U.S. Constitution allowed controversy in the power sharing spirit of the constitutional fathers. I contended that the one good thing is that it allowed broader political discussion in subjects related to foreign policy. The judiciary was not extensively discussed, as it is uncommon for the judiciary to interfere in the foreign relations policy, except adjudicate on constitutional questions and conflict arising from both the Congress and the President.

I mentioned numerous ways by which the Executive or the Congress can manoeuvre to undermine the jurisdiction of either branch of the government and the institutional power. Additionally, I conceded that the Executive powers of the President of the United States of America through the office of the Secretary of State, Defence Department and numerous agencies under the National Security Commission (NSC) shape and define the foreign relation policy of the country. However, the Congress, through its committee on foreign relations, makes recommendations to the President by means of policy report and uses deterrents, such as cutting off foreign relations fund (or aid) in order to impose its foreign policy interest. However, the delegation of congressional powers to the President was considered as a positive step towards facilitating governance and rapid decision making on foreign policies. I mentioned that it allowed the President a 90 day grace period to bypass Congress for committing the U.S. military in wars anywhere in the world. It also facilitated effective engagement in trade negotiations with other countries, which became the competence of the Commerce Secretary.

On the influence of the NSC in policy making, I contended that in the absence of the constitutional prerogative on congressional and executive powers and duties, the NSC eventually runs the U.S. foreign policy. I argued that its composition by different powerful organs and agencies serve as an effective material means for the executive powers to maintain systematic control and monopoly in foreign relations policy. What becomes the U.S. national interest is, therefore, defined within the scope of military, economic and ideological assumed threats from other nations. The Congress is susceptible to adopting measures based on the NSC´s reports and conclusions and policies for foreign relations are made easy for the President who presides over the commission. 

Finally, the magnitude of American public ignorance of the political discourse around foreign policy has considerably reduced the rhetoric of ‘national interest’ to what is obvious in the minds of the people. So, powerful ethnic groups, such as the Israelis and Latinos tend to easily convince the U.S. government and public that their interests and needs are the ‘national interest’ of the U.S.  I cited Mearsheimer, in order to bring forth the relevance of Israeli lobbyists in shaping U.S. foreign policy, especially in the Middle-east.

Bibliography

 Dobson A. P. and Marsh S. (2006) US Foreign Policy Since 1945, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London

Killian J. H., Costello G.A. and Thomas K. R. (2004) The Constitution of the United States of America: analysis and interpretation: analysis of cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 28, 2002 (Vol. 108, Issue 17 of Senate Document). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

 Mackenzie, G. C. (ed.) (2001) In Innocent until nominated: the breakdown of the presidential appointments process, Washington, DC: Brookings, 2001

Mearsheimer J. J. and Walt S. M. (2007) the Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Penguin Books, London

Melanson R. A. (2005) American Foreign Policy since the Vietnam War: The Search for Consensus from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush, M.E.Sharpe Inc, London

Paul D. M. and Paul R. A. (2009) Ethnic Lobbies and US Foreign Policy, Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc., London

Quirk P. J. and Binder S. A. (2005) the Legislative Branch, Oxford University Press, London

Rothkopf D. (2005) Running the World, Perseus Books Group, USA

Sullivan, J. V. (2011). Constitution: Jefferson´s Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wittkopf E. R. and McCormick J. M. (2004).The Domestic Source of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Oxford UK.

Yoo J. (2005).The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11, The University of Chicago, Chicago USA.

The Issues arising from the focus of news coverage on elite persons or elite countries – A Critical Review of the Daily Telegraph Newspaper Publications

Introduction:

There are a number of issues that continually arise from the focus of news reporting on elite persons and countries, as well as calls for an overall analysis of the British newspaper’s liaising with the powerful elites of the society. Negrine, spoke about “...the press’s eternal fascination with those who wield political power”, (Negrine, 1994, p. 43) a practice which may have been somewhat prejudicial to ordinary people and developing nations access in news. Perhaps, it has created obsession on journalists who, customarily, find it interesting selling the lives of a certain class of people in the society on the pages of their newspapers. McNair recently explained that “there was always celebrity…even in the late eighteenth century, there was a form of celebrity journalist active in London, obsessively and often irreverently reporting the doings of aristocrats and other famous people”. (McNair, 2010, p. 146)  I don’t know whether it is the society, the journalists or the elites that instituted this bias tradition, but I deduce that there is a notion everywhere of the continual media creation that surrounds celebrities, for both public and cultural consumption. Adorno once said that “cultural entities typical of the culture industry are no longer also commodities; they are commodities through and through...” (Adorno, 1975, p.13). All this simply implies is that celebrity culture has been deep-rooted in our society with the complicity of the newspaper media.

Similarly, an elite country’s dominant choice in news reporting, and in particular by UK newspapers, may unveil levels of bias, censorship as well as a contemptuous approach to news from other parts of the world. Noam Chomsky once sustained that “in countries where the levers of power are in the hands of a state bureaucracy, the monopolistic control over the media...makes it clear that the media serve the ends of dominant elites”. (Chomsky, 1988, p. 1)  In the UK, the connection between the governments, the elites and the media allows for the challenges that surround the resourcefulness of news from other parts of the world. This allows for, and brings a liberal insight to the answer of the essay question using a conservative newspaper, the Daily Telegraph. 

I will use Galtung and Ruge news value assessment to analyze the contents of the DT publication while indicating their links to the essay question. Main focus will be on the essay question´s link to news value; how other news sources and materials are undermined, the cultural attachment to celebrity news in Britain and other excesses of the media such as privacy issue. These will be used to explain the effects of news concentration on a particular geographical area and interest.

Frederic Miller recently indicated that “the Daily Telegraph (DT) is a daily morning broadsheet newspaper distributed throughout the United Kingdom and internationally”. (Frederic P. Miller, 2010) It is clearly a succinct definition which says very little about the prominence of the DT in the practice of serious journalism. Its news content and geographical location impels every element of news focus on ‘elite people and nations’. Nel Ruigrok asserted that “Western media tend to focus primarily on powerful and important countries and persons...and the stories are presented, preferably, in a personalized way”. (Ruigrok, 2005, p. 23)  This clearly denotes the DT´s practice of exclusive reporting which sidelines ordinary people in both Britain and the developing countries. A DT front page picture which showed Michael Douglas and his wife Catherine Zeta-Jones is newsworthy because of their elitist personality in the movie industry. The health concerns of Ms Zeta-Jones with the headline “my battle with depression...” (Spillius, 2011, p. 1) secured them immediate access to the news. McNair asserted that “they went on to map out ‘structure of dominance’ within which the representatives of power elites tend to enjoy privileged access to the media...”. (McNair, 2003, p. 66) This includes image based articles and the sharing of their life events in the media.

Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones news report and the relevance given to the royal wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton in the DT publications depict the trend of running celebrity news in the British media and society. Even “...the pain of choosing a bridal gown” (Walden, 2011, p. 24) was given a half page coverage undermining issues such as University cuts and other social issues in Britain. The Galtung and Ruge news value analysis, according to John Hartley, sustains that “...the social activities of elite people can serve as representative actions – their weddings, opinions, night out and domestic habits are taken to be of interest to us all, since we too engage in these things”. (Hartley, 1982, p. 78) The DT headlines such as “come on, Harry, it’s time to speak up”, (Hollingshead, 2011, p. 23) in allusion to the much anticipated wedding best-man speech; “Prince invites brothers and sisters in arms to the Abbey”, (Rayner, 2011, p. 4) being an analysis of those who made the wedding guest list and another headline titled “Royal wedding – How to avoid last minute meltdown” (Lambert, 2011, p. 22) show simple references to the disparity between the attention given to the elites and ordinary citizens in the news. According to John Hartley “...who cares how I wipe my nose, if I can watch Rod Stewart doing it”? (Hartley, 1982, p. 78) No one cares. Celebrities and ordinary citizens may share the same cultural attributes but they are not valued equally within the media circle because, according to McNair, “...journalists construct celebrity as a commercial instrument for selling newspapers…paying no regard to the attributes held by a person which might justify their elevation”. (McNair, 2010, p. 146) The extensive coverage of Royal Wedding in previous editions of DT, a typical news material that has provided the media with one of its most valued ingredient which is continuity, is symbolic of celebrity cultural production. Articles such as “Why we are all falling in love with Kate” (Gordon, 2011, p. 27) which is a personal account on the Duchess of Cambridge’s abrupt attraction in the media and “the Princess and her playmate”, (Grice, 2011, p. 25) a documentary report on the life of the British Royal family are both part of the continued coverage of the royal wedding in the DT. John Hartley’s held that “…events don’t get into the news simply by happening...they too must fit in with what is already there”. (Hartley, 1982, p. 75) All the news related reports about the royal wedding are journalistic mastery in the DT’s pages. The question that must, however, come about from this is what happens when there is a twist in event and the public demand more about the lives of these public individuals? What happens when “…situations arise where something happens that does not conform to ‘the script’ the media use to describe that situation…”? (Louw, 2010, p. 125)

There was an interesting article in the DT that seemed to, somehow, relates with the discussion about rights to privacy by the privileged persons’ and was titled “MP: gagging orders just give rich men more power”. (Beckford, 2011, p. 9) The style of this report appears to have conservative undertone because of the critical approach it took over the use of court injunctions and the suppression of journalistic reports on the private lives of the elite persons. One of these cases was the BBC’s Andrew Marr, who, according to DT report “...won a High Court order in January 2008 to silence the press following his extra-marital affair with another national newspaper reporter”. (Collins, 2011) It is scandalous for a journalist to exploit “…the courts...flexible approach towards the use of Article 8 ECHR to refashion the breach of confidence remedy...into a more effective mechanism to privacy rights”, (Feintuck, 1999, p. 194) as other celebrities do to gag the media; citing right to privacy. It seems like celebrity cynicism, just because they are also able to use the media to foster their interests and their personal agendas. Most of them are like freeloaders who do nothing more than crappy entertainment for the press.  McNair said that “People with real talent have been squeezed out of celebrity culture by the media’s fascination with ordinariness”, (McNair, 2010, p. 146) meaning that the media personalities predictability and availability to fill newspaper pages are preferred. If what transcends in their lives does affect us and that an article such as “Carla pregnancy rumour...” (Allen, 2011, p. 13) is published in DT pages - it is therefore unacceptable for them to claim a right to privacy. They simply don’t have it.

The concentration of British newspaper reports on elite countries has similar value attachments to celebrity news focus; the only difference being for the politics which includes both cultural and institutional interests.  It leads to concerns over “the reliance of the media on information provided by government…”, and general issue about “…inequality of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass-media interests and choices”. (Noam Chomsky, 1988, p. 2) It may, perhaps, explain the media inclination that is on the news from particular parts of the world, especially given their very influential, political powers with which they are able to override news reports from other parts of the world. Alex Spillius’ article, titled “Obama braced for battle with Republicans over tax rises for rich” (Spilllius, 2011, p. 18) was probably in the DTs news because of cultural proximity. However, news from developing countries is barely mentioned - unless an ‘elite country’ is involved. An article such as “Gbagbo could face charges over claim of mass murder” (Nelson, 2011) was drawn to the news because of the French involvement in the crisis; supporting the notion that “stories about wars...involving the USA,USSR or forces explicitly allied to one or the other, will be reported whereas others go virtually unnoticed...”. (Hartley, 1982, p. 78) For instance, President Hugo Chavez’s squabble with the US government had kept Venezuela in the media spotlight for a considerable period of time, but since criticism of the US reduced, Venezuela seemed to disappear from the news. Ivory Coast could also, pretty soon, disappear from the news as soon as France pull’s all of its forces from the country.

Some of these reports on elite countries are sometimes printed to set a particular agenda, thus creating issues to sway a large percentage within members of the public. McQuail spoke about “...the order of importance given in the media to issues and the order of significance attached to the same issues by politicians and the public” (McQuail, 2010, pp. 512-3) which can be envisaged in some DT articles such as the Wiki leaks report on the treatment of Al-Qaida terrorists by the US government titled “leaked files reveal the secret of Guantanamo terrorist” (Christopher Hope, 2011, p. 1) and the departure of former Libya’s intelligence chief, who was suspected as being the brains behind the terrorist attack over Lockerbie with title “Lockerbie families fury as Koussa leaves UK”. (Waterfield, 2011, p. 1) They are all news because of the intention given – that led to an awakening of public outrage and also, the US’s and the UK’s (two elite nations) involvement. Now, with “Osama bin Laden shot dead...” (Harnden, 2011), the interest of the elite nations goes on to dominate the news headlines once again.

 Conclusion:

In the DT, there is absolute monopoly of Western interests in the news-headlines which end up overriding other important news stories from across the globe. I had argued that the British media news solely focuses on elite people and nations seem to have a cultural undertone and set-values within this sustainability. As such, there maintains a successive chain of events and activities that are very much embedded in Western cultural values.

Although the DT is not a tabloid newspaper, there are points where it gives that feeling, especially in the way in which it still reports the celebrity news events within society and culture pages. I previously mentioned the royal wedding as part of media creation and idolatry of personalities, and I said that everything regarding the royal wedding ended up becoming news because of the cultural attachment to things like the wedding gown, the designer and even, the best man’s speech. These issues that continually arise from such media focus are, therefore, the undermining of events in the lives of the ordinary people in the UK society and elsewhere.

The right to privacy was also briefly discussed in order to unveil a level of hypocrisy that is around some of these celebrities and simultaneously, discuss the question about public interest in their private lives. I sustained that for public figures, the right to privacy should be inexistent because they are of public interest. Unfortunately, the deeper the public become interested in the events of their lives, the more prominent the issue of asymmetrical representation of ordinary people in the media comes about.

 I, also, indicated the absolute irrelevance of most news materials that are reported - due to the high involvement of a media’s personality. Using Galtung and Ruge, I analysed the DT news contents, explaining factors that lead to their ‘newsworthiness’. This gave rise to the possibility that there was the ability to come up with a bid, in the hope to establish what the actual issues that arose from the given focus of news coverage on elite persons or countries and its relation to it being of news value in the British media.

Finally, I also argued that another concern over the focus of news coverage on the elite countries is the continual government domination of the press’s agenda. We have seen, throughout, how the US government is gradually releasing information related to bin Laden’s killing, thus dictating the news agenda for as long as they could. It is all then possible because journalists fail to truly explore other leads that may be out there, and that are ready to make them news.

 Bibliography

Allen, P. (2011, April 25). Carla Pregnancy rumour - with baby due in time for the election. The Daily Telegraph , p. 13.

Beckford, M. (2011, April 25). MP: gagging orders just give rich men more power. The Daily Telegraph , p. 9.

Christopher Hope, E. A. (2011, April 13). Leaked files reveal the secret of Guantanamo Terrorist. The Daily Telegraph , p. 1.

Collins, N. (2011, April 26). Ian Hislop attacks Andrew Marr over super injunction. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/celebritynews/8473041/Ian-Hislop-attacks-Andrew-Marr-over-super-injunction.html

Feintuck, M. (1999). Media Regulation, Public Interest and the Law. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.

Frederic P. Miller, e. a. (2010). The Daily Telegraph. London: VDM Publishing House Ltd.

Gordon, B. (2011, April 13). Why we're all falling in love with Kate. The Daily Telegraph , p. 27.

Grice, E. (2011, April 13). The Princess and her playmate. The Daily Telegraph , p. 25.

Harnden, T. (2011, May 2). Osama bin Laden shot dead during 40-minutes raid after refusing to surrender. Retrieved May 3, 2011, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8488063/Osama-bin-Laden-shot-dead-during-40-minute-raid-after-refusing-to-surrender.html

Hartley, J. (1982). Understanding News. London: Routledge.

Hollingshead, I. (2011, April 25). Come on, Harry, its time to speak up. The Daily Telegraph , p. 23.

James Curran, J. S. (2009). Power without responsibility: the press, broadcasting and the internet in Britain. London: Taylor & Francis.

Lambert, V. (2011, April 25). Royal Wedding - How to avoid a last minute meltdowm. The Daily Telegraph , p. 22.

Louw, E. (2010). The Media and Political Process. New York: SAGE Publications Ltd.

McNair, B. (2007). An Introduction to Political Communication. London: Routledge.

McNair, B. (2010). Journalists in film: heroes and villians. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.

McNair, B. (2003). News and Journalism in the UK. London: Routledge.

McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail's Mass Communication Theory. London: SAGE Publication Ltd.

Negrine, R. M. (1994). Politics and the Mass Media in Britain. London: Routledge.

Nelson, D. (2011, April 14). Gbagbo could face charges over claims of mass murder. The Daily Telegraph , p. 16.

Noam Chomsky, E. S. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: the political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon Books.

Rayner, G. (2011, April 25). Prince invites brothers and sisters in arms to Abbey. The Daily Telegraph , p. 4.

Ruigrok, N. (2005). Journalism of attachment. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis Publishers.

Singh, A. (2011, April 13). I would like to see women-only book prize award abolished, says chairman of the judges. The Daily Telegraph , p. 5.

Spillius, A. (2011, April 14). My Battle with Depression, by Zeta-Jones. The Daily Telegraph , pp. 1-2.

Spilllius, A. (2011, April 14). Obama braced for battle with Republicans over tax rises for rich. The Daily Telegraph , p. 18.

Theodor W. Adorno, R. A. (1975). Culture Industry Reconsidered. Popular Culture , 12 - 87.

Walden, C. (2011, April 14). Bridesilla? Moi? Surely not... The Daily Telegraph , p. 24.

Waterfield, B. (2011, April 13). Lockerbie families' fury as Koussa leaves UK. The Daily Telegraph , p. 1.

Anthonyjosephreport