新編大學英語第四冊unit8 Text D: The Power of the Press
UNIT 8 AFTER-CLASS READING 3; New College English (IV)
The Power of the Press
One of the biggest misunderstandings about the press is that it deals almost exclusively with news.
Another big misunderstanding is that the press has enormous power. This delusion is persistent and widespread. It is taken for granted by the public-at-large, who are apt to be impressed by anything that is said as few as three times; it is continually advertised by the press itself, and it is promoted by press management, at least some of whom should know better. A national commission examining the freedom of the press in the United States not only accepted the press's self-evaluation but also was alarmed by what they perceived as the great power of the press. The commission concluded:
We have the impression that the American people do not realize what has happened to them. They are not aware that the communication revolution has occurred. They do not appreciate the tremendous power which the new instruments and the new organization of the press place in the hands of a few men.
In what way is the press supposed to be so powerful? The general notion is that the press can form, control, or at least strongly influence public opinion. Can it really do any of these things? Hugh Cudlipp, editorial director of The London Daily Mirror and a man who should know something about the effect of newspapers on public opinion, doesn't share this general notion about their power. He thinks newspapers can echo and stimulate popular feelings that already exist, but they probably can't do much more than this. "A newspaper may successfully accelerate but never reverse the popular attitude that common sense has given to the public." In short, it can jump on the bandwagon, once the bandwagon's under way, and urge others to jump aboard too; but it can't start the bandwagon rolling or change its direction after it's started.
Like habit-forming pills, the press can stimulate or depress, but it cannot cure. It can fan fear and hatred of another nation (when the fear and hatred are there, waiting to be fanned) but it cannot make peace. As more and more people who have been victims of the press's unkind words have found out, the press has a nasty kind of power the same kind of power a bully has, of hurting somebody smaller and weaker than himself. An individual's only defense against the press is the law of libel, but considerable harm and much pain can be caused without going so far as to commit libel that can be taken to court for judgment. Journalists themselves generally have a horror of being interviewed, written up or even noticed by the press they know too well from their own experience how inept and cruel a distortion the result is likely to be. Nine times out of ten, as they know, ineptness is to blame rather than conscious cruelty; but there is always that
The press has the power to stimulate, alarm, enrage, amuse, humiliate, annoy, even to drive a person out of his community or his job. But of the stronger power to which it pretends and of which the press bosses dream to make and break governments, to influence an election, to stop a war or start a revolution there is no real evidence. The power of which it is accused does not really exist. Professor David Mitrany, speaking on "The Press and International Relations", put the case with irony:
There is no need to spend time in an attempt to show how great is the influence of the press. It is greater in certain fields than in others. It is greater, one could say, in any field in which the knowledge and interest of the man in the street is lesser. For in that case the reading public is apt to think that the press speaks with authority; while the authorities are apt to assume that the press is speaking with the voice of the people.
Everyone has heard of the "power of the press"; no one has seen it. The greatest believers in this exaggerated "power" and the loudest promoters of it are, naturally, the press bosses themselves. An example of this was Robert McCormick, publisher of The Chicago Tribune. McCormick and, of course, his paper were always in bitter opposition to the Democrats as well as to the liberal part of the Republican Party. A story used to be told about the Tribune that one of the janitors in the Tribune building always bet against any political candidate the paper supported, and that he found his betting so profitable that he was able to buy two sizable blocks of apartment buildings.
The people in Chicago who bought the Tribune didn't buy it to find out how to cast their votes; they bought it in spite of its advice and its bias, because on the whole they liked its personality and found it entertaining. Does this seem to argue a too shrewd, calm and sensible attitude on the part of the ordinary newspaper reader? The press is generally appreciated by the public for what it is rather than for what it pretends to be. They don't feel it as a power in their lives, but as a working-day prerequisite.
