Are Our Watchdogs Turning Into Security Dogs?

Whenever the latest political controversy arises, Americans tune in to their news outlets for the latest details on what American leader just lied on his tax forms, had inappropriate relations with another intern, or knew information that could have prevented the deaths of Americans in Benghazi.  The American media is the epicenter of breaking political scandals and controversies in the United States. In a recent study done by Pew Research nearly seven in 10 Americans (67%) believe that journalists are the watchdogs of government and politics in the United States and are preventing politicians from doing what they are not supposed to be doing. What if this influence though is doing more than just influencing? Can this watchdog role be seen as our security dog role as well?

Many Americans reacted negatively to the news of the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Bengahzi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012 especially as controversy arose saying that the United States had more information than they were releasing about the attacks.

 President Obama and then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton at the Transfer of Remains Ceremony for the victims of the Benghazi attack.

As Congressmen began to push President Obama and the then Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, for more information so did the American people. One of those citizens, Pat Smith, mother of Sean Smith, a fallen soldier in the Benghazi attack, went as far as to wish Clinton a "Happy Mother's Day" this past May and went on to say, "She's got her child. I don't have mine because of her."

Pat Smith's interview with Bill O'Reiley.

Through the media she has been able to have her voice heard by thousands of people. Can it be said then that the media utilize people like Pat Smith to get more attention? Certainly in a situation like this, when many Americans were pushing the government for more information, running a story on Smith would draw attention because citizens and politicans can sympathize with her, feel for her loss and therefore have fuel to add to their desire for information regarding the attack. When stories create passion among its audience, the issue it involves will get more attention.

How do stories like this fuel the fire of the journalistic watchdog theory? It's as simple as this: if more people relate to the story and are passionate about the message the more attention the story will get. The more attention the story gets the more attention the media will get, and in return the government begins to feel the pressure of the people through the usage of media to have their voice heard.

So how does this turn the watchdog into the security dog?

Now the president is facing the decision of an attack on Syria. Some may say that the attack on Benghazi is haunting Obama and could potentially hurt his push to attack Syria, according to NewsMax's article Benghazi Attack Haunts Obama's Call for Strike on Syria. Many Tea Party Republicans want Congress to say no to Obama's request until information regarding the attack is fully released to the public.

Certainly there are Americans who would agree with this argument, but what this shows is that the public push through the media and the politicians push for more information. It has also been seen that the media could affect decisions in Syria. By preventing an attack we go from being the watchdogs for ourselves to the security dogs for a country in serious crisis. Can we argue then that the media's influence on this issue is unethical? Should the media be able to influence decisions like this directly or indirectly? Many would say it is because they feel the attack on Syria is necessary and do not want anything to stand in the way of it happening, which would include the media and the issues surrounding Benghazi. In our society it is natural for the media to have influence on the government because of how coincidely our government, people and journalists work together to ensure that information flows freely. When one group is not providing information then the others work together to ensure the truth prevails.

So to the argument of whether it is ethical for the media to have such a tremendous influence on a situation like this? Yes, it is because it is the natural tendency of our society and the way our system works. Without it we would no longer have the system of watchdogs that we already have. It's what makes our triangle of the people, government and news outlets work together, and without it our society would be significantly different. The watchdogs and sometimes the security dogs are what makes our country the way it is -- a place where the people to find a way to make their voices heard.

Sarah Kenney
sk699110@ohio.edu