WHENEVER a public discussion takes place, a lot of things have to be assumed, if our time isn't going to be spent endlessly explaining everything, which leaves no time to discuss anything new. When I talk about a cat, for example, I assume you know what a cat is; and as it is for simple things, so should it be for even more complicated things.

But because our educational system, in many ways, isn't what it used to be, there are terms media throws around that neither media nor you, the audience, don't take time to think through.

Take the term by which media and its observers love to use, to refer to itself- "the fourth estate." What does it really mean? We have to go back to revolutionary France to figure this out.

King Louis XVI was running out of funds, and like many kings before him, he decided to convene the Estates-General, composed of three classes of men, because women weren't politically in the picture. These classes were: The Church, the Nobility, and Commoners, though these were really uncommon men whom today we'd call the middle class. All three eventually came together in opposition to the king, and toppled him. They did so because of the newspapers and political scandal sheets of the times. As Edmund Burke observed, "A Fourth Estate of Able Editors, springs up."

Using the term "Fourth Estate" then, is a kind of code, or short hand, for some pretty serious ideas.

First, it means the press - the old fashioned term that includes today's print, broadcast, and online media - is necessarily a power unto itself and views itself as such; second, that because it's on par with other, more traditional authorities, it must necessarily compete with, and even oppose, those powers. Third this means that the press is dependent on the public, which in a sense, also depends on the press to inform it on what's going on.

Just this weekend a gathering took place, called Media Nation 4.1. It's the fourth time members from media set aside considerations of competition, and talked among themselves about they're doing their job. But back to the Fourth Estate - if, as Lord Acton said power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, then skepticism about media is inevitable. You will always hear journalists say they are out to serve the public good. But politicians say the same thing, so why should you believe a journalist when you don't believe the politicians?

The problem becomes even thornier when politics and the media become closely intertwined. And that's because of the big "O" word - Objectivity.

We can, I think, safely say that objectivity - if you define being objective as being non-partisan - has been an alien concept to Filipino journalists and their audience. And rightly so, I think. A developing country like ours has only had two defining issues: First it was independence; since 1946 it has been graft and corruption.

If the central question is power and who should have it, then media must necessarily either be for those who have the power, or those who want it. Always asking of course, what should be done with it?

The papers have it best, because they've had the chance to refine things.

What is the media supposed to do? Answer the following questions, of course: Who, What, When, Where and Why. Of all these, the Whys are what often fall by the wayside, particularly on radio and TV. The papers put the Who What When and Where more often than not, in the news part; the whys are debated in the Why part, the Opinion section.

The British read papers knowing full well each represents a political view; American expect liberal views in the Washington Post and New York Times, and right-wing politics to be represented by the Wall Street Journal. All American papers declare support for candidates from the local to the national -but they don't let their stands affect the way they report the news.

But journalism is also a business, and business often ends up either in bed with the politicians, or the business side of media becomes its Achilles heel.

Joseph Estrada's attempt to crush the Manila Times and Philippine Daily Inquirer by instigating an advertising boycott was a strategy as old as that adopted by American governors-generals against Filipino papers they didn't like. In the end, government and those in it only have five ways to influence the media, none of it particularly wholesome: They can bribe or charm reporters. They can befriend or intimidate media owners. They can sue, they can murder, or they can flood media allies with advertising while withholding it from media enemies.

Industrialists, too, discovered it was useful to have a paper in your pocket. Vicente Madrigal established and owned the Philippines Herald for decades, selling it to the Sorianos who in turn at one point, after Edsa, owned the Manila Standard, now the Manila Standard-Today, which is owned by another politically-active businessman, Enrique Razon.

The Elizaldes, too, bankrollers of presidential campaigns from the 1930s to the 1960s, were once in the newspaper business and remain a player in the radio industry today. And as business was once heavily Spanish, and is, today, heavily Chinese, we've seen the Taipans enter media, such as the one time ownership of the Manila Times by the Gokongweis.

The most famous example, of course, of the intertwining of business, politics, and journalism is the Lopez family, in whose network I have a cable TV show. The Lopezes were once in newspapers, with the Manila Chronicle, and they remain a key player in radio and TV. No small wonder, then, that whether owned by families purely in the media trade, like the Roceses and the Locsins, or owned by industrialists like the Lopezes, martial law was inaugurated by the shutting down of media.

And for a time, the public welcomed the end of a free press. Then, they embraced its return. How do you feel about the media today? Is it your enemy, or your friend? In this coming election, is broadcast media raking it in by way of political ads, but giving the voters little in return? And is the press too partisan? Most of all, is what radio, TV and the papers covering what you want to know?

Marshal Macluhan famously said, the medium is the massage, and that's how we used to like it: The news, whether in the papers, the radio, or TV, was sober, solid, a sure guide to seeing the world. That era's long gone. We distrust authority so thoroughly, that we dislike anyone who tries to be authoritative. We want things more spontaneous, more relaxed; and with informality has come, some claim, a disturbing lack of depth.

But with informality has come immediacy. Media elders remind us just a generation ago, you had to sit there and take whatever media dished out. Today, if you don't like, you not only have more choices, you have many more ways to react. Thirteen years ago, when I began writing, feedback was a letter that took a month to reach me; today, whether on my TV show, on my blog, or in the newspapers I write for, reactions are almost instantaneous.

So the question is, is media helping or hindering your ability to make up your mind, on whom to vote for, according to the things that matter to you? If so, do give media people a pat on the back; if not, give them a piece of your mind. And if you think media can be too political, think of this: Unlike the politicians, the media immediately feels, through circulation or audience share, how you feel. How's that for accountability?