Free market journalism
Do we need a “public option”?
Much has been made lately about the media’s incessant coverage of relatively unimportant matters (“Balloon Boy,” Sarah Palin’s new book, Tiger Woods’s affairs, Michael Jackson’s death) as compared to pressing policy debates (Afghanistan, global warming, health care reform, unemployment).
This phenomenon isn’t exactly new. The zealousness of the mainstream media for hype, controversy, and celebrity has been a well-worn punching bag for people like Jon Stewart for years. And from a broader vantage point, ridicule for the “mass diversions,” whether they consist in sports, gossip magazines, or low-brow comedy, is probably a cultural mainstay.
But some say that we are facing a crisis in journalism. Well, that’s what I say anyway. As large media companies and papers such as the New York Times and Washington Post fire thousands of employees, close bureaus, and migrate to the internet, it is becoming harder and harder to do the job. Meanwhile, the relative success of Fox News, which regularly outperforms almost all other cable news networks combined, is driving its competitors to emulate the Fox model – hot blondes, flashy headlines, and an emphasis on controversy over depth or accuracy.
This might all be traced back to basic market forces. Detailed, responsible journalism just doesn’t sell as well as polarized, simplistic coverage. Sure, the New York Times might do better work than The Drudge Report (I should hope so), but people want Drudge. Hemingway might be better reading than Danielle Steele, too, but I haven’t seen anyone carrying The Old Man and the Sea on the subway.
There are some problems with this thinking, however. First, any discussion about “what the people want” necessarily poses a chicken-and-egg problem; this problem forms the backbone of debates about perfectionism and libertarianism. Libertarians protest the idea of an authority guiding citizens’ tastes and interests, but perfectionists remind us, first, that we have to be given exposure to things before we can wisely rule them in or out, and second, that regardless of whether the state does the exposing, someone is shaping our children’s views. We don’t just form our preferences and values out of thin air. So, we can’t simply assume that “people like Drudge.”
What if the market really does tend toward what I would call “bad” journalism – simplistic and misleading coverage of important events and a style-over-substance approach? Perhaps a “public trust” for good journalism is in order. In a liberal state, matters that are deemed “above commerce,” such as national security, social welfare, and perhaps education and health care, are relieved from market pressures because of their importance. The British Broadcasting Corporation, which is funded by money from TV licenses and run by government charter, is widely thought to be one of the world’s best and most responsible news sources. Even in the U.S., we have the publicly-funded (at least in part) Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio, which are able to spend a little less time running ads and pandering and more time delivering real, investigative reports.
Do we need a more robust “public option” for journalism? As with health care, opponents can argue that state-run enterprises are inefficient and paternalistic. But assuring a market-free alternative through public administration might be an important part of building an educated, informed citizenry.
-Colin
Related posts:
- More on healthcare and choice
- Not all choices are free
- Does health reform treat the obese unfairly?
- Rationing health care?
- Death panels and democracy
ShareComments
One Response to “Free market journalism”
Leave a Reply
Not sure if you’ve seen this, but I found it simultaneously hilarious and concerning.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-8-2009/gretchen-carlson-dumbs-down