04-18-2018 10:16:00 AM -0700
04-16-2018 01:32:51 PM -0700
04-16-2018 09:59:36 AM -0700
04-12-2018 09:53:41 AM -0700
04-10-2018 11:19:03 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

Next Up in Washington, a Media Czar?

The way America pulled itself out of the 19th century era of yellow journalism, when coverage was for sale, was that some publishers realized they could make money by offering the public reliable reporting. That was the origin, among other things, of the Wall Street Journal, back in 1882. The aim was to satisfy customers who needed honest news of Wall Street. It was left to the paying customers (not to the presidents of Ivy League schools, or the Federal Department of Lofty Bureaucrats) to judge whether the product satisfied their needs. They signaled their preferences by deciding -- voluntarily -- to pay for the newspaper, or not.

If, as Bollinger suggests, the provision of adequate news coverage cannot be entrusted to the market, then what about such vital matters as shelter and medical care? Hmmm... as it happens, government has increasingly been horning in on these matters as well. That's how we got the subprime mortgage crisis, courtesy of FANNIE MAE and affiliates. Soon the American public will begin its full-body encounter with ObamaCare. Does America really need to spend yet more tax dollars so government can subsidize similar experiments in journalism? Bollinger warns us against trusting the market; but he wishes us to trust that government would pay the pipers of the press, but resist the urge to call the tune.

The worst damage would not be the money spent, but the bias that would be cemented right into the institution of the press. In too many places, there's quite enough bias already, without the government arranging -- in the name of supporting the "free" press -- to purchase yet more of the same.

If it's perfection in news coverage that Bollinger is after, then all avenues end in doom. Who decides what the perfect balance, breadth, and depth should be? Lee Bollinger?

As with most areas of human endeavor, no ultimate single authority in journalism could possibly ensure that all vital stories are always fully covered, without fear or favor. News is a messy, sprawling business that requires endless judgments about what's happening, often before much of it has actually happened. If you depend on the market, there will always be outlets that cater noticeably to the preferences and worldviews of their established customers. I'd guess that the New York Times and the New York Post choose some of their coverage to appeal to different crowds, because they are well aware of what their customers want. The important point here is that the customers, the readers, are the arbiters -- not the government. There is competition, and you, the little guy, get to decide who deserves your dollars for providing news. If you depend on the government, then ultimately it is someone in government who gets to decide which news outlets will be sustained with your money, and which will not -- and who gets how much. Under the current administration, for instance, would anyone care to guess whether the public dole would be handed out more liberally to MSNBC or to Fox News? To the editorial pages of the New York Times versus the Wall Street Journal? (Lee Bollinger's media op-ed in today's Journal notwithstanding).

Bollinger wraps up his piece by saying that to him, a "key priority" is "to strengthen our public broadcasting in the global arena." As examples of what he'd like this public broadcasting to compete with, he cites -- are you ready for it? -- the BBC (biased, see above), China's CCTV (need I say more?) and Qatar's Al Jazeera (you see the problem). It bothers him that the U.S. government's Voice of America (he doesn't mention that VOA has developed its own anti-American slant) is not allowed to broadcast inside the U.S. He wants to revise that, and -- courtesy of the public purse -- consolidate such exercises with an augmented NPR and PBS, to produce an "American World Service" which he assures us will, "with full journalistic independence," proceed to "provide the news we need."

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whom Bollinger hosted as a speaker at a Columbia World Leaders Forum in 2007, could no doubt advise Bollinger further on the advantages of entrusting government with ensuring that people get exactly the news they need. Iran's regime has invested heavily in that sort of thing. Not that I think Bollinger aspires to replicate the Fars News Agency. But that is where his logic leads. If there is now to be a renewed cry in Washington for government to set up a giant new media conglomerate, broadcasting state-selected news across the U.S.A. and running welfare services for chosen bastions of the "private" and "independent" press, then let's at least spare ourselves the horror of creating an entire new agency to enthrone and entrench a Washington media czar. I have a better idea, given the outreach skills this visionary experiment in communications would require. Just turn the whole project over to NASA.