From: David Lubkin (lubkin@unreasonable.com)
Date: Wed Apr 10 2002 - 14:24:38 MDT
At 11:30 AM 4/10/2002 -0400, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>Very true. There have been a lot of false stories. But they are usually
>exposed by other journalists. That is the beauty of the capitalist
>system. There is no single press monopoly. Competing journalists from
>different organizations all cover the same event. If you don't like or
>believe the news from one, you switch to another. I can't imagine anyone
>preferring a government-sponsored military monopoly on the news to our
>current system of journalism. If you think the press is biased, switch brands.
First, there *is* an effective press monopoly, or small 'polyopoly', in
many markets, where there are only one or two news suppliers because
there's no perceived revenue potential for more. We have that where I live
now, a city of 80,000. One newspaper and two tv stations (in 20- second
segments) are responsible for virtually all news coverage. Only the
largest stories get attention from media in other cities. In practice,
many misrepresentations in the newspaper go unchecked. I've seen the same
kind of thing everywhere I've lived.
Even in a big market, it's only big stories whose coverage gets scrutinized
by other reporters.
In any case, I am very skeptical of professions that police themselves. If
you look at others that do, like doctors, police, teachers, clergy,
lawyers, and judges, you have to be pretty damn bad before anything happens
to you. They all have the equivalent of the police's "cops don't rat on
other cops."
And notice that the ones I've listed are *all* professions that function as
guilds (or, if you like, cartels), strictly controlling who can enter their
ranks.
>>One thing that gives me enormous pause is that EVERY time I have known
>>the truth behind a newspaper story, ranging from local coverage of my
>>daughter's work in historic preservation, to media coverage of science or
>>technology, to the reporting on a double rape/murder of neighbors of mine
>>back when I was at Livermore, I have spotted significant factual errors
>>in what appeared in print.
>
>I find this in technical and scientific reporting as well. But there is
>no reason to attribute it to a great liberal conspiracy, or theorize that
>all Western media is secretly owned and operated by a small
>cartel. However, we know that the military is a monopoly that is bought
>and paid for by government agendas.
Play fair, Harvey. (a) I said nothing about *why* reporting is so bad, and
certainly did not attribute it to any coordinated effort. Personally, I
think it's a combination of Sturgeon's and Gresham's Laws. The mechanisms
to punish incompetence or malice are broken. (b) I made it clear that I'm
talking about general problems in the media, not just military reporting.
Although, focusing on the military, I think they're no more or less a
monopoly than the press is. There are so many competing
voices. Interservice rivalries. Competition between defense contractors
rippling to Congress and to senior officers who hope to work for those
contractors when they leave the service. Individual officers bucking for
promotion. CYA at all levels. (It's amazing -- but not surprising -- how
much classified material is classified to avoid embarrassment or consequences.)
>What is the alternative? Abolish the free press and let the government
>tell us what is true, and let the military enforce this truth by shooting
>anyone who would question the party line?
If you read what I posted, the alternative is to hold the press responsible
civilly and criminally for what they write or how they pursue a story -- to
the exact degree that you or I would be held responsible for our
actions. Liberty is freedom plus responsibility. I don't want a 'free'
press; I want an, er, libertine press. A liberal press? A liberated
press? A libated press? No, that's not right....
Another part of the answer, eventually, is the sort of Internet-based
reputation system we used to dabble with on extropians.
-- David.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:23 MST