The End of Independent Media

I got pretty exercised reading an article today by a left-wing journalist named Tony Long to the point that I felt it necessary to rant against it. I composed a great answer to his ill-taken points, and then their site's comment engine was down so I couldn't post it. Obviously, I came here next.

Here's the article:

Wired News: Time to Rake a Little Muck

Read it first, in all its irritating glory. He agrees with Al Gore about the scourge that is concentrated corporate media ownership; he lists problems with today's journalists like fake-story scandals and lack of talent, tenacity and guts; he sees problems with the "anarchic" internet media, and he sees 9/11 as the catalyst for years of media "groveling" at the feet of the Bush administration. His solution? Break up the conglomerates, a la Ma Bell, and remove the "vulgar need to turn a profit" from journalism (because the press is so important to our free society) by having the government license and pay all media outlets, thus allowing journalists to work from their principles instead of pandering for money.

So here's what I have to say about that:

OK, so the problem with media is too much centralization, so the solution is putting the government in charge of licensing and financing everything? Are you really naive enough to think that if the government licenses and pays everyone who reports on them that they would not exert control? This is not a new idea: it's the rage in every totalitarian state I can think of.

Another problem is that if you remove the profit motive from the press, you will reduce their product to the level we have come to expect from most government bureaucracies--a 9-to-5, "that's not my job", "I don't care if you're standing in line I'm taking my break" mentality that is bound to occur when you separate performance from reward. Under this scenario you would see far fewer talented reporters than you do now, since talented people will gravitate to a profession where their skills will be recognized and compensated. For an example of this situation, see the US public school system.

Finally, your "anarchy" argument--in this case that too many choices in online media are harmful--is a permutation of the same basic problem that Marx had with capitalism. He saw that many workers would be displaced if market forces were allowed to run free. But he did not recognize the tremendous prosperity that would result from a system tailored directly to the needs of the market, and that workers (themselves consumers, of course) would greatly benefit from capitalism in spite of the anarchy built in to the system.

In the same way, while the new media endangers jobs of people like you, it has already given the consumers of news a better product by keeping established journalists on their toes (see Dan Rather), and I believe that it will continue to grow into a form more tailored to the public's needs.


P.S. You say it's not about being objective. I agree that it is difficult to be objective, but a reporter is supposed to at least present both sides of a story. I believe that biased reporting is an important reason that people are leaving old media outlets and looking for something more in line with their perspectives.

Thank you, and good night.


filed: etcetera