For all its faults and failures, the American press is something I believe should be valued and protected. I realize that probably sounds like “motherhood and apple pie” speak but I think we Americans often take it for granted. I know there are the concerns about “media bias” and sensationalism, which are valid and justified, but I think we too easily loose sight of the vital role media has in keeping our power-brokers in check.
Power, apparently, is a very intoxicating thing and our history is rife with accounts where unchecked power took advantage of the system at tax-payer expense. Generally, such abuses happen when and where no one is paying attention. It some cases it can be like a magician’s act of redirection to keep the public’s eye off the power play in action.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe in the capitalist system and that success should be rewarded but I also believe that success and the resulting power it brings should be kept in balance with the public good. For example, I think, in many cases, two companies merging can be a good thing as it will bring economies of scale and will help two smaller companies compete with one larger, more established player. However, I also believe there is a limit to such consolidation because consumers and the public generally lose when monopolistic power is approached.
Of course, our government has its own form of monopoly in the governance of our society and politicians seem to have a highly-developed sense of self-preservation. I must admit to being somewhat befuddled why someone would spend millions of their own dollars to be elected to a job that may pay a couple hundred thousand dollars (or less); obviously, there is more than the salary that motivates the candidate.
I will try to touch on some of the foregoing topics in later posts but my purpose in mentioning them is not to cast shadow over business or government but to highlight how the motivations behind one endeavor or the other might not always be in sync with the common good. For this reason, the press plays the very obvious role of being our “watcher.” Without the press being our professional watchers of business and government, we would be at least half-blind in my opinion. I’m not espousing anything that wasn’t addressed in our high school government classes but I think we tend to take the process for granted as we grow older and our lives become more complicated.
However, a phrase I have heard more often these days is “access to power” (or “access and power” depending on context). In more recent cases this phrase has been aimed at big media where our major news sources allowed themselves to be manipulated by members of our government in the furtherance of their political objectives because our journalists didn’t want to loose their “access to power” and thus their own “power.”
So, when FreePress.net sent me a mailing regarding a change in the application of postal rates to magazines, I took notice. According to FreePress and the New York Times this proposal was submitted by one of the biggest media players, Time Warner, and it seems to be biased towards, well, big media. Now, I don’t fault Time Warner for making such a proposal because they are tasked with one objective: do what is in the best interest of Time Warner, not necessarily the public interest.
Just like in business, I think it is good to have new small players constantly nipping at the heels of the media giants -- it keeps them honest. Thus, when the US Postal Service adopted this proposal, I think it failed to take into account its role in preserving the interests of the people. Whether the reader of this blog is conservative or liberal, I think we all have an interest in promoting a free and accessible press, down to the smallest player. In my opinion, I think there is a justifiable public interest in having a flat postal rate for all magazines (even in the age of the Internet).
Give it some thought.
Power, apparently, is a very intoxicating thing and our history is rife with accounts where unchecked power took advantage of the system at tax-payer expense. Generally, such abuses happen when and where no one is paying attention. It some cases it can be like a magician’s act of redirection to keep the public’s eye off the power play in action.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe in the capitalist system and that success should be rewarded but I also believe that success and the resulting power it brings should be kept in balance with the public good. For example, I think, in many cases, two companies merging can be a good thing as it will bring economies of scale and will help two smaller companies compete with one larger, more established player. However, I also believe there is a limit to such consolidation because consumers and the public generally lose when monopolistic power is approached.
Of course, our government has its own form of monopoly in the governance of our society and politicians seem to have a highly-developed sense of self-preservation. I must admit to being somewhat befuddled why someone would spend millions of their own dollars to be elected to a job that may pay a couple hundred thousand dollars (or less); obviously, there is more than the salary that motivates the candidate.
I will try to touch on some of the foregoing topics in later posts but my purpose in mentioning them is not to cast shadow over business or government but to highlight how the motivations behind one endeavor or the other might not always be in sync with the common good. For this reason, the press plays the very obvious role of being our “watcher.” Without the press being our professional watchers of business and government, we would be at least half-blind in my opinion. I’m not espousing anything that wasn’t addressed in our high school government classes but I think we tend to take the process for granted as we grow older and our lives become more complicated.
However, a phrase I have heard more often these days is “access to power” (or “access and power” depending on context). In more recent cases this phrase has been aimed at big media where our major news sources allowed themselves to be manipulated by members of our government in the furtherance of their political objectives because our journalists didn’t want to loose their “access to power” and thus their own “power.”
So, when FreePress.net sent me a mailing regarding a change in the application of postal rates to magazines, I took notice. According to FreePress and the New York Times this proposal was submitted by one of the biggest media players, Time Warner, and it seems to be biased towards, well, big media. Now, I don’t fault Time Warner for making such a proposal because they are tasked with one objective: do what is in the best interest of Time Warner, not necessarily the public interest.
Just like in business, I think it is good to have new small players constantly nipping at the heels of the media giants -- it keeps them honest. Thus, when the US Postal Service adopted this proposal, I think it failed to take into account its role in preserving the interests of the people. Whether the reader of this blog is conservative or liberal, I think we all have an interest in promoting a free and accessible press, down to the smallest player. In my opinion, I think there is a justifiable public interest in having a flat postal rate for all magazines (even in the age of the Internet).
Give it some thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment