Jan 2005
Here in the United States we believe in the concept of the equilibrium of the “free market.”
Is the “Free Press” Really Free?
by Dennis Peacocke
Democratic societies are based upon the premise that certain sets of “freedoms” are essential to the very nature of a truly modern democracy. Among those freedoms is the freedom of speech, obviously with some limits such as slander, sedition, certain types of violent threats, and of course, yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc. “Freedom of speech” also explicitly has meant the right to have a free press. This notion centers on the assumption of the right of the citizenry to criticize social institutions and especially the cultures of ruling leadership and governmental structures themselves. In these times of so-called “modern technology,” this would include radio, television, newspapers, the Internet, etc. However, the question remains, exactly what undergirds these so-called freedoms of expression?
Now we come to the Wizard of Oz’s “man behind the curtain pulling the levers.” We were told in the film to pay no attention to him, but I’m afraid I’ve never followed those kinds of orders too well. I have several questions for that man, particularly in relation to his newspapers and “news” broadcasts. Here they are:
- What exactly is the relationship between the need to “tell the truth” and the need to stimulate sales and market share?
- What is the relationship between the reporters, editors, and owners of the “truth-telling” media and their own personal political affiliates and agendas?
- Why don’t these “objective” truth-tellers publicly let the people know their party affiliations, or even the general political persuasions of the organization itself?
- What exactly is the difference between “telling the truth” and attempting to persuade people to see and interpret events the way you want them to see those events?
- What kind of research is done by the media-elite owners in terms of how to create different psychological effects on those using their products and what ethical guidelines do they follow as a result of those findings?
- What educational institutions are training these “truth tellers,” and what are the political persuasions and agendas of those who teach these future “truth-tellers,” and are those agendas freely and honestly revealed?
We could get more technical, but these questions are good for starters.
I am aware that here in the United States we believe in the concept of the equilibrium of the “free market.” This notion, as you know, assumes that competing ideas and opinions freely operating in a democratic society eventually will find the “will of the people” and bring it to a balancing point in the long run. In other words, the people of a democracy will get what they want. That assumption, as many of you also know, was supported strongly by many of our nation’s founders in “The Federalist Papers.”
So what is my point in all of this? Firstly, I agree with Churchill that, flawed as it is, democracy is the best political system yet devised in this “age of consent” which God has granted mankind. Secondly, I have been concerned historically with the naiveté of the educationally “dumbed-down” masses who believe that "the daily news” is actually synonymous with “the truth.” But thirdly, and with a sense of relief, I am grateful that the current “culture wars” are forcing people to begin actually to see the politically polarized scores of broadcast and publishing organizations, and their agendas. Indeed, there is no truly “free press” because too many forces have it captured and that is...
the bottom line.
