Last week, science writer Michael Shermer tweeted out this old xkcd comic strip that I had somehow missed before. Shermer noted that it represented, “another reply to pessimists bemoaning modern technologies as soul-crushing and isolating.” Similarly, there’s this meme that has been making the rounds on Twitter and which jokes about how newspapers made us as antisocial in the past much as newer technologies supposedly do today.

Isolation and inattention panics are some of the most common “fear cycles” that we have seen repeatedly play out through the ages. Indeed, sociologist Frank Furedi reminds us that panics over isolation, distraction, or inattention have been quite common. Consistent with that xkcd comic, Furedi has documented how “inattention has served as a sublimated focus for apprehensions about moral authority” going back to at least the early 1700s and continuing on through the next two centuries. During those years, he notes:

Inattention was increasingly perceived as an obstacle to the socialisation of young people. Countering the habit of inattention among children and young people became the central concern of pedagogy in the 18th century […]  During the 19th century, the state of inattention became thoroughly moralised. Inattentiveness was perceived as a threat to industrial progress, scientific advance and prosperity.

Today, however, the panic over inattention has ramped up, Furedi argues:

Unlike in the 18th century when it was perceived as abnormal, today inattention is often presented as the normal state. The current era is frequently characterised as the Age of Distraction, and inattention is no longer depicted as a condition that afflicts a few. Nowadays, the erosion of humanity’s capacity for attention is portrayed as an existential problem, linked with the allegedly corrosive effects of digitally driven streams of information relentlessly flowing our way.

While I generally agree these panics are overblown, one must also admit that there is some degree of truth to  all of them in the sense that each new technology presents us with some added level of potential distraction. And today we have more of those potential distractions than ever before. So, something’s gotta give, right?

“What information consumes is rather obvious,” Nobel Prize-winning economist and psychologist Herbert Simon remarked in 1971: “the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention, and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it.” Almost a half century later, we are confronted with a “wealth of information” that Simon could not have imagined, and that’s what has many critics worried about the potentially socially-destructive consequences of new technologies.

But social critics who write about this supposed “poverty of attention” problem have taken matters to the extreme and concocted some entertaining rhetorical ploys in an attempt to one-up each other on the panic meter. In a 2005 book, I discussed dozens of colorful book and article titles and terms like: “information overload;” “cognitive overload;” “information anxiety;” “information fatigue syndrome;” “information paralysis;” “techno-stress;” “information pollution;” “data smog;” and even “data asphyxiation.”

And that was all pre-Facebook and pre-Twitter! A dozen years later, this isolation-is-killing-us theme is becoming even more prevalent in books and articles. There are far to many books of this ilk to list here, but a quick sampling of the most popular ones would include: Nick Carr ( The Shallows), Franklin Foer (World Without Mind), Maggie Jackson (Distracted), Sherry Turkle (Alone Together), Eli Pariser (The Filter Bubble), John Freeman (The Tyranny of E-Mail), and Cass Sunstein (Republic.com), among many others. I have an entire bookshelf in my office filled with nothing but books of this variety, all penned over just the past 20 years.

Perhaps the sheer volume of panicky tracts suggests that there must be something to these fears. Let’s be clear: isolation, distraction, or inattention  are problems. But to some extent, these are problems that have always been with us and are not going away any time soon.

Social critics and cranky intellectuals love to complain about new technologies, and that’s never going to end. The best of that criticism will incorporate practical strategies for living a better life and suggest steps for how we all can find a better balance with the technologies that dominate our lives–today, tomorrow, and on into the future.

Sadly, most critics take a different approach which implicitly suggests we have somehow departed a golden age of living and that only a dystopian hellscape awaits us from here on out (if we’re not already living in it). It’s utter poppycock. As I’ve written before, pastoral myths and public square fantasies about some supposedly glorious but no-lost “good old days” are a lot of fun right up until you realize that the old days were, in fact, eras of abject misery. By almost every meaningful metric, we are better today than we were in the past, and that is probably just as true for things that we don’t have metrics for, including “attentiveness” or “distractability.”

We’d all like to think that people–especially kids–were somehow more attentive, more social, and more civil in the past than they are in today’s seemingly more cluttered, cacophonous, hurly-burly modern era. But there is absolutely no concrete evidence suggesting that is true and, as Furedi shows, there exists plenty of anecdotal evidence that when it comes to inattention, things really haven’t changed that much at all. We can and should strive to do better and find constructive solutions to problems such as these, but we should not go overboard with rhetorical threat inflation about the nature or severity of this problem. Nor should we pursue impractical or highly destructive solutions that would undermine the many other benefits associated with our new technological capabilities.

Ironically, at their very worst, isolation or inattention panics accomplish the exact opposite of what some social critics suggest that they desire. The critics often claim that they are just looking out for the next generation and trying to chart a better path for them. In reality, however, those critics are often just engaging in the same sort of fear-mongering and youth-shaming that countless other generations have before with their “KIDS THESE DAYS!” complaints. It’s always easy for intellectuals to tap into the worst fears of parents and policymakers by suggesting that the younger generation has lost the ability to reason or communicate effectively. And yet, each generation somehow figures out how to muddle through. We are an imperfect species, but we are also a highly resilient one.

Of course, that won’t stop an entirely new generation of critics from panicking about whatever future technology is apparently distracting the next generation to death. Fear sells and panics get attention. The calmer truths that history teaches us take longer to appreciate.

Additional Reading:

• Is It “Techno-Chauvinist” & “Anti-Humanist” to Believe in the Transformative Potential of Technology? (9/18/18)
• How to Sell a Book about Tech Policy: Turn the Technopanic Dial Up to 11 (1/2/18)
• What a 1911 Silent Movie Tells Us about the Technopanic Mentality (6/21/17)
• Regarding the Use of Apocalyptic Rhetoric in Policy Debates (10/29/14)
• Muddling Through: How We Learn to Cope with Technological Change (6/14/14)
• The Problem with “Pessimism Porn” (5/23/14)
• BOOK: “Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom”
• What Does It Mean to “Have a Conversation” about a New Technology? (5/23/13)
• paper: Technopanics, Threat Inflation & an Info-Tech Precautionary Principle (2/28/12)
• Why Do We Always Sell the Next Generation Short? (Forbes, 1/8/12)
• On Nostalgia (12/28/11)

Timothy B. Lee, founder of The Washington Post’s blog The Switch discusses his approach to reporting at the intersection of technology and policy. He covers how to make tech concepts more accessible; the difference between blogs and the news; the importance of investigative journalism in the tech space; whether paywalls are here to stay; Jeff Bezos’ recent purchase of The Washington Post; and the future of print news.

Download

Related Links

• Here are eight ways investing in Bitcoins could go horribly wrongn, Lee
• Blind advocates: Hollywood lobbying threatens deal for accessible books, Lee
• New Job, Lee

This morning, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its eagerly-awaited “Future of Media” report. The 475-page final report is entitled, “The Information Needs of Communities: The Changing Media Landscape in a Broadband Age.”  [Here’s a 2-page summary and the official press release.]  The report is a bit overdue; the effort was supposed to be wrapped up late last year. Comments in the proceeding were filed over a year ago. Here are some of the major ones. Also, here is the 80-page monster filing that I submitted with my former PFF colleagues Berin Szoka and Ken Ferree.

Quick refresher… Federal policymakers have been taking a greater interest in the health of media and journalism in recent years. In 2009, the Senate held hearings about “the future of journalism,” and Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) introduced the “Newspaper Revitalization Act,” which would allow newspapers to become tax-exempt non-profits in an effort to help them stay afloat. In 2010, the Federal Trade Commission hosted two workshops asking “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” and also released a staff report on “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism.” (As I noted here and here, the FTC was blasted for that report and quickly backed off the issue. The agency has since gone radio silent on the issue.) The FCC also launched its “Examination of the Future of Media and Information in a Digital Age” in 2010, and today’s report wraps up their work on this front.

My first reaction after scanning the FCC’s final report is one of relief. For those of us who care about the First Amendment, media freedom, and free-market experimentation with new media business models, it feels like we’ve dodged a major bullet. The report does not recommend sweeping regulatory actions that might have seen Washington inserting itself into the affairs of the press or bailing out dying business models.

By contrast, when the FCC and FTC started their respective proceedings, things looked very grim from a policy perspective. The discussion was being completely dominated by groups like Free Press and their founders, the neo-Marxist media scholar Robert W. McChesney and Nation editor John Nichols.  Here are some old essays and papers that summarize the radical “media reform” agenda they set forth over the past few years:

• A “Public Option” for Media? The Free Press Plan to Put Journalists on the Public Dole
• Free Press, Robert McChesney & the “Struggle” for Media
• Socializing Media in Order to Save It
• The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 1: Taxing Devices & Networks to Subsidize Media, by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, March 24, 2010
• The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 2: Broadcast Spectrum Fees for Public Media, by Adam Thierer, March 29, 2010
• The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 3: Media Vouchers, by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, April 14, 2010
• The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 4: Expanding Postal Subsidies, by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, April 20, 2010
• The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 5: Media Bailouts & Welfare for Journalists, by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, April 30, 2010

To the FCC’s great credit, the agency’s final report didn’t fall for most of these gimmicks or those radical calls for state intervention. The report’s recommendations are actually quite limited in scope and relatively innocuous in nature (although some of them are extremely amorphous and could be open to expansionist interpretations later on). Here are the major recommendations:

• Accelerate move from paper to online disclosure. Disclosure information required by the FCC should be moved online from filing cabinets to the Internet so the public can more easily gain access to valuable information.  FCC should eliminate burdensome rules and streamline disclosures about local programming by moving files online.
• Remove barriers to innovation and online entrepreneurship by pushing for universal broadband deployment and adoption.  Achieving this goal would remove cost barriers,strengthen online business models, expand consumer pools and ensure that the news and information landscape serves communities to the maximum possible benefit of citizens.
• Target existing federal spending at local media.  Existing government advertising spending, such military recruiting and public health ads, should be targeted toward local media whenever possible. Each year, the federal government spends roughly $1 billion in advertising without maximizing potential benefits to local media.
• Repeal Fairness Doctrine, terminate localism proceeding and replace “enhanced disclosure” with a new streamlined system of online disclosure. Broadcasters would disclose amount of programming about the community and other important information.
• Discourage “pay-for-play” arrangements – in which TV stations allow advertisers to dictate on-air content without disclosing to viewers – by requiring online disclosure of such arrangements.
• Re-assess whether the satellite TV’s set-aside for educational programming and cable TV leased access systems are working; put satellite disclosure online.
• There should be state-based C-SPAN in every state. Cable and satellite operators, public broadcasters and PEG channels should work toward that goal, and policymakers should consider offering incentives for those media organizations that take such steps, or to those that provide support for local cable news operations.
• Re-establish tax certificate program for small businesses including minorities and women.
• Policymakers should consider clarifications or changes in tax rules that would make it easier for nonprofit news operations to develop sustainable business models.
• Focus on historically underserved when policymakers craft strategies and rules.

While I can’t endorse all of these recommendations — especially those that involve more spending or tax code tinkering — I think most of these policy proposals are relatively unobjectionable. Again, this is pretty far removed from the radical Free Press / McChesney agenda that guided the Federal Trade Commission’s controversial report.  I will likely have more to say about the FCC’s specific policy recommendations after getting through the entire 475-page report this weekend.

Even without having finished the entire report, I feel comfortable saying this: The FCC’s “Information Needs of Communities” report is an impressive achievement and will be used as a reference document for decades to come.  The report offers an excellent overview of the state of the media marketplace and provides a relatively balanced assessment of both the good and bad trends shaping media and journalism today.

I congratulate Steve Waldman and the entire team experts that the FCC brought together to compile this report. But most of all I am relieved to see that the agency generally restrained itself here and avoided going down the dangerous path I once feared it might.

Finally, I am just a happy camper any day I see the Federal Communications Commission send out a Tweet like this:

The Progress & Freedom Foundation today filed comments in the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) “Future of Media” proceeding. Berin Szoka, Ken Ferree, and I urged the FCC to “reject Chicken Little-esque calls for extreme media ‘reform’ solutions,” and counseled policymakers to move cautiously so that media reform can be “organic and bottom-up, not driven by heavy-handed, top-down industrial policies for the press.”

Our 79-page filing covers a wide range of ideas being examined by Washington policymakers to help struggling media outlets and unemployed journalists, or to expand public media / “public interest” content and regulation. Among the major issues explored in our filing:

• First Amendment concerns implicated by government subsidies;
• The pitfalls of imposing new “public interest” obligations on media operators;
• How advertising restrictions could harm the provision of media and news;
• Taxes, fees and other regulations to be avoided;
• The limited role in reform that public media subsidies can play; and
• Positive steps government could take.

We note that as “With many operators struggling to cope with intensifying competition, digitization, declining advertising budgets, and fragmenting audiences, some pundits and policymakers are wondering what the ‘future of media’ entails. The answer: Nobody knows.”  While this uncertainty has put concerned policymakers at the ready to “help” the press, we warn that: “There is great danger in rash government intervention.” Instead, policymakers should be “careful to not inhibit potentially advantageous marketplace developments, even if some are highly disruptive.” Marketplace meddling, or government attempts to tinker with private media business models in the hopes that something new and better can be created, are misguided. Moreover, “Our constitutional traditions warn against it, history suggests it would be unwise, and practical impediments render such meddling largely unworkable, anyway.”

We address several specific proposals to use public coffers to prop up the media—such as media vouchers, taxing broadcast spectrum, and expanding postal subsidies, among others. They believe that most of these stand on shaky ground, especially as they relate to press independence; First Amendment values; political strings, pressure and meddling; taxpayer promotion of failed models; and taxpayer-compelled funding of unwanted or offensive content.

The PFF comments also focus on the integral role advertising plays in supporting free media: “Advertising has been the hidden, unappreciated benefactor that has sustained a free press historically and policymakers should understand that an attack on advertising is tantamount to an attack on media itself.” Accordingly, if Washington wages a war on advertising, media providers will suffer greatly.

We examine non-commercial media options, too. Though limited support can work at the margins, “policymakers should not view public media as a substitute for private media operations.” If the government truly wants to help ailing media outlets and journalism, policymakers could relax media ownership regulations; allow non-profit status for media enterprises; and provide far greater transparency into its own affairs.

We conclude that the Commission should ignore sky-is-falling rhetoric and avoid “destroy[ing] the important wall between State and Press.”  Instead of imposing an industrial policy on the press, we urge policymakers to exercise patience and let creative destruction in the media marketplace play out.

While working on our FCC filing, we released a series of essays over the last month entitled “The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media” (see Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5).You can find all those papers, our big filing, and other related materials on this new PFF page dedicated to “Future of Media” issues.

Also, on May 20th, PFF will host an event covering these and competing ideas, called “Can Government Help Save the Press?” That event will be keynoted by the FCC’s Ellen Goodman.  RSVP here today. Comments of Progress and Freedom Foundation in FCC Future of Media Proceeding (GN Docket No 10-25) http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, Progress Snaphot 6.1

Stephanie Clifford of the  New York Times posted a very interesting article this week summarizing a recent “on-the-record chat” the Times staff had with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chairman Jon Leibowitz and FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection chief David Vladeck.  The interview [discussed by Braden here] is profoundly important in that it reveals an alarming disconnect regarding the relationship between “privacy” regulation and the future of media, which were the subjects of their discussion with Times staff.  Namely, Leibowitz and Vladeck apparently fail to appreciate how the delicate balance between commercial advertising and journalism is at risk precisely because of the sort of regulations they apparently are ready to adopt.  Because the value of online advertising depends on data about its effectiveness and consumers’ likely interests, and because advertising is indispensable to funding media, what’s ultimately at stake here is nothing short of the future of press freedom.

The “Day of Reckoning” Is Upon Us

Leibowitz and Vladeck spend the first half of The Times interview wringing their hands about “privacy policies,” the declarations made by websites and advertising networks about their data collection and use practices (for which the FTC can and must hold them accountable).  But the two feel that privacy policies don’t adequately inform consumers.  Chairman Leibowitz claims that online companies “haven’t given consumers effective notice, so they can make effective choices.”  And Mr. Vladeck states that advise-and-consent models “depended on the fiction that people were meaningfully giving consent.” But he and the FTC seem ready to abandon the notice and choice model because the “literature is clear” that few people read privacy policies, Vladeck told the Times.  He and Leibowitz continue:

“Philosophically, we wonder if we’re moving to a post-disclosure era and what that would look like,” Mr. Vladeck said. “What’s the substitute for it?” He said the commission was still looking into the issue, but it hoped to have an answer by June or July, when it plans to publish a report on the subject. Mr. Leibowitz gave a hint as to what might be included: “I have a sense, and it’s still amorphous, that we might head toward opt-in,” Mr. Leibowitz said.

This clearly foreshadows the regulatory endgame we have long suspected was coming.  When the FTC released its “Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising” eleven months ago, we asked: “What’s the Harm & Where Are We Heading?”  Their answers to both questions have become clearer with each new calculated comment—all apparently intended to slowly “turn up the heat” on the advertising industry so that the proverbial frog will stay in the pot until the water finally boils.  Leibowitz’s FTC has simply dodged the “harm” question with a four-part strategy:

1. Cobble together a “record” full of sympathy-evoking anecdotes submitted by advocates of regulation in comments and the FTC’s ongoing “Exploring Privacy” Roundtables;
2. Let the most extreme Chicken Littles fulminate about the grand conspiracy of “neuromarketing manipulation” and the like (and sometimes even shout down FTC staff in panel discussions) in order to redefine the “reasonable center” of the debate;
3. Define-down “harm” as purely a matter of “consumer expectations” or consumers’ “dignity interests” (whatever that vague and infinitely elastic term means); and
4. Attack the effectiveness of “consent” itself by suggesting that consumers cannot be trusted to understand privacy policies or be expected to make any effort to protect their own privacy.

Conveniently, this strategy leads right back to the “day of reckoning” Chairman Leibowitz threatened was coming last February: We are heading precisely where he told us we would be—to full-on, opt-in regulation.  The writing on the wall becomes more apparent every day: Leibowitz set out to bring online advertising to heel even before becoming Chairman, and his Commission is reprising almost precisely the same approach that led to the passage of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) of 1998: building a case for new authority, dismissing industry self-regulation as ineffective, and finally presenting a report to Congress intended to produce a rapid legislative response.  After the FTC presented its report on the need for regulation in congressional testimony in June 1998, it took Congress just four months to pass COPPA—and much of that time was consumed by the summer recess.  In short, Leibowitz is mounting a carefully choreographed campaign for increased regulation.

The only real question is whether Leibowitz will somehow try to use the FTC’s existing authority over “unfair or deceptive” trade practices or wait for expanded authority from Congress.  While most observers typically assume that such expanded authority would come in the form of a privacy-specific bill—be it a broad “baseline” privacy bill or one specifically focused on online data collection for advertising purposes—the authority Leibowitz yearns for could just as easily come in the form of increased rulemaking authority as part of a broader bill that allows the FTC to preemptively regulate practices that are not deceptive but merely deemed “unfair.”

This would take the agency “ Back to the Future”—to the late 1970s, when the agency reached the height of its efforts to regulate purely on “unfairness” grounds by trying to ban advertising to children.  The agency’s behavior earned it the moniker “National Nanny” from the Washington Post, hardly a bastion of regulatory skepticism.[1] That outpouring of popular resentment caused a heavily Democratic Congress to cut-off the Democratic-led agency’s regular funding and prohibit it from regulating advertising merely on the grounds of “unfairness.”  In essence, they told the agency to “go back to its knitting” and focus on protecting consumers from demonstrated harms.^[2] Duly chastened (and actually shut down for several days), the FTC formulated a meaningful legal standard for “unfairness,” which Congress codified in 1994: for a practice to be unfair, the injury it causes must be (1) substantial, (2) without offsetting benefits, and (3) one that consumers cannot reasonably avoid.

Under this statutory standard, as FTC Commissioner Thomas Rosch has argued, the commission must carefully consider:

[the] legitimate pro-consumer and pro-competitive benefits that result from [targeted advertising]. Absent hard data weighing these benefits against the limited “invasion of privacy interests” involved, it would seem difficult to conclude that treating that practice as an actionable violation of the “unfairness” prong of Section 5 will pass muster.[3]

So Leibowitz and Vladeck either need to get serious about weighing the costs and benefits of targeted advertising—or, in the absence of such actually measuring these trade-offs, get Congress to give them the authority to regulate.  But one thing is clear from their past statements: they are in a hurry to do  something. As Vladeck told The Times last August, “There is a sense of urgency around here… Consumers, I don’t think are sufficiently protected under the current regime.”  Apparently, the case is closed in their minds.

“Left Hand, Meet Right Hand”

The second half of the  Times interview concerns the future of news. Chairman Leibowitz is not optimistic:

“There are some areas where you clearly see positive creative destruction,” Mr. Leibowitz said, giving the example of travel agents who were replaced by Orbitz and other online-booking systems. The news, he said, was not one of those. “When you’re dealing with something as critical as news is to a democracy, you need to ensure, certainly, that it’s independent, but also that it’s vibrant going forward,” he said. Areas like investigative reporting, foreign and domestic bureaus, and state-house reporting, he said, would likely falter under blog operations because of “economies of scale.”

He said he wasn’t sure what the solution was, but threw out a few ideas discussed at the conference: maybe special tax treatment for newspapers, a Corporation for Public Broadcasting-like fund, or for the newspaper industry to charge fees for the re-use of its content, similar to the model that the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers uses. [emphasis added]

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, haven’t you forgotten about the solution that has powered private media for a few centuries in this country?  You know— advertising!  Indeed, what’s stunning about these comments is the complete disconnect with what Leibowitz and Vladeck said earlier in the interview.  It certainly may be the case that they said more on the subject than what The Times has reported, but given their escalating rhetoric, it seems likely that significantly increased FTC regulation is on the horizon.  And, yet, as Chairman Leibowitz marches us into this brave new world of regulating Internet media through their key funding source, he and Mr. Vladeck seem to have little appreciation of the vital role played by advertising in sustaining a truly free and vibrant press.

An Attack on Advertising Is an Attack on Media Itself

Let’s step back and revisit Media Economics 101.  Almost every serious scholar in the field acknowledges this truism: Advertising cross-subsidizes media platforms and the creation of valuable information—especially news.  “Advertising is the mother’s milk of all the mass media,”  Wall Street Journal technology columnist Walt Mossberg has noted.  Similarly, Harold L. Vogel, author of Entertainment Industry Economics, the leading text in the field, has noted, “Advertising is the key common ingredient in the tactics and strategies of all entertainment and media company business models.  Indeed, it might further be said that advertising has substantively subsidized the production and delivery of news and entertainment throughout the last century.”[4] Mossberg agrees and notes, “Without ads, most editorial products and other programming would be either unavailable or prohibitively expensive.”

The reason for the indispensability of advertising is simple: Information (including news and other forms of “content”) has “public good” characteristics that make it is very difficult (and occasionally impossible) for information-publishers to recoup their investments.  Simply put, they quite literally lack pricing power: Whatever they charge, someone else will charge less for a close substitute, inevitably leading to “free” distribution of the content, even though the content is anything but free to produce.  Advertising is the one business model that has traditionally saved the day by rewarding publishers for attracting the attention of an audience.

Which raises another under-appreciated point: Private advertising promotes press independence.  “Newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and many websites all receive their primary income from advertising,” notes William F. Arens, author of  Contemporary Advertising, another leading textbook in the field. “This facilitates freedom of the press and promotes more complete information” he concludes.[5] Why?  Because, contrary to what some critics claim, advertising and marketing help keep private media providers independent of the need for taxpayer subsidies or private patrons.  This begs an even more profound question: If not advertising, then what else?

A “Public Option” for the Press?

What’s most troubling about Chairman Leibowitz’s comments to the Times is that he has apparently found his alternative to advertising: a “public option” for the press! He mentions special tax treatment for newspapers or a new CPB-like fund (don’t we already have one?) as two possibilities.  That certainly will be music to the ears of radical, pro-regulatory activist groups like the ironically-named “Free Press,” which wants to see a massive “public works” program for the media sector.

Free Press recently filed comments with the FTC in the agency’s recent workshop, “Can Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” and proposed a far-reaching industrial policy for “saving the news.”  They call for over $50 billion in subsidies for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other bureaucracies, a “journalism jobs program” for that would be part of AmeriCorps, a variety of new tax incentives for struggling media operations or individuals who support favored institutions, and an assortment of government incentives to encourage local ownership and media divestiture (by handing over control to smaller operators or minority-owned groups).  Ironically, “Free Press” has also floated the concept of “a small tax on advertising” as one way to pay for a press bailout.

The organization’s founder Robert W. McChesney, the prolific neo-Marxist media scholar, penned an essay with John Nichols of The Nation last year, claiming that saving journalism essentially requires that media become an appendage of the State.  Although advertising has supported journalism as a “public good” for centuries, the only way they can conceive to provide a public good is to socialize its means of production.  Thus, journalism, like education and national defense, requires constant government oversight and support: “A moment has arrived at which we must recognize the need to invest tax dollars to create and maintain news gathering, reporting and writing with the purpose of informing all our citizens.”  They ask us to consider the $60 billion in government spending they propose as a “free press ‘infrastructure project,’” which would “keep the press system alive.”

Some in Congress seem willing to listen.  The Senate has already held hearings about the future of journalism.  And Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) recently introduced what he has called the “Newspaper Revitalization Act,” which would allow newspapers to become nonprofit organizations in an effort to help them stay afloat.  Importantly, however, the bill would also disallow political endorsements on newspaper editorial pages—which, like campaign finance restrictions, would be a boon for incumbent politicians.  That bill should serve as fair warning to journalists about the sort of strings lawmakers will attach to press-welfare efforts going forward.  What other “golden shackles” might come with media subsidies?

To be clear, Chairman Leibowitz hasn’t called for a complete press takeover along the lines of the Free Press plan.  Yet, he hasn’t answered a key question in this debate: Who pays for news?  He appears ready to endorse a bold new regulatory scheme for the Internet and online media that, in the name of “protecting privacy” would put at risk the one traditionally successful method of supporting private media operations—advertising.  As the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism noted in its latest State of the News Media report, “The problem facing American journalism is not fundamentally an audience problem or a credibility problem.  It is a revenue problem—the decoupling… of advertising from news.”  There’s probably no way policymakers can stop this process, nor should they try.  But they shouldn’t be creating new obstacles to the survival of traditional media creators, either.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what Chairman Leibowitz’s new regulatory scheme would do.  The revenue “delta” between “smart” advertising (tailored to consumers’ likely interests and measured for effectiveness in producing clicks, purchases, etc.) and “dumb advertising” (based purely on surrounding keywords or demographics of users presumed to visit the site) is difficult to measure but potentially enormous—even 10 times as great for some sites.[6] The difference between opt-in and opt-out could be nearly as dramatic, because it’s difficult to get consumers to opt-in for anything, especially for small players—which means that opt-in regulation could, perversely, force consolidation in the online advertising and content markets.  If the FTC cares about its statutory responsibility to safeguard competition, they should take this dynamic seriously and be hyper-cautious about heavy-handed mandates that could derail smarter advertising.

Finally, to be fair, in his interview, the Chairman also suggests the newspaper industry might want to find new way “to charge fees for the re-use of its content.”  We’re certainly not opposed to the notion and think that, if it could somehow be made to work (especially by removing antitrust obstacles), it could part of a diverse revenue mix for digital journalism.  But, there’s the rub.  Micropayments inevitably face the problem of “mental transaction costs”  that likely swamp the perceived value of most content and, like pay-walls, have generally worked only in media environments characterized by a scarcity of providers and a uniqueness of a sufficiently valuable product.  These cold, hard economic realities are why advertising remains indispensable.

The Principled Alternative to Regulation

Convinced that privacy policies simply don’t work, Leibowitz and Vladeck are asking what a “post-disclosure era” would look like.  We appreciate the continued sensitivities expressed by certain groups and individuals about online privacy and data use more generally.  But there is another way forward.  We have proposed the following “5-E” layered approach to concerns about online privacy, focusing on restraining government access to data as a clear harm, rather than crippling the private sector uses of data that directly benefit consumers:

1. Erect a higher “Wall of Separation between Web and State” by increasing Americans’ protection from government access to their personal data—thus bringing the Fourth Amendment into the Digital Age.
2. Educate users about privacy risks and data management in general as well as specific practices and policies for safer computing.
3. Empower users to implement their privacy preferences in specific contexts as easily as possible.
4. Enhance self-regulation by industry sectors and companies to integrate with user education and empowerment.
5. Enforce existing laws against unfair and deceptive trade practices as well as state privacy tort laws.

Such a layered approach would not only be a “less restrictive” alternative to top-down, one-size-fits-all government regulation, but also potentially more effective in key respects than government data use/collection mandates.  In an ideal world, adults would be fully empowered to tailor privacy decisions, like speech decisions, to their own values and preferences (“household standards”).  Consumers would have (1) the information necessary to make informed decisions and (2) the tools and methods necessary to act upon that information. Importantly, those tools and methods would give them the ability to block the things they don’t like—annoying ads or the collection of data about them, as well as objectionable content—while also helping them find the information and content they desire.

But of course, the devil’s in the details.  Leibowitz and Vladeck would set the bar so high as to what constitutes “effective” consumer choice that current privacy policies necessarily fail their test—if only because most users don’t care enough to make the “right” privacy choices.  Privacy policies, even if read by relatively few consumers, nonetheless allow privacy advocates, journalists and watchdog-bloggers to scrutinize what companies say they’re doing—promises to which the FTC should hold companies stringently.  That’s clearly not good enough for Leibowitz and Vladeck, who want to give up on “notice and choice” and move on to “opt-in” mandates.  But why not first try to make “notice” more effective?  The advertising industry is currently developing standardized interfaces that could communicate key information about privacy practices in a single icon, label or other easily-digested “consumer touch point.”

More radically, why focus on tinkering with consumer interfaces, when standardized data disclosure formats like the Protocol for Privacy Preferences (P3P) could distill legalistic privacy policies into “machine-readable” code?  Such disclosures could provide a powerful form of “notice” that the ordinary consumer could “use”: simply setting their own privacy preferences in a browser tool that automatically implements those preferences by blocking tracking that users object to.  Such a privacy disclosure format could also allow the FTC to automate enforcement of its existing authority to punish unfair or deceptive trade practices.

Conclusion

And so we return to the question the FTC asked in its recent workshop, “Can Journalism Survive the Internet Age?”  Answer: Not if the FTC kills the golden goose that lays the golden eggs through onerous advertising regulations and data controls in the name of “privacy.”  Chairman Leibowitz and Bureau Chief Vladeck shouldn’t foreclose the possibility that advertising can play a central role in the future of a free press in the Digital Age—just as it has done historically in the United States.  Indeed, they would be wise to remember that advertising has always been with us.  As the Supreme Court noted in its 1996 decision, 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island.

Advertising has been a part of our culture throughout our history. Even in colonial days, the public relied on “commercial speech” for vital information about the market. Early newspapers displayed advertisements for goods and services on their front pages, and town criers called out prices in public squares. Indeed, commercial messages played such a central role in public life prior to the founding that Benjamin Franklin authored his early defense of a free press in support of his decision to print, of all things, an advertisement for voyages to Barbados.[7]

Of course, for advertising to continue to play the role as sustainer of the press, it must be allowed to evolve.  Media operators—large and small alike—must be allowed to craft new strategies, some of which may require data collection and marketing practices that will make some privacy-sensitive users uncomfortable, but will also ensure that the goose keeps on laying golden eggs for them and everyone else.

While Chairman Leibowitz may decry the creative destruction at work in the news sector and information industries today, that shakeup will continue and, no doubt, be painful for incumbent players.  Advertising alone may not “save the day” for media as it has in the past, but it will likely remain essential to sustaining private media platforms and providers going forward— if federal policymakers allow it.  The alternative—massive government intervention into the news and media sectors—is too horrifying to think about.

[1] Washington Post, March 1, 1978.

[2] Congress terminated the FTC’s efforts to prohibit advertising to children, and barred the agency from issuing any advertising regulation predicated solely on unfairness for three years.  FTC Improvements Act, Pub. L. No. 96-252, § 11 (May 1980).  See generally J. Howard Beales, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, The FTC’s Use of Unfairness Authority: Its Rise, Fall, and Resurrection, www.ftc.gov/speeches/beales/unfair0603.shtm.

[3] Thomas Rosch, Some Reflections on the Future of the Internet: Net Neutrality, Online Behavioral Advertising, and Health Information Technology, Remarks at U.S. Chamber of Commerce Telecommunications & E-Commerce Committee Fall Meeting, October 26, 2009, 13, www.ftc.gov/speeches/rosch/091026chamber.pdf.

[4] Harold L. Vogel, Entertainment Industry Economics (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 7th Edition, 2007), at 46.

[5] William F. Arens, Contemporary Advertising (McGraw-Hill Irwin, 10^th Ed., 2006) at 50.

[6] See Berin Szoka & Mark Adams, The Benefits of Online Advertising & Costs of Privacy Regulation, PFF Working Paper, Nov. 8, 2009, www.scribd.com/doc/22445754/Benefits-of-Online-Advertising-Paper.

[7] 517 U.S. 484, 495 (1996), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1140.ZO.html

______________________________

Related PFF Publications

• Privacy Trade-Offs: How Further Regulation Could Diminish Consumer Choice, Raise Prices, Quash Digital Innovation & Curtail Free Speech, Berin Szoka, Comments to the Federal Trade Commission “Exploring Privacy” Roundtable, November 10, 2009.
• Online Advertising & User Privacy: Principles to Guide the Debate, Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer, Progress Snapshot 4.19, Sept. 2008.
• Targeted Online Advertising: What’s the Harm & Where Are We Heading?, Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer, Progress on Point 16.2, April 2009.
• Privacy Polls v. Real-World Trade-Offs, Berin Szoka, Progress Snapshot 5.10, Oct. 2009.
• The Benefits of Online Advertising & Costs of Privacy Regulation, Berin Szoka & Mark Adams, PFF Working Paper, Nov. 8, 2009.
• Benefits of Online Advertising, Berin Szoka, Mark Adams, Howard Beales, Thomas Lenard & Jules Polonetsky, PFF Capitol Briefing, July 2009.
• Public Option for Press Should Get the Red Pen, Adam Thierer, The Daily Caller, Jan. 12, 2010.

With the advent of new technology, newspapers are being threatened.  Many are expected to go out of business, and the rest will have to change substantially.  Many observers fear that journalism will become too driven by speed, and that judgment and deliberation will be lost.  Others said that news reporting would be devalued and only those providing analysis and opinion would survivie.  Worst of all, worries that the new technology will lead to a monopoly over information.

A description of the dire situation faced by newspapers today as they face the Internet?  No.  These are the concerns expressed in the 1840s as the telegraph transformed the news business.   This week’s Economist tells the story of how Samuel Morse’s invention was thought to signal the death knell for newspapers, and to thoughtful journalism.

As it turned out, the news business was tranformed.   But not in the ways many feared.   With faster communications, the quality of news, and of the information Americans received, improved.  Newspapers had to adapt, but survived and even prospered.  And no one ever created a monopoly over information.

 Good reading.

We’ve talked here before about the dangers of a government-subsidized press as a way of “saving journalism.” But I don’t think I’ve ever read anything quite as eloquent on the issue as Seth Lipsky’s editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal entitled “All the News That’s Fit to Subsidize.”  Mr. Lipsky is a member of the adjunct faculty at the Columbia Journalism School. In his essay today, he warns of the very real slippery slope associated with proposal to have government step in and somehow bailout newspapers as they find themselves in a time of crisis.Specifically, Mr. Lipsky addressees a new report (“The Reconstruction of American Journalism“) by Leonard Downie (former executive editor of the Washington Post) and co-author Michael Schudson (also of Columbia Journalism School), in which the authors call for a mixture of legal and regulatory changes as well as government subsidies to help prop up failing news operations.

Mr. Lipsky argues that they have “stepped onto an exceptionally slippery slope”:

I take no comfort from the analogy the authors of this report draw with government funding for the arts. In New York City, there came a time when the leaders the voters entrusted with their tax money concluded that what was being done with it in the arts was so abhorrent they tried to stop it. This happened in 1999, when Mayor Rudy Giuliani confronted the Brooklyn Museum over its display of a depiction of the Madonna that had been splattered with elephant dung. A federal court wouldn’t let the city stop funding the museum. […] Even if one could get around this sort of thing, I’ve come to the view that the real protection of press freedom is in the idea of private property. Press freedom in Soviet Russia was lost precisely on this issue when, as American journalist John Reed told the story in his famous book, “Ten Days that Shook the World,” a proposal was put on the table to restore the press freedom that had been suspended on the first day of the Bolshevik revolution. Lenin shouted it down with a diatribe about how that would mean restoring to capitalists privately owned printing equipment, paper supplies and ink. I don’t mean to suggest, in any way, that Mr. Downie is a Bolshevik. I do mean to suggest that the best strategy to strengthen the press would be to maximize protection of the right to private property—and the right to competition. Subsidies are the enemy of competition…

Amen brother.  Read the whole thing.

Google Trends for websites reveals all kinds of fascinating insights into the way technology is reshaping the world. Among them is the fact that the HuffingtonPost.com has matured from a scruffy group blog into a new media powerhouse to rival the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post:

Note that the convergence of these three sites has happened both because HuffPo has doubled its audience and because the audience for the WashingtonPost.com has shrunk by half.  While WSJ.com’s audience has returned to roughly its pre-election level, the decline of NYTimes.com suggests that the Internet really is splintering audiences and bringing the giants of news media like the “Gray Lady” down from their once unassailable heights:

Two great articles today about the dangers of government getting too involved in the newspaper business as the industry experiences serious marketplace difficulties. Slate’s Jack Shafer (“Saving Newspapers From Their Saviors“) and Mark Hopkins of Silicon Angle (“Obama Administration ‘Open’ to State Run Newspapers“) both raise concerns about President Obama’s recent comments hinting that he is open to legislation that might grant struggling news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as nonprofit businesses.

In a piece for the City Journal back in March entitled “Socializing Media in Order to Save It,” I discussed the specific proposal in question, Senator Benjamin L. Cardin’s (D-MD) bill, S. 673, the “Newspaper Revitalization Act,” which would allow newspapers to become nonprofit organizations in an effort to help them stay afloat. Importantly, however, the measure would also disallow political endorsements on their editorial pages as part of the deal.  In my essay, I pointed out how “If the FCC received grant-making authority to dole out subsidies to media operators… it’s hard to imagine how journalists won’t be expected to surrender something in exchange.”  And that something would be their journalistic independence.

Shafer and Hopkins raise similar concerns in their essays.  Hopkins shares my concern about undue government influence as a result of such a potential legislative quid pro quo:

[I]sn’t journalism supposed to be the lauded and independent “Fourth Estate,” free of bias and loyalty to any governmental institution? Obviously, bias is pervasive in the old Heritage Media, but assigning journalism governmental overlords will almost ensure that journalistic independence will end. A bailout is the only hope of continued existence for the majority of newspapers, since almost without exception they’re too proud or ignorant to fundamentally change the way their organizations operate to adapt to the new media ecosystem. If one examines the extent to which the government has structured their relationships with the large banking institutions and the automakers, it isn’t a great leap of logic to see how the interference will play out with newspapers (and who would be more aware of that than the journalists that have covered those stories?).

Indeed, the fact that the Cardin bill already proposes a prohibition on political editorializing doesn’t bode well for what the future might hold should government ride in to rescue some struggling papers.  What else might newspapers have to entertain?  Free ads for politicians? A Fairness Doctrine or mandatory right of reply for printed editorials? Censorship for hard-hitting political satire or comics?  Who knows, but it is impossible for me to believe that lawmakers won’t ask for something in return for bailing out news outlets.

Meanwhile, Slate’s Shafer does a nice job itemizing concerns raised by a wide variety of folks in the newspaper industry itself and he also notes how such media marketplace meddling could distort the emerging news playing field in dangerous ways:

The government’s attempt to prop up newspapers with rewrites of the tax code or Sarkozy-esque direct subsidies of government advertising and free subscriptions for young people interferes with the already-in-progress transition from print to digital news delivery that’s been accelerating for the past 15 years—or longer. Propping up troubled papers has a cost. It weakens the enterprises that are rising from below to compete with them to deliver advertising and, yes, deliver news. I can think of no better way to hinder the rise of such Web sensations as Politico and Talking Points Memo than rewriting the rules to benefit newspapers.

Great point.  Any way you cut it, federal meddling with the news business — even in the name of saving some traditional journalistic outlets — will likely have serious unintended consequences in the long run.  President Obama should just say no to newspaper bailouts.

Polish designer Jacek Utko acknowledged that, in the long-run, nothing can save the newspaper as a print medium, but makes a pretty good case newspapers’ ability to  stay afloat while figuring out how to make the transition to digital media depends heavily on shaking up the graphic design and layout of papers.

http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf If nothing else, this should remind us all that innovation and entrepreneurship aren’t just about technical improvements or better business savvy, but aesthetics, too! The art of commercial culture is like the oxygen we breath: all around us but something we scarcely notice.

I’ve spent a lot of time here deconstructing and criticizing the proposals set forth by the Free Press, the radical media “reformista” group founded by the prolific Marxist media theorist Robert McChesney.  I have been trying to shine more light on their proposals and activities because I believe they are antithetical to freedom of speech and a free society.  That’s because, as media scholar Ben Compaine has noted, “What the hard core reformistas really want, it seems, is not diversity or an open debate but a media that promotes their own vision of society and the world.”  That’s exactly right and, more specifically, as I argued in my 2005 Media Myths book, the media reformistas want to impose this control by taking the fantasy that “the public owns the [broadcast] airwaves” and extending it to ALL media platforms and outlets.  In other words, McChesney and the Free Press want an UnFree Press.  To cast things in neo-Marxist terms that they could appreciate, they want to take control of the information means of production.  And it begins, McChesney argues, by all of us having to give up this “sort of religious attachment to the idea of a ‘free-press'” from which we all suffer.

Some people accuse me of “red-baiting” or “McCarthyite” tactics when I use the “M-word” (Marxism) or the “S-Word” (socialism) to describe McChesney, the Free Press, and the movement they have spawned.  But these are labels with real meaning and ones that McChesney himself embraces in his work. In his 1999 book Rich Media, Poor Media, he says that “Media reform cannot win without widespread support and such support needs to be organized as part of a broad anti-corporate, pro-democracy movement.” He casts everything in “social justice” terms and speaks of the need “to rip the veil off [corporate] power, and to work so that social decision making and power may be made as enlightened and as egalitarian as possible.”  What exactly would all that mean in practice for media? In his 2002 book Our Media, Not Theirs: The Democratic Struggle against Corporate Media with John Nichols of The Nation, McChesney argues that media reform efforts must begin with “the need to promote an understanding of the urgency to assert public control over the media.” They go on to state that, “Our claim is simply that the media system produces vastly less of quality than it would if corporate and commercial pressures were lessened.”

If you want additional proof of his intentions, then I encourage you to read this lengthy interview with McChesney that appears in the new edition of The Bullet, an online newsletter produced by the Canada-based “Socialist Project.”  (If you ask me, there’s something strangely appropriate about a socialist newsletter named “The Bullet” in light of the millions of people who died while living under socialist tyranny!)  Anyway, let’s ignore that and focus on what neo-Marxist media reform entails according to McChesney.  Because never before has he laid his cards on the table as clearly as he does in this interview.

The “Struggle” for “Media Democracy”

In the interview, as in all his work, McChesney speaks repeatedly about the Marxist concept of “struggles,” which  usually refers to class struggles and worker struggles. But McChesney’s work focuses on “media democracy struggles” as part of an overall struggle for “social justice.”  He says:

Instead of waiting for the revolution to happen, we learned that unless you make significant changes in the media, it will be vastly more difficult to have a revolution. While the media is not the single most important issue in the world, it is one of the core issues that any successful Left project needs to integrate into its strategic program.

In other words, media reform is part of The Big Struggle. The Big Struggle is the effort to overthrow free-market capitalism. And the struggle for “media democracy” is crucial to that, you see, because we are all just pawns whose minds are being manipulated by some far-off corporate puppet-masters in New York and L.A., who are, of course, just feeding us nothing but pro-capitalist propaganda 24/7.  Thus, we have to burn the village to save it, McChesney says:

Many say that corporate journalism, based on profit maximization, best serves a free and democratic society. The position is incorrect. The connection of capitalism to journalism, which has always been fraught with problems, has always been unstable. The relationship between capitalism, journalism, and democracy has never been a sure thing. In the U.S, the notion that capitalism is the natural steward of journalism and should be left alone to provide for a free and self-governing society refers to a period that began during the 19th century. This period ended when owners realized they could make a lot of money by turning journalism into big business. Corporations are not in a position to generate and pay for quality journalism. The news is not a commercial product. It is a public good, necessary for a self-governing society.

In other words, down with private media!  McChesney basically declares that the entire history of private media in America to be one gigantic case of market failure and must be abandoned.

Subsidies to “Save Journalism”

But what’s going to replace private media once McChesney and his media reformistas have moved the regulatory wrecking ball in?  In a nutshell, he wants massive state subsidization of the media:

Once we accept this [the supposed “public goods” nature of all media], we can talk about the kind of media policies and subsidies we want. What are the best ones? How should they be implemented? We are now trying to answer those questions and organize around them.

Herein lies one of the great ironies of McChesney’s work: He spends a great deal of time arguing that the entire history of American media has basically been one big government-created construct (monopolies, entry barriers, subsidies, etc), only to turn around and advocate massive state intervention and subsidies as a solution!  McChesney plays revisionist historian and even tries to paint Jefferson and Madison as media socialists because postal rates from the founding period on down have been reduced for print media mailings. Somehow, McChesney reads this to mean that “the U.S. state has always played a direct and indirect role in facilitating and legitimizing the corporate media system.”  Which is rubbish. The idea that postal subsidies have created “the corporate media system” is preposterous. McChesney is on stronger ground in arguing the state has occasionally helped foster and then protect monopolies, but that is a function of the very “public utility” regulatory regime that McChesney favors! [More on this point down below.]

Meanwhile, in true Rahm Emanual-ian “you-never-want-a-crisis-to-go-to-waste” fashion, the Free Press has started a new project to “Save the News” and move America “Toward a National Journalism Strategy” by endorsing a lot of the same regulations, subsidies, and tax credits that McChesney and John Nichols recently advocated in their Nation magazine essay, “The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers.” As I noted in my City Journal response to that essay back in March, you can file this all under “socializing media in order to save it,” complete with Soviet-style 5-year plans dictated by some faceless elite inside a Beltway bureaucracy. Oh, and there’s the little matter of $60 billion price tag that taxpayers will be left footing.  (But hey, what’s another $60 billion these days?)  Even Free Press favorite Dan Rather is on board with his plan to have President Obama give us “The News America Needs” by “form[ing] a commission to address the perilous state of America’s news media.”  Perhaps once the car commission folks get done driving the U.S. auto industry into the ground they can shift gears, so to speak, and see what they can do to steer journalism onto a supposedly better path.

Down with Advertising

If McChesney and Free Press don’t succeed in destroying private media with their regulatory plans, there’s always Plan B… bleed free market media operators and Internet companies dry by taking away their mother’s milk, advertising.  McChesney argues that “the Internet is increasingly hyper-commercialized” and it is “open[ing] our entire lives to 24/7 injections of advertising messages.”  Thus, wouldn’t you know it, yet another “struggle” is in order!

We need to organize against hyper-commercialism. This is an easy-sell for the Left. We understand that advertising is not something done by all people equally, but rather, done by a very small group of people working on behalf of multinational corporations. Advertising is commercial propaganda…  Advertising is the voice of capital. We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it, and perhaps even eliminate it. The fight against hyper-commercialism becomes especially pronounced in the era of digital communications.  […] There is a fundamental crisis when you are in a world that is entirely commercial, in terms of the integrity of speech and thought. We are at the tipping point and we need to struggle directly against it.

Struggle, struggle, struggle!

Of course, McChesney will have plenty of allies in this particular struggle as Washington continues to wage a war against advertising of all sorts. Of course, there really is no free lunch in this world and something will have to pay for serious news-gathering (and entertainment, for that matter). Of course, McChesney and his Free Press allies will, no doubt, respond that still more subsidies are in order!  There is, apparently, always someone else in their world to whom the buck can be passed.  [But I wonder: Who would be left to pay all the taxes needed to support public media if McChesney’s “struggle” to overthrow The Man succeeds??]

Net neutrality & Infrastructure Nationalization

And don’t for one minute think that McChesney and Free Press are only out for the old media operators.  They’re out for private broadband and Internet players as well.

When speaking about the centrality of Net neutrality regulation to this “struggle” and coming “revolution,” McChesney does a nice job reminding some of us why we have been so concerned about politicizing a debate over network engineering when he says: “What we want to have in the U.S. and in every society is an Internet that is not private property, but a public utility.”  Ah yes, because public utilities have been soooo efficient and innovative in other contexts!  Please.

In advocating increased regulation or state-ownership of communications networks or broadband companies and connections, McChesney seems utterly oblivious to the fact that the very state power he advocates on one hand is the same state power that private parties can corrupt on the other.  He says, for example, that “Our struggle to make the Internet into a public utility conflicts with the interests of telephone and cable firms,” because “Their power rests upon their ability to successfully buy off politicians.”  How does he not see the contradiction?  He’s certainly right to fear that public officials can be co-opted by private interests. (Read up on your public choice theory, buddy!)  But I suppose McChesney believes that his perfect socialist state will be immune to these pressures because it will be run by enlightened, public-minded philosopher kings… you know… like himself.  But that’s nonsense.  See my old essay on the fantasy of “Building a Better Bureaucrat” or Tim Lee’s old essay on “Real Regulators” for more details on why it never works out that way in practice. Or, better yet, since I know he would never read anything I penned on the subject, I encourage McChesney to take a hard look at the definitive 2-volume Economics of Regulation by a far more experienced progressive Democrat, Professor Alfred E. Kahn. In Kahn’s masterwork, you will find the following words of wisdom (and caution) from someone who spent a lifetime studying these issues:

When a commission is responsible for the performance of an industry, it is under never completely escapable pressure to protect the health of the companies it regulates, to assure a desirable performance by relying on those monopolistic chosen instruments and its own controls rather than on the unplanned and unplannable forces of competition. […] Responsible for the continued provision and improvement of service, [the regulatory commission] comes increasingly and understandably to identify the interest of the public with that of the existing companies on whom it must rely to deliver goods.

McChesney makes one final point about Net neutrality that is worth highlighting. When asked whether he had any reservations about making short-term alliances with new media companies or Internet operators such as Google, eBay, Amazon, and Microsoft in the push for Net neutrality regulations, McChesney says: “Absolutely.. But I’ve learned, by participating in over a decade of specific media struggles, that when you are in the short-term and you are fighting to win, sometimes you make tactical alliances.” Nonetheless, he notes, ” the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.” And, so, the ends justify the means in terms of striking short-term alliances with those evil, blood-sucking capitalists.  I hope the folks at Google, eBay, Amazon, and Microsoft are reading McChesney’s radical thinking on communications policy and realize that he and his Free Press reformistas will eventually turn their sights on them just as soon as they are finished socializing the infrastructure layer of the Internet.

Conclusion: Against Media Tyranny

In a very strange sense, I admire Robert McChesney.  He is a man of principle.  And he isn’t ashamed to advocate his principles publicly (whereas some of his Free Press disciples do a very nice job disguising their true intentions).

That being said, McChesney’s principles are dangerous ones. Very dangerous.  They are antithetical to a free society, freedom of speech, and technological progress.  At its core, as I noted in my old essay, “Your Soapbox is My Soapbox,” the repugnant morality behind this “media access” movement is that nothing is truly yours.  “Media democracy” means everything is up for grabs.  Here’s how I put it in that old “soapbox” essay:

Imagine you built a platform in your backyard for the purpose of informing or entertaining your friends of neighbors. Now further imagine that you are actually fairly good at what you do and manage to attract and retain a large audience. Then one day, a few hecklers come to hear you speak on your platform. They shout about how it’s unfair that you have attracted so many people to hear you speak on your soapbox and they demand access to your platform for a certain amount of time each day. They rationalize this by arguing that it is THEIR rights as listeners that are really important, not YOUR rights as a speaker or the owner of the soapbox. That sort of scenario could never happen in America, right? Sadly, it’s been the way media law has operated for several decades in this country. This twisted “media access” philosophy has been employed by federal lawmakers and numerous special interest groups to justify extensive and massively unjust regime of media regulation and speech redistributionism. And it’s still at work today.

Indeed, McChesney has taken this old “media access” movement that Jerome Barron, Owen Fiss, Cass Sunstein and others pioneered long ago, and advanced it to a whole new level, and to its logical conclusion.  The aim is not just to co-opt someone else’s soapbox; it is to smash their soapbox into pieces. It is to tear the very fabric of the First Amendment into shreds and rebuild “media democracy” around the principles not of true freedom, but of state servitude.  You only have as much freedom to engage in speech, reporting, or entertaining as your media overlords will allow.  And God help you if any of it proves popular because then they will really want to crush you like an ant!

I’ll close this rant the same way I concluded my earlier “soapbox” rant:

This arrogant, elitist, anti-property, anti-freedom ethic is what drives the media access movement and makes it so morally repugnant. Freedom doesn’t begin by fettering the press with more chains, it begins by removing those that already exist and then erecting a firm wall between State and Press. The media access crowd has succeeded in breaching that wall with seven decades of misguided and unjust regulation of the press. The movement back toward a truly free press begins by understanding the error in their thinking, rejecting that reasoning, and then embracing, once again, the original vision of the First Amendment as a bulwark against government control of speech and the press.

On the problems with the newspaper industry, Michael Kinsley writes in the Washington Post:

You may love the morning ritual of the paper and coffee, as I do, but do you seriously think that this deserves a subsidy? Sorry, but people who have grown up around computers find reading the news on paper just as annoying as you find reading it on a screen. (All that ink on your hands and clothes.) If your concern is grander – that if we don’t save traditional newspapers we will lose information vital to democracy – you are saying that people should get this information whether or not they want it. That’s an unattractive argument: shoving information down people’s throats in the name of democracy.

I rarely say it, but the whole thing is worth reading.

Speaking of socializing media, acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps is someone who has devoted much of his life to regulating the media marketplace into the ground. If he had his way, federal bureaucrats would be controlling virtually every aspect of the media universe. Nothing would get done with Big Nanny’s permission.

That’s what makes his recent comments about the impact of media regulation so delicious.. and hypocritical.  According to an article  Bloomberg ran on Thursday, Copps is now saying that, with newspapers struggling to remain afloat, the FCC should now reconsider regulations that prohibit combined ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers.  The agency should “visit this whole problem” before long, Copps apparently told Bloomberg.

“Visit this problem before long”??  Please!  Congress and the FCC have had opportunities to “visit” and revisit this problem for many years now, but it has been Michael Copps and his merry band of media reformistas who have stopped every reform effort dead in its tracks.  (See my essays “Congress Fiddles, Newspapers Burn” and “Media Deregulation is Dead” for more evidence of how these radicals hijacked media policy in this country.)  As I documented in my 2005 Media Myths book, these charlatans have used hyperbolic rhetoric, shameless fear-mongering, and unsubstantiated claims in opposition to each and every sensible effort to reform our nation’s outdated media ownership policies.  Those laws and regulations have created artificial market structures and hindered the ability of media operators to find new business models that might throw them a lifeline in difficult times.

Consider the fact that it was just 14 months ago that then-Commissioner Copps issued this gem of a hysteria-ridden statement in response to the agency’s last effort to ever-so-slightly loosen the newspaper-broadcast cross ownership rule:

Today’s decision would make George Orwell proud. We claim to be giving the news industry a shot in the arm—but the real effect is to reduce total newsgathering. We shed crocodile tears for the financial plight of newspapers—yet the truth is that newspaper profits are about double the S&P 500 average.

I remember when I read that back in Dec ’07 and thinking to myself that Michael Copps is either willfully blind to the facts or intentionally twisting them to suit his own ends.  Regardless, the writing was on the wall years ago with the rise of unprecedented information abundance and media competition and there was no good reason to force traditional media operators to face these new challenges with one arm tied behind their backs.  But that’s exactly what Copps and his radical cronies over at Free Press and other groups did.

But now Copps is suddenly having second thoughts?  Now that he has dug their graves and driven stakes through their hearts, he suddenly wants to cast himself as an Information Age Jesus and resurrect Lazarus?  Oh, the hypocrisy of it all!  As my boss Ken Ferree recently pointed out:

They’ve all now suddenly discovered that the business model for daily newspapers is under strain and may not be sustainable? Was it the New York Times slouching toward bankruptcy that got their attention, or the failure of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer? […] The sad truth is, the newspaper business has been heading toward a cliff for the last ten years; only willful ignorance can explain the failure of these people who have so recently come to be concerned about the fate of journalism to acknowledge the threat. Time will tell whether their new-found concern has come too late, or whether they have poisoned the political well too thoroughly for any effective policy change.

Moreover, as Ken also points out, it’s not just Copps who has apparently seen the light and had a sudden conversion.

This follows a letter from Speaker Pelosi to Attorney General Holder suggesting restrained antitrust review of transactions involving newspaper assets, and a proposal from Senator Cardin (D-MD) for a quasi-government bailout of newspaper firms.

Ken has more commentary on the Pelosi letter here.   Like Ken, when reading these comments from Pelosi and Copps, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.  I suppose I should be happy that they have finally seen the error in their ways.  It’s just a shame it took such devistation for them to open their eyes to the truth.  Regulatory reform might not have been able to save these old media operators, but they should have at least been giving the freedom to structure their affairs and restructure their business models in an attempt to avoid extinction.  Copps and Pelosi now have to live with the grim reality that it’s tough to throw someone a lifeline after you’ve already sank the ship.

I’ve got a new essay up over at the City Journal about John Nichols and Robert McChesney’s proposal to have the government heavily subsidize failing media enterprises to “save journalism.” It follows below:

“Socializing Media in Order to Save It“ by Adam D. Thierer

City Journal March 27, 2009

With proposals to nationalize or heavily subsidize various segments of our economy more in vogue than ever, it was probably only a matter of time before someone suggested that America’s media marketplace should be brought into the government fold. John Nichols of The Nation and the prolific neo-Marxist media theorist Robert W. McChesney have now provided the road map for media’s march to serfdom. The cost to the American taxpayer would be at least $60 billion, but the cost for the First Amendment and our democracy would be incalculable.

Nichols and McChesney have coauthored several books and essays about media policy that view the world through the prism of class struggle, “manufactured consent” (á la Noam Chomsky), and the rest of the typical Marxoid tripe about history and economics. In their view, private, for-profit media cannot be trusted. As they stated in their 2003 call to arms, Our Media, Not Theirs: The Democratic Struggle Against Corporate Media, media-reform efforts must begin with “the need to promote an understanding of the urgency to assert public control over the media.” “Our claim,” they continue, “is simply that the media system produces vastly less of quality than it would if corporate and commercial pressures were lessened.”

In a new Nation essay, “The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers,” the authors bring their earlier work to its logical conclusion. Saving journalism, they argue, essentially requires that media become an appendage of the state. Journalism, they claim, is a “public good,” which—like education and defense—requires constant government oversight and support: “A moment has arrived at which we must recognize the need to invest tax dollars to create and maintain news gathering, reporting and writing with the purpose of informing all our citizens.” They propose that government devote $60 billion to “subscription subsidies, postal reforms, youth media and investment in public broadcasting.” Think of it as a “free press ‘infrastructure project,’” they say. “It would keep the press system alive. And it has the added benefit of providing an economic stimulus.” (Isn’t it amazing how everything stimulates the economy these days?)

Perhaps most audaciously, they argue that policymakers must respond to the crisis in journalism “with the same urgency with which they would approach the threat of terrorism, pandemic, financial collapse or climate change.” And they proclaim that their subsidy proposals are entirely consistent with what the nation’s Founders would have wanted:

We have to open the door to enlightened public policies and subsidies. . . . We need an organized citizenry demanding the institutions that make self-government possible. Only then can we, like our founders, build a free press. The technologies and the economic challenges are, of course, more complex than in the 1790s, but the answer is the same: the democratic state, the government, must create the conditions for sustaining the journalism that can provide the people with the information they need to be their own governors.

The Founders cared about a free press, of course, but they didn’t call for massive public subsidies to achieve it. They did put in place one rather important provision—the First Amendment—suggesting what they believed constituted a truly free press: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Nichols and McChesney seem utterly naive, however, about the dangers to the First Amendment of putting government in control of media’s purse strings. “We must have a system that prohibits state censorship and that minimizes commercial control over journalistic values and pursuits,” they maintain. Well, good luck with that. If eight decades of Federal Communications Commission meddling in media markets have taught us anything, it’s that if you give bureaucrats the power to regulate the size and the shape of a soapbox, they will inevitably use their authority to regulate the speech delivered on that soapbox—indecency regulation, educational-television mandates, public-access rules, and the Fairness Doctrine are only a few examples. If the FCC received grant-making authority to dole out subsidies to media operators as Nichols and McChesney desire, it’s hard to imagine how journalists won’t be expected to surrender something in exchange. (Consider in this light the bill that Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) introduced this week that would allow newspapers to become nonprofit organizations in an effort to help them stay afloat, but would also disallow political endorsements on their editorial pages.)

Nichols and McChesney in fact do envision strings being attached to public financing. They call, for example, for an annual tax credit for the first $200 each American spends on daily newspapers. To be eligible for this indirect subsidy, though, the reader must purchase media that meet criteria set by . . . Nichols and McChesney: “Newspapers would have to publish at least five times per week and maintain a substantial ‘news hole,’ say at least twenty-four broad pages each day, with less than 50 percent advertising.” Missing, moreover, is any mention of who defines what constitutes “news.” It wouldn’t take long for such a process to become a politicized nightmare.

Nichols and McChesney would also require that recipients of this “stimulus subsidy” make at least 90 percent of their content immediately available, free of charge, online. That’s an underhanded way of converting journalism into a giant, government-sponsored commons. (Incidentally, I can’t help but notice how many of Nichols’s essays are locked down on the Nation website, available only to subscribers.)

Nichols’s and McChesney’s argument shouldn’t simply be dismissed as radical, pie-in-the-sky theorizing. The authors have successfully spearheaded an increasingly influential media-reform movement through Free Press, the activist group they cofounded in 2002. The organization’s boisterous band of reformistas work tirelessly to mobilize troops whenever the slightest whiff of media liberalization is in the air. Nichols’s and McChesney’s new article gives us a taste of what we might expect their reform allies in Congress to propose next.

Nichols and McChesney are right about one thing: America’s media operators are struggling in the face of unprecedented competition and unexpected technological change. But the medicine they prescribe is far worse than the disease—for both the profession of journalism and for democracy itself.

I’ve been catching up on Radio Berkman, the podcast produced by our friends at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society and a great companion to the TLF’s own Tech Policy Weekly Podcast.  There’s been a lot of talk about government transparency on the TLF lately, including TPW 40: Obama, e-Government & Transparency.  But that conversation has been mainly focused on how to make “public” records accessible.

The most recent Radio Berkman episode, “Can you Keep a Secret?” explores the thorny questions about what should be deemed public in the first place, and what should be classified:

The government keeps secrets. We take that for granted. But should we? Some speculate that intelligence agencies and elected officials are a little bit trigger happy with the “Top Secret” stamp, and that society would benefit from greater openness. With the government classifying millions of pages of documents per year – in a recent year the U.S. classified about five times the number of pages added to the Library of Congress – a great deal of useful human knowledge gets put under lock and key. But some argue that secrecy is still crucial to our national security. Radio Berkman pokes its head into a recent talkback with the directors of the film  Secrecy, Harvard University professors Peter Galison and Robb Moss. They are joined by Harvard Law School professors Jonathan Zittrain, Martha Minow, and Jack Goldsmith.

I look forward to seeing the film (when it comes out on Netflix).  

What I found most interesting was the discussion of the essential trade-off in the relationship between the media and the state has always been between the media’s “independence” and its “responsibility” (~33:30 in).  Even the staunchest critics of the national security state would probably accept that there are some stories in the media shouldn’t publish because they’d jeopardize the safety of Americans.  But we all want the media to blow the whistle on the bad stuff that goes on behind a veil of secrecy.  Drawing that line is a terribly difficult task.  But it becomes even more complicated with the decline of traditional professional investigative journalism and the rise of blog/amateur journalism.  

I’m generally not very sympathetic to the chicken-littleism of those who bemoan the fact that journalism is being forced to evolve and innovate by technological change, but on this point, it does indeed seem more likely that the increasingly diffuse media will act less “responsibly” by running stories that really shouldn’t be run.  As one of the panelists points out, the problem is not so much that journalists (of whatever kind) don’t want to be responsible; it’s that they can’t possibly know enough about the context of their story to appreciate why publishing the story might be damaging in surprising ways (such as exposing the capability of U.S. spy satellites by publishing a photo of a Soviet tank).  In the “good” old days of media scarcity, the small number journalists whose beat touched on national security had the luxury of being able to think through their stories and having personal relationships with someone inside the government who could be relied on to tell them whether the story really shouldn’t be run or, even more importantly, which particular aspect of a story truly deserved secrecy.  

The panelists also touched on a separate danger:  the “independence” of media will suffer from economic dependence on the government.  Would a newspaper sucking at the teet of government bail-outs really have run photos of American soldiers torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, for example?  Herein lies a secondary danger of the rise of Internet journalism—that traditional media will become less effective watchdogs as their bottom line suffers and government starts to supplement income once provided by advertising revenue.  Were classified ads the very thing that kept newspapers independent?  What will happen if newspapers cannot shed their physical distribution costs, or find new sources of revenue in the form of smarter advertising, subscriptions, micro-payments or donations?  Adam Thierer has discussed these tough questions and others.

Other interesting points:

• Protective orders no longer offer an effective safety valve by which certain parties can gain access to classified materials because the ease of Internet publishing means that such orders too often lead to disclosure.
• 80% of leaks of classified documents are made by persons inside the Executive branch for political purposes (usually in order to advance a pet policy).  If that’s true, then maybe the “problem” (to the extent that leaks really are a problem, as some leaks certainly are) is more on the “supply” side (at the leaks’ source) and less on the “demand” side (investigative journalism).  If so, perhaps the ethics of journalistic responsibility matter less than we might think. 

There’s been plenty written about the death spiral that America’s newspaper industry finds itself stuck in — here’s an amazing summary of the recent online debates — and I’ve spent a lot of time writing on this issue here in the past, too.  Ben Compaine, one of America’s sharpest media analysts and the co-author of the classic study Who Owns the Media?, has added his own two cents in his latest essay over at the Rebuilding Media blog. Like everything Ben writes, it is well worth reading:

If newspapers have essentially been able to thrive on the revenue from advertisers alone (again, with cost of printing more or less covered by circulation revenue), why are they having so much trouble today? The answer is not one single factor, but a major contributor is that newspapers – whether print or digital—are just worth less to advertisers than they were 20 years ago. Back then, local advertisers did not have many options for reaching the mass local audience. What was the alternative for auto dealers? For real estate agents? Supermarkets or department stores? For some, direct mail was one possible option. But that was about it. Using pre-prints instead of ROP became attractive for some large display advertisers, leaving the publishers with a piece of the cash flow. Advertisers were hit with regular rate increases. And they pretty much had to pay, The publishers made good money. But then a double whammy. Just about the time the Internet became a real alternative for classified listings—think Craigslist, Monster.com, eBay, Autotrader.com—and for retailers—think DoubleClick, Google, et al—the boys at the cable operators had perfected the insertion of highly local spots into their feeds. Between 1989 and 2007 local cable advertising increased from $500 million to $4.3 billion—or from 0.4% of all advertising to 1.6%. Advertising in newspapers fell from 26% to 15% in this period. Although some of the highly local advertisers going to cable may have taken some of their funds from budgets for radio or other local media, it is probable that a significant share came from the hides of newspapers. I estimate perhaps up to 20% of the decline in local newspaper advertising share can be attributed to local cable spots. The other whammy, the gorilla in the room, is Internet advertising. No need to elaborate. But its impact on newspapers is not just that it has siphoned off dollars per se. Much more importantly is that the Internet has given most advertisers greater market power against newspaper publishers. Many big advertisers—like car dealers, real estate offices and big box retailers—don’t need the newspapers as much.

Ben’s got it exactly right. The decline of newspapers comes down to the death of  “protectable scarcity” (thanks to Canadian media expert Ken Goldstein for that phrase).  There’s just too much other competition out there online already for our eyes and ears.  We’re witnessing substitution effects on a scale never seen in the media world, with disruptive digital technologies and networks splintering our attention spans.  That de-massification of media means that high fixed cost endeavors like daily newspapers are not going to be able to sustain the cross-subsidies they’ve long gotten from advertisers.

If you want to boil the newspaper death spiral down to an equation, it would look something like this:

(1) unprecedented technological change

+

(2) massive inflow of new media competitors / platforms

+

(3) end of geographic “protectable scarcity”

=

(4) inability to capture a guaranteed audience

&

(5) complete loss of advertiser / investor confidence

And the process is viciously self-reinforcing.  Again, a seemingly hopeless death spiral.  So, do papers have any hope?  Compaine considers where papers might turn next in terms of a business model:

I suspect that what we will find in the intermediate future is a mix of models and choices, among them:

• The Detroit model [Detroit Free Press and Detroit News] is one reasonable experiment: An attractive daily digital version, with home delivery of the paper reduced to Thursday, Friday and Sunday.
• An advertising supported all digital model, with the publisher closing down the printing plant, selling off its trucks, laying off the circulation and production departments.
• A voluntary pay model. This may take one of several forms. The “shareware” model for software has proven to work to a point. Users are asked to pay what they can or think the product is worth. Many users will be free riders. But, as we see with public television and radio, millions in their audience make annual contributions. (In 2007 at least one-third of those who downloaded Radiohead’s free “In Rainbow” album made a payment, in some cases higher than what the band would have received from a CD sale.)

The problem with that last model is that it might help some papers remain afloat, but it is highly unlikely such a model could sustain the industry as we know it today.  There’s a reason, after all, that NPR doesn’t have a lot of competitors in the non-profit radio world; only so many benefactors — whether corporate, foundations, or individuals — are willing to spread around their donations when it comes to news.  A non-profit model or charity-based model might work for a couple of big-dog dailies with generous sugar daddies — think the New York Times and Carlos Slim — but that model won’t work for most other papers.

As Ben suggests, the best hope likely lies in some combination of all of the above, with a particular focus on finding a way to monetize the all-digital model (model #2) as quickly and effectively as possible.  But some papers are late to that game, and even those that moved aggressively to get everything online have found that the economics are still challenging in a crowded field.  The advertising cross-subsidy they lost is in the old world has already been captured online by many others. There’s just less ad $$$ to go around with so many other outlets presenting more targeted and affordable platforms than what old newspapers offer.

Regardless, I think it’s time to accept the uncomfortable reality that the newspaper industry as we know it is dead and will never return.  As an old newspaper fanatic and journalism student, this makes me a bit sad.  I still get two dailies on my doorstep every morning and will certainly miss them when they pass from this Earth.  Of course, a lot of that news will be repurposed online. And other news sources and outlets are still out there or will develop in response.  But challenging issues remain about how “long form” investigative journalism gets funded going foward. I don’t believe in the pollyanish fantasies about a world of user-generated content and “We-dia” giving us all the important news of the day.  You can’t reassemble the New York Times one Twitter at a time.

[This represents a bit of a departure from the traditional format of my ongoing “Media Deconsolidiation Series,” but you will see how it ties in…]

So, some guy from the (Un)Free Press — the activist group that wants to regulate every facet of the media and broadband universe — has created a scary looking chart about “Information Control” [seen below]. It’s based loosely on the Periodic Table of Elements, you know, to give it the aura of science and fact. In reality, it’s just another silly scare tactic that tells us very little about the true nature of our modern media marketplace.

The chart is accompanied by the typical Free Press gloom-and-doom rhetoric about the unfolding media apocalypse. “Nearly everything you see, hear and read that isn’t from a friend — whether on TV, the radio, or even on the Web — comes from a for-profit gatekeeper.”  And then comes the obligatory A.J. Liebling quote about how “Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one,” followed quickly by the typical punch line about how just a handful of companies (in this case 55 of ’em) are puppeteering all our thoughts in America today:

Combined, these 55 powerful media and telecommunications companies raked in total revenues in excess of $700 billion in 2007. Together they own over 540 TV stations, 2000 radio stations, 430 newspapers, 230 magazines, and 80 major cable channels in the United States. They provide paid TV service to approximately 52 million subscribers and broadband Internet service to over 57 million subscribers. They’re the bottlenecks through which our news, our entertainment, and our political discourse must travel. What they want to promote becomes prominent; what they suppress stays out of the mainstream. As such, these companies are the elements of information control.

Oh my God! We are all just brainwashed sheep!

Except we’re not. It amazes me how these “information control” and “media monopoly” myths keep getting widespread circulation. But the first thing to note is how the media reformistas can’t get even their story straight when it comes to how many “monopolists” are supposedly out there today. As I noted in my 2005 book, Media Myths: Making Sense of the Debate over Media Ownership, the critics seem to just pull their numbers out of a hat. Some say as few as 3 companies control everything. Others says 5 or 6. Still others say it might be a few dozen. And now this guy says its 55. Hey, that’s progress that even the Free Press should love!

Regardless of the number, does this really represent the totality of our modern media universe? Do those 55 companies really “own most of the 21st-century presses in America” as the “Info Control” website states? Answer: NOT. EVEN. CLOSE.  Here are the facts. [I happened to have compiled them for a PFF special report entitled Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace to debunk myths just like this.]

In the table above, I have taken the number of media outlets owned by the 55 companies and then divided it by the total number of media outlets. This gives us the actual percentage of media outlets owned by the 55 media providers listed in the “Information Control” chart.  Needless to say, it’s hard to see how anyone can claim “bottleneck” control or “media monopoly” when an average of just 18% of all those outlets are owned by the 55 companies! And what that number doesn’t tell you is that — as my “Media Deconsolidation” series has been illustrating over the past two years — America’s media marketplace has been growing less concentrated with each passing month. Media companies are selling off and shedding assets and divisions faster than ever. There’s a 24-hour death watch going on over at Twitter these days on the “Media is Dying” thread if you care to follow the carnage in less than 140 characters at a time.

Oh, here’s another problem with the “Information Control” chart: Where exactly does the Internet fit into the picture? Answer: It doesn’t. They’ve conveniently left out the Net, online media, blogging, social networking, podcasting, and other bottom-up, user-generated content and forms of communication.

But let’s ignore the Internet and all those new Digital Age options for a moment. Let’s say this guy had it right and that only 55 companies really did control “Nearly everything you see, hear and read.”  The fact is, that really wouldn’t be the end of the world. 55 competitors would be considered a luxury in just about any other major economic sector.  Care to draw up a “Periodic Chart” for autos, airlines, supermarkets, or semiconductors? If one did, there would be far fewer squares on it. The fact is, even if we accepted the artificial limitations of this chart, we’d still have a lot of choices at our disposal.

But we need not accept those limitations. We live in a different world; a better world. With far more choices and diversity than this silly chart indicates. Indeed, by every conceivable measure we have more media options and diversity than we did 30 years ago. Magnitudes more. I bet the guy who put this chart together isn’t even old enough to remember when three old white guys in bad suits delivered us a half-hour of news each night at 6:30, and if we weren’t lucky enough to be sitting in front of our TVs at that exact moment, then we were screwed. Compare that pre-1980 reality to today and the unprecedented information cornucopia at our disposal. In my lifetime (I’m 40) we have seen the death of mass media and the end of “appointment-based” media consumption.  Media providers no longer call the shots; we the viewing and listening public do.

But shhhhh… we’re not suppose to talk about these meddlesome things called facts. You see, the entire media policy drama in this country is based on a glorious set of mega-myths. There’s a handful of nefarious schemers aiming to program our little minds with corporate propaganda, or so the story goes. They must be stopped. At all costs. Luckily, the enlightened few at the Free Press and other media reformista outfits have managed to avoid the corporate brainwashing — My God, how did they ever do it! — and so they are ready to lead us to the media promised land. But to get there, we must first burn the village to save it. We must destroy free media (as in free-market, for-profit media) to rebuild free media (as in media controlled by government masters). Only then will we enter Information Nirvana and liberate our minds from our evil corporate overlords!

Or so the story goes.

(P.S. Brian Anderson and I recently penned a book to counter these fantasies and the efforts by the media reformistas to remake the media marketplace in their preferred image. See: A Manifesto for Media Freedom, Encounter Books, 2008).

This is just a listing of the installments of my ongoing “Media Deconsolidation Series.” I needed to create a single repository of all the essays so I could point back to them in future articles and papers. For those not familiar with it, this series represents an effort to set the record straight regarding the many myths surrounding the media marketplace. These myths are usually propagated by a group of radical anti-media regulatory activists who I call the “media reformistas.” Sadly, however, many policymakers, journalists, and members of the public are buying into some of these myths, too.

In particular, I have spent much time here debunking the notion that rampant consolidation is taking place and that media operators are only growing larger and devouring more and more companies. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past several years, traditional media operators and sectors have been coming apart at the seams in the face of unprecedented innovation and competition. The volume of divestiture activity has been quite intense, and most traditional media operators have been getting smaller, not bigger. As a result, America’s media marketplace is growing more fragmented and atomistic with each passing day.

Anyway, here’s the series so far…

• Media Deconsolidation (Part 24): I Read the News Today, Oh Boy
• Media Deconsolidation (Part 23): Cox Selling Most of its Newspapers
• Media Deconsolidation (Part 22): TW spin-off of cable unit
• Media Deconsolidation (Part 21): TW spin-off of AOL
• Media Deconsolidation (Part 20): News Corp spins off 8 TV stations
• Media Deconsolidation (Part 19): IAC/Interactive Corp. divides by 5
• Media Deconsolidation (Part 18): Scripps Splits
• Media Deconsolidation (Part 17): Clear Channel Station Sell-off
• Media Deconsolidation (Part 16): Clear Channel Crackup
• Media Deconsolidation (Part 15): AOL-TW Divorce Near?
• Media Deconsolidation, Part 14: Time Warner Without Time?
• Media Deconsolidation, Part 13: Tribune Considering Major Downsizing
• Media Deconsolidation, Part 12: Time Warner President Calls Synergy “Bull—t”
• Media Deconsolidation, Part 11: Knight Ridder’s Coming Crackup
• Media Deconsolidation, Part 10: Viacom’s Breakup Official
• Media Deconsolidation, Part 9: Viacom’s Split
• Media Deconsolidation, Part 8: Time Warner Spin Off of AOL Likely
• Media Deconsolidation, Parts 6 & 7: Emmis & Disney Divestitures
• Media Deconsolidation, Part 5: “Clear Channel to Dismantle Media Empire”
• Media Deconsolidation, Part 4: Is News Corp. Next to Downsize?
• Still More on Media Deconsolidation
• More on Media (De)Consolidation
• Stop This Insane Media De-Consolidation!

Related reading:

• What the Media Reformistas Really Want
• Your Soapbox is My Soapbox! Thoughts on the Media Access Movement
• BOOK: Media Myths: Making Sense of the Debate over Media Ownership (2005)
• SPECIAL REPORT: Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace (2008)
• BOOK:  A Manifesto for Media Freedom (with Brian Anderson, 2008).

I’m fond of quoting Diane Mermigas, editor-at-large at MediaPost, who is one of the finest media market watchers in the journalism business today. Her latest MediaPost column offers another sobering look at the radical changing sweeping through the media marketplace today. In that article, she notes that even though we are in an era of Big Government bailouts for financial institutions and (possibly) auto makers, old media operators will be left to to fend for themselves, and many will likely die off as a result:

What we do know is there will be no federally funded bail for media, Internet, entertainment and advertising. Big media by definition is not nimble and innovative enough to simply dump what’s not working, modify what can be saved, and grow what works. There isn’t much that big media companies can bank on or reliably forecast moving into 2009. They are hamstrung between deteriorating traditional costs and revenues and evolving digital business models that do not offset the losses, generating less than 10% of their overall incomes. Big media isn’t just being ravaged by recession; it is being sacked by a technological transformation of enormous proportions.

I discussed a lot of the forces behind the current media meltdown in my recent PFF special report, “Media Metrics: The True State of America’s Marketplace.” As I noted there, this Schumpeterian “creative destruction” we are witnessing today is a normal (but gut-wrenching) part of any major technological transformation, and it need not be addressed with government subsides or interference. However, the problem for many traditional media providers is, as I noted in my special report:

there’s a lot of regulating still going on as well. America’s media marketplace remains subject to a wide variety of regulations… These regulations limit the ability of media operators to respond to the rapidly changing market environment. If all market players were equally hobbled by regulation, perhaps this issue would be less problematic. But these rules are applied in a remarkably arbitrary fashion, with some sectors and firms (over-the-air broadcasters, in particular) being singled out for harsher regulatory treatment than others.

Some will say, “Just let ’em die. We don’t need those old media providers anyway.” If that’s your position, so be it, but I would hope that others (especially public policymakers) would understand the radical unfairness of not giving those players a fighting chance at survival by eliminating the archaic regulations that bind their hands as the seek to reinvent themselves.

[For additional discussion, see my essay from earlier this week, “Remember Newspapers?”]

In a City Journal article earlier this year, I wondered “how long some local papers have left when they are barred from restructuring their businesses or partnering with other local media operators to stem the bleeding and reinvent their business models.”  I was responding to the Senate’s smack-down of a half-hearted reform effort that FCC chairman Kevin Martin pushed through in November 2007, which proposed relaxing the FCC’s newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule. That rule, unrevised since going into effect in 1975, prohibits a newspaper operator from also owning a radio or television station in the same media market. However, waivers were granted to grandfather in some combined newspaper and broadcast operations that had existed long before the ban took effect. Martin’s proposal was to simply tweak the rule to permit similar combinations in just the nation’s 20 largest media markets.

Martin’s limited liberalization proposal, however, led to howls of disapproval from FCC democrats like Michael Copps and many folks on both side of the aisle in Congress. Supposedly, this was nothing more than a “giveaway” to the newspaper industry, which critics said was doing just fine.  It really makes you wonder if any of those critics even both reading the news about newspapers today.

As I have documented here on many occasions, as well as in my big Media Metrics report, the newspaper industry is in huge trouble with every financial variable of importance rapidly heading south. Alan Mutter does a good job here of summarizing “the secular forces dragging down newspapers: Declining readership, shrinking advertising, high fixed costs and growing online competition that makes it increasingly difficult to charge the premium ad rates that were possible prior to the Internet.”  As a result of these forces, everyday brings another headline like this one today in the New York Times: “The Star-Ledger of Newark Plans 40% Cut,” or this one in the Wall Street Journal: “Some Newspapers Shed Unprofitable Readers.”  The numbers are just miserable, and they just get worse and worse.

Now, you might say, “So what? That’s creative destruction at work.” Indeed it is, and it’s an entirely natural and healthy marketplace phenomenon. The problem, however, is that there’s still a lot of regulating going on.  Specifically, papers remain bound by red tape in the form of artificial market ownership restrictions that disallow the creation of new business models that might save them what appears to be their possible extinction.

I am not at all confident that consolidation or creative ownership arrangements will actually throw them much of a lifeline — it’s probably too little, too late, now that so many readers and advertisers have flocked to the Net and other media platforms.   Nonetheless, they should not be bound by archaic media ownership rules put on the books a quarter century ago in an era of less competition and consumer choice.  Let papers restructure and compete.  It may be their only chance at survival.

Update: Just a few minutes after posting this I came across this NYT article documenting the latest quarterly newspaper circulation numbers and how the numbers just keep getting worse. Sales in the spring and summer fell almost 5 percent from the previous year according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.

Over on the Poynter Online blog, Amy Gahran has a very smart piece on some of the confusion surrounding debates about “media localism.” In her essay asking “How Important is Local, Really?”, she challenges some of the assumptions underlying the Knight Foundation’s new Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy.

I particularly like her line about how, “in many senses, ‘local’ is just one set of ripples on the lake of information — especially when it comes to ‘news.’ And for many people, it’s not even the biggest or most important set of ripples.” That is exactly right. Today, local choices are just a few more choices along the seemingly endless continuum of media choices. It’s foolish to assume that “media localism” in a geographic sense is as important now as it was in the past for the reasons Gahran makes clear in her essay:

I’m glad that the Knight Foundation is asking basic questions about what kinds of information people need support community and democracy. However, I question the Commission’s strong focus on geographically defined local communities. It seems to me that with the way the media landscape has been evolving, geographically defined local communities are becoming steadily less crucial from an information perspective. I suspect that defining communities by other kinds of commonalities (age, economic status/class, interests, social circles, etc.) would be far more relevant to more people — although more complex to define.

I suspect that clinging reflexively to “local” as the paramount criteria for “relevant” reflects a newspaper perspective that was never a good fit for most people, and that never really served most people’s information needs well. I’m not saying local doesn’t matter. Local is important. It’s especially important for people who are newcomers to communities. It’s especially important for identifying accessible resources and services that people might need in their daily lives. But in many senses, “local” is just one set of ripples on the lake of information — especially when it comes to “news.” And for many people, it’s not even the biggest or most important set of ripples. So my question for Knight is: Why do you assume that geographically defined local communities should be the paramount focus of people’s informational diet, or even to support democracy? Did you seriously consider any other perspectives? Today, you’re at Google — where folks are used to viewing people’s information needs as a complex mosaic, where no one filter is paramount for everyone. I hope you take advantage of their insight.

Gahran has it exactly right, but over at the Knight Foundation blog, a debate is raging about her comments. I posted some of my own thoughts on the topic, which were originally posted here in my essay on Our Continued Wishful Thinking about “Media Localism”. Read that for more details on the forgotten dimensions of this debate.

As we’ve discussed here before, newspapers are struggling. We all know that. The question is what, if anything, will save them? Most pundits tend to point to a two-fold solution: (1) get serious about leveraging the natural local advantages newspapers hold; (2) and find away to do so online as quickly as possible before they lose the bulk of the local online ad market to other competitors. This is why there’s a lot of talk these days about turning traditional papers into “hyper-local” web portals for their communities. Of course, there’s no guarantee that will work, especially in light of changing attitudes about “media localism.”

But let’s assume that that is indeed the best path forward. Will it really save newspapers? As eMarketer reports in today’s newsletter on “Can Local Web Ads Save Newspapers,” it’s a bit of a good news–bad news story:

The good news is that newspaper site ad revenues are growing along with other online ad spending, especially for local news sites. Local newspaper online ad revenues are predicted to reach $3.7 billion this year, according to eMarketer calculations based on Borrell Associates data. The bad news is that this spending will not make up for print ad losses for some time, according to Lisa Phillips, senior analyst at eMarketer. Ms. Phillips noted that advertisers still pay more for print readers than for online readers. “This is a transition that will take several years,” she said. “Local advertisers are paying attention to the shift in reader behavior, but it will take a while for everyone to adjust.”

And so we will have to wait to see how it all plays out. But I am highly skeptical that traditional newspapers operators will be able to make up anywhere near the amount of revenue online that they are hemorrhaging over on the print side of the business. There’s just too much other competition out there online already for our eyes and ears. The age of “protectable scarcity” is dead and that means newspapers just don’t have the lock on local or regional markets they once did.

Over at Technology 360, Dennis Haarsager points out that there’s probably too much gloom-and-doom out there in the blogosphere regarding the future of various media platforms. He did phrase searches “to see how the media stacked up in the death department.” He got back the following results:

“death of television”, 13,000 results “death of TV”, 28,200 results “death of radio”, 227,000 results “death of newspapers”, 331,000 results “death of blogs”, “death of the blogs”, “death of the blog”, 81,400 results “death of the web”, 215,000 results “death of the net”, 746,000 results “death of the internet”, 1,910,000 results

No doubt—as Mark Twain might have said—the rumors of the death of media have been greatly exaggerated. And, as Mike Mansick of TechDirt points out, not all papers or media outlets are facing gloom and doom scenarios.

Nonetheless, many traditional media sectors and providers do find themselves in troubled waters today as tsunami of creative destruction tears through their markets. In our new “Media Metrics” report, Grant Eskelsen and I show how two sectors in particular—radio broadcasting and newspapers—are getting hammered particularly hard by a sort of “media perfect storm”:

• loss of protected markets or “protected scarcity” = there’s just no guaranteed audience anymore

• rapid technological change = the way media is created and transmitted has been completely transformed

• massive inflow of new competitors / platforms = no way to stop the deluge of new voices, including user-generated content

• loss of consumer confidence and allegiance = people have plenty of other places to turn their attention

• loss of advertiser confidence and allegiance = advertisers have plenty of other places to promote their goods and services (including direct-to-consumer appeals and ‘word-of-mouth’ marketing efforts)

• loss of investor confidence and allegiance = shareholders have lots of other places to invest their capital today

The results have been particularly grim for newspaper in recent months as various reports have noted. Over at the “Reflections of a Newsosaur” blog, Alan Mutter has been tracking the bad news closely. Last Friday he noted how “7 newspaper stocks hit record lows in 1 day,” and in a follow-up post this week he noted that:

In a historic rout, newspaper shares have lost nearly $4 billion in value in the first 10 trading days of July, an amount greater than the combined market capitalization of all but the three largest publicly held publishing companies. The $3.9 billion plunge in the value of newspaper stocks since the first of this month – a period marked by successive new lows in the prices of several issues – has dropped the collective value of the following publishers to just $3.6 billion: * A.H. Belo (AHC) today is worth $119 million, down 58% from $282 million when it began trading earlier this year as a free-standing newspaper publisher. * GateHouse Media (GHS), worth $59 million, down 95% from $1.2 billion at its curiously strong initial public offering in October, 2006. * Journal Communications (JRN), worth $266 million, down 78% from $1.2 billion on Dec. 31, 2004. * Journal Register Co. (JRCO), worth $6 million, down 99% from $746 million on Dec. 31, 2004. * Lee Enterprises (LEE), worth $145 million, down 93% from $2 billion on Dec. 31, 2004. * Media General (MEG), worth $248 million, down 83% from $1.5 billion on Dec. 31, 2004. * McClatchy (MNI), worth $387 million, down 93% from $5.7 billion on Dec. 31, 2004. * New York Times Co. (NYT), worth $1.85 billion, down 67% from $5.6 billion on Dec. 31, 2004. * Scripps (SSP), worth $522 million, which was newly launched as a pure-plan newspaper company on July 1, 2008. More details below. * Sun-Times Media Group (SUTM), worth $32 million, down 98% from $1.3 billion on Dec. 31. 2004. The only companies not on the above list are: * Gannett (GCI), worth a bit less than $4 billion, down 79% from $18.5 billion on Dec. 31, 2004. * News Corp. (NWS), worth $37.2 billion, down 36% from $58.4 billion on Dec. 31, 2004. * Washington Post (WPO), worth $5.5 billion, down 24% from $7.3 billion on Dec. 31, 2004. At today’s close, the total decline in value of the dozen newspaper shares trading since the first of the year was nearly $27.7 billion, a plunge of 35.7% in 6 1/2 months. This calculation does not include the shares of Scripps, which dropped some $6.2 billion in value on July 1 after the company’s non-newspaper assets were spun into a separate company. Counting Scripps, the aggregate value of newspaper shares dropped $10.2 billion since the first of this month. When you back SSP out of the calculations, you find that newspaper stocks have slipped $3.9 billion since July 1.

All I can say to this is Wow. Just… wow. These are stunning numbers, and if you need a graphic illustration of how much bleeding has been taking place, take a look at this chart showing newspaper stock drops over the past 4 years:

Just miserable. And it reminds me of the market cap chart that Grant and I put together for our Media Metrics book that compared Google’s market cap to the market caps of the biggest players in the newspaper business (as of January):

And, when you realize how rapidly newspaper advertising revenues are plummeting, you begin to understand why many analysts speak in gloom-and-doom terms about this sector:

And daily circulation is falling rapidly overall…

Folks, there is just no getting around the fact that the newspaper sector is in serious, serious trouble. That’s not to say that they’ll all be going the way of the Dodo bird tomorrow. But many will die. Some potentially soon.

Others will reinvent themselves as online portals of hyper-local content and find new ways to connect with their readers. But hyper-localism can only get you so far, and things will never be like they were in the past.

If you want to read the absolute best analysis of where things stand today—and what the newspaper industry will need to do to re-invent itself in the face of this challenge—I highly recommend Terry Heaton’s article about “Failure at the Top.” It’s must-reading on the subject. He argues:

To be sure, the paradigm of ad-supported content isn’t going to go away. Media companies will continue to make good money from their own content, but it will never be the growth engine it once was. We simply must find another way, because the more advertising evolves without us, the harder it will be for anybody to sustain the kind of business we’ve known in the past, much less make it grow. These are challenging times for those at the top of media companies big and small, and while we can easily point fingers of blame at culture, technology or a hundred other things, it’s the responsibility of our leaders to rise to meet business challenges. The only failures that matter, therefore, are those at the top.

Make sure to read his entire article to see what he means by that and what he recommends to change it.

(In the meantime, it sure couldn’t hurt for Congress or the FCC to give the newspaper industry a little regulatory leeway as it attempts to keep from drowning. The archaic regulations that continue to bind this sector are even more unjustifiable in light of the challenges described above.)

Faithful readers will recall that, several months ago, I penned a 7-part “Media Metrics” series that took a hard look at the health of the media marketplace. Today, the Progress & Freedom Foundation is releasing a greatly expanded version of these essays that I have put together with my PFF colleague Grant Eskelsen. In this 100-page special report, “Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace,” we begin by noting that heated debates about the state of the media marketplace continue to rage in Washington, and opinions seem to range from grim to outright apocalyptic. As we note on pg. 1:

Many people—including a large number of legislators and regulators—argue that America’s media marketplace is in a miserable state. Some claim that citizens lack choice in media outlets and that options are just as scarce as ever. Others believe that media “localism” is dead or that many groups or niches go underserved because of a lack of true “diversity” in media. Others argue that the market is hopelessly over-concentrated in the hands of a few evil media barons who are hell-bent on force-feeding us corporate propaganda. And still others say that the quality of news and entertainment in our society has deteriorated because of a combination of all of the above. It all sounds quite troubling, but is any of it true?

After taking an objective look at the true state of America’s media marketplace, we conclude that such pessimism is unwarranted. Indeed, a careful review of the facts reveals that—contrary to what those media critics suggest—we have more media choice, more media competition, and more media diversity than ever before. Indeed, to the extent there was ever a “golden age” of media in America, we are living in it today. The media sky has never been brighter and it is getting brighter with each passing year. We come to this conclusion by looking beyond the rhetoric that has for too long governed debates about media in American and providing a comprehensive look at a variety of media sectors such as audio, video, print and online media. Our survey contains over 70 charts and exhibits illustrating facts and figures on such diverse topics as advertising revenue, company market share, audience trends, and areas of growth in the sector. We will also aim to periodically updated the report to reflect the rapidly evolving media industry.

We encourage readers to provider input about how to improve and expand the report going forward in an attempt to refine and improve the metrics. And we look forward to future debates on this subject–debates that we hope will be guided by facts instead of fanaticism and by evidence instead of emotion. The hyperbolic rhetoric, shameless fear-mongering, and unsubstantiated claims that have driven policy debates in recent years have no foundation in reality and should be rejected as the debate over media policy continues.

This and future installments of “Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace” will be available on the PFF website at www.pff.org/mediametrics. I have also embedded the entire document below as a Scribd file so that those interested in the topic can peruse the report immediately.