Freedom of the press, like freedom of trade and commerce, can get messy. Left wing and right wing radicals’ interpretations of the same issue can be miles apart. Flashily packaged news with doom-bringer headlines sells information like a new car. Despite modern day challenges, however, freedom of the press, like these other freedoms is the protector of democracy because it is the bringer of information to the people, and unlike freedom of trade and commerce, should not be governmentally regulated.
Output of news media, like the economy, has to change with the changing consumer. The hundred-year-old Christian Science Monitor was the large scale print media casualty to go exclusively online. A popular information source is The Daily Show with John Stewart, which blurs the line between comedy and news show. Still, the media must tweak the way its content is packaged and sold to the new consumer, who reads online and likes extremely palatable information. In this way, commerce and the press are very similar, but both changes are necessary, one for the continuation of a market society and the other for a continuation of information.
Perhaps hand-in-hand with the new packaging of the media comes with it more and more biased opinions. Bill Rovach, a former Washington bureau chief of the New York Times, said now “you have a journalism that is moderated, in effect, by advocates of one side or the other, which is the antithesis of the journalists’ role.” This effect is evident—from The O’Reilly Factor on the right to Rovach’s own former publication the New York Times on the left—but often tied with a bow of fair and balanced. This often presents itself as a conundrum to the information consumer--how and is it possible to get unbiased news information from an unbiased new source? Is overly biased news coverage restricting the free flow of information to the news consumer?
The answer to these questions cannot be answered in our constantly changing media climate, but one thing is certain—governmental regulation and aid to the media is not the answer. Governmental regulation of biased media not only has the potential to regulate information they may find unflattering, but underestimates the intelligence of their citizens. Unlike the government’s Big Business Bailout, excessive aid to media outlets would give the government an unwarranted finger in the pie in its output. No one can predict the changes the media will have to make to stay afloat in our volatile economy, but, unlike the regulation of commerce, governmental assistance is not the answer.