Everyone knows that newspapers are reeling. This week, David Simon (former Baltimore Sun reporter and creator of the wire) testified at a Senate hearing committe on the status of newspapers. He lambasted new media and old media…the former for being amateur and the latter for “butcher[ing] itself…at the behest of Wall Street and the same unfettered free market logic that has proven so disastrous for so many American industries.”

This summary hardly does his eloquent testimony justice, but it does succinctly serve as the foundation for what I’m about to say.

I’m tired of hearing about how we need the old media to guard our freedom and democracy. Jefferson did not say we needed The New York Times to protect our freedom, nor did he say we needed newspapers. He said we needed a free press. He did not specify the delivery medium. And at that moment in history, the only way to disseminate information was through a press…literally.

Times have changed. Having a journalism degree myself, this issue is near and dear to my heart. I fully understand the dangers of an unaccountable new media who can simply say whatever they like, regardless of accuracy. Yet, I also understand the danger the old media, in it’s most recent form, posed to the very democracy they were supposed to be guarding.

The Conglomerates

In 2000, almost all media belonged to 1 of 6 media conglomerates. Simon alluded to this. This was a concept we learned in our freshman year of journalism. These congolmerates didn’t just own media outlets, they owned companies across the globe. Simply put, a congolmerate would be hesitant to release news harmful to one of it’s other entities. Thus the conflict of interest.

Aside from that, if all media is owned by 6 conglomerates, there are only 6 entities one needs to control in order to manipulate the “free press.” Again, Jefferson was most scared of centralized power. If he held a free press to be the guard of democracy, he would certainly never consider a centralized press “free.”

They Don’t Tell You What to Think

To piggyback off the last point…another concept is that media does not tell you what to think, they tell you what to think about. Again, it’s not that one of the media arms would lie about a sister companies embaressing undertakings, they just wouldn’t report it. Hence you never know about it.

Is it more likely a story is to go unreported when you have 6 competing media conglomerates, or 40 (arbitrary number) outlets competing against eachother?

But Simon Attacked the Conglomerates

Yes he did. What he failed to identify was that for awhile now, the bloggers were holding newspapers and the old media accountable. Look at Rathergate for example, which was originally questioned by bloggers. Or, look at the Monica Lewinsky scandal, which was originall brought to light by Matt Drudge while Newsweek was sitting on it.

While it certainly takes professionalism to nurture the sources to get leaks, it also takes relationships. Leaks either happen because of a genuine desire to deliver accountability, or they occur in return for a favor. The internet, and the ability to anonymously submit “leaks” makes it easier to fulfill the genuine desire for accountability. The relationship of leaks being given for returned favors highlights the immense power investigative reporters wielded when they were the only people with the mass communication outlet who could hold government accountable.

Now, there is still the problem of inaccuracy. And it is a problem indeed. But just like newspapers were more credible than the national enquirer, not all blogs are alike. Some will undoubtedly rise to the level of credibility, and some will fall to the way side.