In the span of a short week our friend Ames has greatly impressed us twice. Today we highlight an older post of his that I somehow missed, but one that deserves attention.
In this post Ames discusses that while the legal applicability of the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ is DOA, the spirit of the law should still be a goal for a healthy democracy.
Knowledge and access to knowledge are the predicate requirements for any democracy to survive. The very natures of democracy and popular sovereignty demand that the people be informed of the facts, so that the people may govern. Despite a modern anti-intellectual and anti-elitist trend, democracy assumes and requires that the people are all elite, all intellectual, and all informed, typically by a responsible media, the Fourth Estate of any republic. The first amendment is typically the vanguard of this requirement - by providing easy access to vigorous debate - but there’s good reason to believe the first amendment has failed us. While there has been debate on the subject of how to restore… umm… debate, as one would expect of a failed marketplace, it hasn’t been very good. It’s time to reevaluate.
As a Progressive I agree with Ames’ sentiments. It is vital to our democracy that the entire electorate remain ‘intellectual and informed’. I will not debate the correct usage of the word ‘elite’ here, although is has become a popular term in this election year. What I will say is that Ames’ definition of elite would probably differ a great deal with the Hamiltonian definition. Ames’ elite is more in line with the consensus of our other Founding Fathers and it is for that reason I concur.
As for the problem of how best to inform the citizenry and prepare them for the responsibility of selecting leaders (and becoming leaders themselves), Ames seems to indicate that the marketplace (i.e. media) should serve as the educator, albeit with changes in place:
I do think that media consolidation rules would help, along with possibly requiring set-asides for legitimate point/counterpoint news hours during primetime. Importing a more vigorously partisan culture, and inculcating a theater of politics, such as inventing our own “prime minister’s questions,” would also serve the purpose of informing the people at minimal cost to our first amendment freedoms. I don’t know what, but something must be done.
While in principle I believe that the media can be a vehicle for educating the public, it is oviously subject to the power of the dollar (as Ames laments) and thus subject to corruption. That leaves us wondering, should we try to reform media through either government regulation (bad) or a carrot and stick approach (better) or by re-investing in other institutions which once produced a fairly well-informed electorate (best)? I prefer the third choice, with our schools being the most suitable incubators for future civic-minded citizens.
I would also like to put on my historian hat for a minute and say that in reality, today’s citizens are much more informed that the average citizen even 100 years ago. While the media has tremendous power to mis-inform, I still believe (however naively it may be) that more good gets through than bad, and with today’s technology we are flooded with information to digest. The best way to filter out the bad, is through a good education.
In close, Ames’ piece is great and worth a hard look. My primary disagreement (if any) is with the allusion to more regulation of the marketplace to achieve his goal. I think instead the best solution is to offer non-obligatory incentives for media companies to improve while equipping voters with critical thinking skills that can only come from a good education.
P.S. That’s #2 Ames.
