Fascism Comes to Media

Thursday, January 01, 2009

A Connecticut lawmaker has proposed a government bailout of two failing newspapers there, admitting in the process that he is completely unqualified to serve as a government official in a free country:

[Frank] Nicastro and fellow legislators want the papers to survive, and petitioned the state government to do something about it. "The media is a vitally important part of America," he said, particularly local papers that cover news ignored by big papers and television and radio stations. [bold added]
Nicastro is right that news media are vitally important to America, but if he thinks financial support from the government, or government "incentives" to promote private investment in them will "save" them, he is being naive or dishonest.

Why do I say this? Because the government differs from all other social institutions in being the only one to legally wield force. In a proper political system, its sole purpose would be to protect individual rights by exercising this force -- the delegated, retaliatory force of self-defense of its citizens. Any time the government strays from this purpose, it is guilty of initiating force against someone, violating his inalienable rights in the process. That is, the government is functioning like any other foreign or domestic enemy in every such case.

Where will the bailout money in question come from? Taxes? The government must violate the property rights of citizens, by confiscating money from them, just like a criminal gang. Tax "incentives" for investors? That's simply a euphemism for stealing less from an arbitrary part of the populace. This is being done in the name of the so-called public good, but the government, unlike private individuals, operates by force. This means that officials like Nicastro are the ones defining for us what the "public good" is, and they can make us pay for what they think it is whether they are correct or not, and whether we agree or not.

Certainly, if Nicastro thinks the papers should start making changes to how they report the news, he has them where he wants them: by the purse-strings. Nicastro is, perhaps (and at best) well-intentioned, but suffering from the "dictator fantasy", and needs help imagining just how much worse his idea is than doing nothing, and allowing the papers to fail.

Along those lines, I would first suggest that Nicastro imagine a hated political opponent succeeding him and leaning on the papers to make sure he looks good. Second, I would remind him that we already have examples of government "encouragement" of media tempting officials with having a say. For an example of this, note that Phil Berger, a counterpart of his from North Carolina, recently proposed to have the government review movie scripts before "incentivized" cameras could roll in his state.

As I said then:
[I]n any "partnership" where one side wields force, it is the side with the guns that will win any argument that comes up, as we see here. When the operating premise behind North Carolina's film "incentive" is that the tax money confiscated in the first place from the film producers is the government's to keep or give back, then it is only a matter of time before the government will decide that strings might need to be attached.
In this case, matters are even worse, because, by its very nature, Nicastro's proposal encourages biased, pro-government reporting, especially by journalists whose jobs are on the line. The importance of our news media lies in its ability to convey factual information for rational consideration by its audience. The very nature of this function makes it impossible to "save" the newspapers by the government controlling them even very indirectly.

Reporter Robert MacMillan opens this story by noting that some "think [Nicastro] and his colleagues are setting a worrisome precedent for government involvement in the U.S. press". This is true, but the fact is that no government should be involved in running the press.

Worse, MacMillan says little about why this idea sets a "worrisome precedent," and reports on the proposal in such a way as to make government "incentives" sound unlike actual or de facto ownership. He also quotes a journalist whom he says "would not let gratitude get in the way of reporting on local political peccadilloes." How reassuring!

Is MacMillan merely inept, or is he planting the idea of a federal role in "saving" the media in the minds of readers across the country? Your guess is as good as mine. Thanks a heap, Mr. Nicastro.

-- CAV

5 comments:

Burgess Laughlin said...

Perhaps this proposal has already been made. If not, it would be illuminating to apply the "bailout principle" to all aspects of life in the USA.

For example, any family that runs up a debt would have the debt paid off by government--and a bureaucrat would come to live in the house, call meetings, and review each family member's performance. Those who don't perform will be "volunteered" for community service.

For another example, churches that lose members would have government employees sit on the church's equivalent of the board of directors. Those bureaucrats would review sermons and choir performances.

This is too depressing to continue. I fear that someone will take this seriously and propose it in Congress.

Myrhaf said...

That Reuters report is another "name that party" piece of journalism. What party is Nicastro?

I ask because Evan Thomas of Newsweek famously said the media was worth 15% to Al Gore in 2004. Are the Democrats going to let propaganda arm of their party die?

Gus Van Horn said...

Burgess,

The newspapers are already in huge trouble generally. I have long thought that something like this was just a matter of time. That it has already come up is quite disturbing in itself.

Myrhaf,

Yes. I had considered adding the "D"!

Gus

Robert MacMillan said...

Hi Gus,
Thanks for writing about the story that I wrote. I did explain clearly why some folks think the precedent is worrisome. I don't think I was inept in any way but one: I failed to mention Mr. Nicastro's party affiliation. I meant to, then deleted it with the aim of putting it in another part of the story where it would have flowed better, writing-wise. Then I forgot because I was hasty.
Happy New Year to you and thanks again.
Robert

Gus Van Horn said...

Robert,

Thank you for stopping by and taking the time to read this. I am glad that you are concerned about this possibility and reported it. Personally, I am eager to see what the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights will say about this. I expect that it will be one of the better arguments against this foolish, dangerous move.

Happy New Year!

Gus