The Future of a Free Press

The future of a free press seems currently problematic. The president of Ukraine has shut down several opposition news outlets, RT has been effectively put out of business and Prime Minister Trudeau has weaponized his Qualified Canadian Journalism Organization License to curtail Rebel News and any other outfit that he deems a purveyor of “misinformation.” Things are not particularly optimistic here in the United States either, even though our government has not yet engaged in any overt legislation or regulations that would clearly abridge the freedom of the press.

So, I guess the big question is what has changed? I’m going to argue it isn’t the rise of intolerant progressives on university campuses nor is it an avalanche of woke senior editors, producers, and directors among the growing oligarchy of today’s “mainstream” media. What has changed is something that snuck up on all of us…

…the definition and expectation of the customer.

If you followed me on Quora, before joining me over here in Substack, you’ll know I have said that reporters, photographers, and the support staff that chase stories and images are a bunch of busybodies constantly looking for someone else’s business to dig into. But we need those boundaryless information predators to provide a check against the oligarchy just as much as one needs a pit bull in a high crime neighborhood to protect his home from drug dealers and home invaders. I’m sure some of my old friends and acquaintances in the business may take umbrage with my characterizations and comparisons, and that is okay.

The fourth estate is a celebrated institution whose integrity is being seriously challenged, but those challenges facing the institution today really don’t hinge on the character and quality of the journalist since that personality type is a constant in the community of practitioners. The challenge is to meet the demands of the customer and, for the moment, defining that one is problematic.

I didn’t pull the word “customer” out of thin air. I could have said audience, or viewer, or user but all those monikers wouldn’t factor who is paying the bills and who is the gatekeeper of the feed.

About seventy five percent of television advertising is Big Pharma  and more than seventy percent of Americans get their news from Facebook or YouTube. So, in many cases, you aren’t even the customer anymore. I get all my news from friends who forward videos and articles online. Otherwise it is mostly second hand commentary from the likes of Jimmy Dore, the GrayZone, TimCast, or Russel Brand. But nearly all of those pieces, not in an article format, (with the possible exception of an occasional Rumble or BitChute) come from a YouTube feed.

My using the YouTube service might indirectly help keep algorithms in the podcasters’ favor but I do not subscribe to anything. Not Fox, not CNN, not even Jimmy Dore nor Russel Brand. So, it is hard to say I am the “customer” in this equation. A consumer? For sure, but not necessarily a customer.

This is not semantics, but it is economics. A hundred years ago the kid stood on the corner shouting “Extra!” and you gave him a nickel. When I was growing up the morning and evening paper showed up at the doorstep. My dad paid for it every month when our paper girl showed up for the check.

Who reading this has never paid for a New York Times piece online yet? Why not? Because they keep letting you into the story for free. Why subscribe to Fox or CNN when their stuff shows up on so many other host feeds on YouTube? If today’s aspiring Woodward and Bernstein want their hot investigative piece to get traction it has to pass through the gates of YouTube and Facebook like anybody else.

So, let’s do the math. CNN would be dead without the advertising dollars of Big Pharma and it can’t get attention if it is not in bed with Zuckerberg so who is the customer? Because we know the rule that runs the world of buyers and sellers…

…the customer is always right.

To a great extent, Big Pharma and Big Tech are the customer of today’s news. They pay for it, they facilitate it and they regulate it. In effect, they “license” it.

In the strictest of legal terms there are basically two kinds of licenses: (1) proprietary and (2) municipal. The first is the grant of a property owner to a non-owner to use the property. The latter is a privilege granted by a governmental body that allows a person or business to carry on an activity that would be otherwise illegal but for the license. Any number of regulated activities fall into this latter category these days: physicians, CPAs, public school teachers, day care, barbers and beauticians, commercial transport, pilots and, in most cases, anyone “driving” a motor vehicle on a public road. Note, I left out attorneys as their “license” is actually membership into a private guild whose admission is required before any court will allow them to represent someone.

CNN and the litany of other “networks” are private property, and their financial lifeline is Big Pharma. They are “proprietary.” Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Instagram are also proprietary. So, if you want to broadcast your podcast on YouTube you need their “license.” There is certainly room for argument that these latter organizations have abused their liability shields granted by Congress, to such degree they are no longer platforms but rather “publishers,” and should not be allowed the privilege if they are going to censor material because it is arbitrarily deemed “misinformation.” However, that is an uphill battle that no one in Congress or the White House seemed overly interested in giving anything more than lip service so don’t hold your breath. Elon Musk may offer a hopeful solution if his nine percent progresses to a majority of the otherwise failed public square that was once Twitter.

So what is going on with Trudeau’s “Qualified Canadian Journalism Organization License” and how does it affect news organizations that don’t have one? For starters, you can’t cover government events in Canada. Facebook and Twitter are required to “downgrade” the published content of the unlicensed organization so the reader knows they are basically reading material one step removed from contraband. And, the usual exemptions and deductions allowed the business and its subscribers are denied under the Income Tax Act.

Does it mean the news organization is banned? Well, no, not yet. But here is what ought to make folks nervous. Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that everyone has "the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." So, one would logically ask, how does Trudeau get away with this curious move?

If I had to guess it is because the section lacks six very important words that are in the American Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law…abridging…the freedom of…the press.” The former just says everyone has the freedoms whereas the latter enumerates an expressed restriction which our Supreme Court has long held extends to the Executive branch as well as corresponding state and municipal institutions.

In Canada, this one is on its way to court so it is a little early to draw too many conclusions but the most immediate question is what we’re hearing from mainstream media on the turn of events in the debate over the value and efficacy of the Fourth Estate.

Hear the crickets?