WEBVTT

NOTE Feet to the Fire: The New Media and the Elites

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.120
Thanks for coming. It's a humbling experience to be here and, more importantly, to be presented

2
00:00:05.120 --> 00:00:12.200
with the task of delivering the Hazlitt Memorial Lecture. Hazlitt has been an inspiration for

3
00:00:12.200 --> 00:00:18.200
my entire professional career, not just because his appreciation of economics was inspired

4
00:00:18.200 --> 00:00:23.560
by his work as a journalist, but also because of the clarity of his writing. Now, it was

5
00:00:23.560 --> 00:00:28.040
a different era, of course, back when he was writing for places like the New York Times,

6
00:00:28.040 --> 00:00:40.040
Newsweek and The Nation. On one hand, those media enterprises were open-minded enough to actually let an editorial writer write about things in a free-market way that they probably would not today.

7
00:00:40.040 --> 00:00:54.040
On the other hand, though, he did this before the intellectual support of organizations like the Mises Institute and the vast array of information and literature that the Institute and folks like you in the audience have created.

8
00:00:54.040 --> 00:01:00.040
That literature makes it a lot easier for journalists writing about policy to do our jobs today.

9
00:01:00.040 --> 00:01:05.040
Of course that is if we actually pay attention to critical thinking and research.

10
00:01:05.040 --> 00:01:11.040
But let me have the indulgence of a brief digression first.

11
00:01:11.040 --> 00:01:15.040
Lew asked me to talk about media elites. He wrote the title for the speech.

12
00:01:15.040 --> 00:01:19.040
And at first glance it may seem like I'm an odd person to talk about elitism.

13
00:01:19.040 --> 00:01:30.040
I mean, I live in downtown San Francisco, after all, which is probably what most conservatives would call elite in a very anti-Auburn, a very unflattering kind of way.

14
00:01:30.040 --> 00:01:38.040
Now, I mean, San Francisco is a city that delights in thumbing its nose at not just federal law, but also state law and everything from gay marriage to banning handguns.

15
00:01:38.040 --> 00:01:42.040
My elected representative in Congress is none other than Nancy Pelosi.

16
00:01:42.040 --> 00:02:05.040
My city pioneered the entirely economically sensible idea of handing out monthly cash payments to every homeless person with the entirely predictable result of luring homeless people from all over California and convincing at the margin gainfully employed people to pretend to be homeless and stand in line for an hour a day to collect their checks once a month.

17
00:02:05.040 --> 00:02:11.280
San Francisco is where we issue licenses to clubs for private encounters of the sort that

18
00:02:11.280 --> 00:02:16.320
cannot be described in family newspapers. It's where the city supports an annual event called

19
00:02:16.320 --> 00:02:27.760
the Folsom Street Fair, where the same encounters become much more public. This is Orrin Hatch's

20
00:02:27.760 --> 00:02:34.320
worst nightmare of liberal elitism, and I'm coming from it to be here today.

21
00:02:34.320 --> 00:02:38.120
On the other hand, though, it's a beautiful area to live in. The Sierras are just 200

22
00:02:38.120 --> 00:02:44.360
miles away. We have the natural splendor of Big Sur and Monterey Bay to the south. That's

23
00:02:44.360 --> 00:02:48.720
where Carmel is. This is a town that elected Clint Eastwood Mayor. Eastwood is, by the

24
00:02:48.720 --> 00:02:53.560
way, a self-described libertarian, so there's some hope for our area yet. We have the excellent

25
00:02:53.560 --> 00:02:58.560
wines of Sonoma and Napa Valleys across the Golden Gate Bridge to the north. On the political

26
00:02:58.560 --> 00:03:07.560
Free-thinking remains alive and well. A town just outside of San Francisco, Fremont, is home to Pete Stark, who you might have heard about this week.

27
00:03:07.560 --> 00:03:12.560
He's the only openly atheist member of Congress, according to the American Humanist Association.

28
00:03:12.560 --> 00:03:19.560
And, of course, the area is home to the greatest and smartest collection of entrepreneurs the world has seen so far.

29
00:03:19.560 --> 00:03:24.560
We've been home to the National Revolt Against Draconian Federal Drug Laws.

30
00:03:24.560 --> 00:03:31.060
Angel Raich, the plaintiff who went up before the Supreme Court, which shamefully said,

31
00:03:31.060 --> 00:03:35.980
oh yes, of course, regulating drugs is a reasonable use of the Commerce Clause,

32
00:03:35.980 --> 00:03:40.020
lives right across the bay in Oakland. And our handgun ban was struck down by the court,

33
00:03:40.020 --> 00:03:45.300
so though unfortunately not on the same Second Amendment grounds that the DC Circuit used,

34
00:03:45.300 --> 00:03:52.380
this is California after all. Okay, now let me return to my original topic. Before I moved to

35
00:03:52.380 --> 00:04:03.380
When I was in New California a year or so ago, I lived in Washington for over a decade, and I suspect that's why Lew invited me to speak here today, if California is a home of liberal elites, Washington is a home of media elites.

36
00:04:03.380 --> 00:04:12.380
One reason why many of us here today care so much about the topic of the media is that we believe that it's hostile to Austrian ideas and to free market views in general.

37
00:04:12.380 --> 00:04:17.680
Well, I haven't come across any research yet that asks and answers precisely that question.

38
00:04:17.680 --> 00:04:23.580
But if we rephrase it along more traditional lines, liberal versus conservative, there's

39
00:04:23.580 --> 00:04:28.740
a wealth of consistent survey data and other research.

40
00:04:28.740 --> 00:04:33.500
The American Society of Newspaper Editors research suggests that journalists are younger,

41
00:04:33.500 --> 00:04:36.380
better educated and more liberal than the general public.

42
00:04:36.380 --> 00:04:41.700
Its survey of journalists found that at the bigger papers, 61% of newsroom respondents

43
00:04:41.700 --> 00:04:46.900
has described themselves as Democrats or leaning towards Democrat and only 10% as Republicans

44
00:04:46.900 --> 00:04:49.260
or leaning towards Republican.

45
00:04:49.260 --> 00:04:54.940
Another survey found that in 92, 89% of Washington journalists surveyed voted for Bill Clinton

46
00:04:54.940 --> 00:04:56.700
and 7% for Bush.

47
00:04:56.700 --> 00:04:59.340
This is George Bush, of course.

48
00:04:59.340 --> 00:05:03.980
This is actually an increase of liberals and a decrease in conservative affiliation from

49
00:05:03.980 --> 00:05:08.340
a similar survey conducted over a decade earlier in the early 1980s.

50
00:05:08.340 --> 00:05:13.100
Other researchers found similar patterns with about 61% of journalists calling themselves

51
00:05:13.100 --> 00:05:20.380
liberal and about 9% conservative or conservative to moderate.

52
00:05:20.380 --> 00:05:23.020
Now occasionally you have journalists who are going to admit this.

53
00:05:23.020 --> 00:05:28.180
In 2004, the New York Times public editor wrote a refreshingly frank column saying just

54
00:05:28.180 --> 00:05:29.180
this.

55
00:05:29.180 --> 00:05:32.980
He was talking about social issues, gay rights, gun control, abortion, environmental regulation.

56
00:05:32.980 --> 00:05:37.100
Quote, if you think the Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading

57
00:05:37.100 --> 00:05:47.100
He was talking about hostility to the idea of savings, but it works just as well in referring to hostility towards other free market ideas writ large.

58
00:05:47.100 --> 00:05:57.100
He said, quote, when once people have decided to deride a practice or an institution, any argument against it, no matter how illogical, is considered good enough.

59
00:05:57.100 --> 00:06:04.100
Now, my own experience working in D.C. as a political correspondent for over a decade indicates this is consistent with my experience.

60
00:06:04.100 --> 00:06:08.700
Correspondent for over a decade indicates this is consistent with that premise.

61
00:06:08.700 --> 00:06:11.920
Some of my previous jobs were working as a reporter in the Washington Bureau of Time

62
00:06:11.920 --> 00:06:17.800
Inc., which publishes Time Magazine, the Washington Bureau for Wired Ventures, which at the time

63
00:06:17.800 --> 00:06:22.760
published Wired Magazine, now it's owned by Condi Nast. I've written a short-lived column

64
00:06:22.760 --> 00:06:27.500
for UPI, a slightly longer-lived one for Business 2.0, and an even longer-lived one for George

65
00:06:27.500 --> 00:06:32.600
Magazine, the home of the media elite right there. I've accompanied the president on Air

66
00:06:32.600 --> 00:06:40.600
and have, when I lived in DC, been a card-carrying member of the National Press Club and during that time, in interactions with hundreds of my colleagues,

67
00:06:40.600 --> 00:06:47.600
I found political reporters to be consistently left of center and editors to be consistently, generally, the same way.

68
00:06:47.600 --> 00:06:53.600
The better ones will go out of their way to correct for this bias, but it's like any profession.

69
00:06:53.600 --> 00:06:57.600
You have the mediocre people who will not or cannot.

70
00:06:57.600 --> 00:07:03.600
And so if we accept that the allegations of bias are true, we have to ask why they're true.

71
00:07:03.600 --> 00:07:10.600
To conclude that a mostly liberal media exists almost requires positing something like a news cartel,

72
00:07:10.600 --> 00:07:18.600
which in turn requires things like collusion among existing members, limiting competition and punishing defection.

73
00:07:18.600 --> 00:07:22.600
Daniel Sutter at the University of Oklahoma explored this topic in a 2001 paper

74
00:07:22.600 --> 00:07:26.960
in one paper and tried to answer whether the source of the bias comes from the demand side,

75
00:07:26.960 --> 00:07:31.880
that is the reader or consumer of news or the supply side and that is either the owners,

76
00:07:31.880 --> 00:07:36.520
editors or journalists. Now he pointed out correctly that bias news runs the risk of

77
00:07:36.520 --> 00:07:41.560
alienating customers who have centrist or conservative views. I mean think about it,

78
00:07:41.560 --> 00:07:46.440
why would the owners of a biased news organization tolerate that bias if they could maximize

79
00:07:46.440 --> 00:07:51.160
profits by appealing to a larger audience that included underserved conservatives or

80
00:07:51.160 --> 00:07:52.160
Libertarians.

81
00:07:52.160 --> 00:07:57.320
And we do know that it's possible for new entrants to join the traditional national

82
00:07:57.320 --> 00:07:58.320
media marketplace.

83
00:07:58.320 --> 00:08:03.240
So Fox News and USA Today are good examples of that, but it's an expensive and risky

84
00:08:03.240 --> 00:08:04.240
proposition.

85
00:08:04.240 --> 00:08:10.360
USA Today lost $800 million in its first nine years of operation, and Fox News still lags

86
00:08:10.360 --> 00:08:15.440
behind CNN in terms of unique viewers even 11 years after its launch.

87
00:08:15.440 --> 00:08:22.120
In fact, from August 2005 to 2006, Fox News lost 7% of its total day viewers, while CNN

88
00:08:22.120 --> 00:08:27.440
and MSNBC gained 35% and 26% respectively.

89
00:08:27.440 --> 00:08:33.560
And so one demand-side explanation of bias is that news media consumers are more liberal

90
00:08:33.560 --> 00:08:37.860
than voters, and there in fact is some evidence to back that up.

91
00:08:37.860 --> 00:08:43.520
But the better explanation probably lies on the supply side with journalists themselves.

92
00:08:43.520 --> 00:08:47.800
There is a personal and often a professional cost in being an outlier among your colleagues

93
00:08:47.800 --> 00:08:52.400
during those water cooler conversations and annual salary reviews.

94
00:08:52.400 --> 00:08:57.120
Surveys suggest the top tier journalism programs like Columbia University's Graduate Journalism

95
00:08:57.120 --> 00:09:02.400
School graduated very liberal, a crop of students every year, which implies that the most desirable

96
00:09:02.400 --> 00:09:06.560
new writers are probably going to be left to center.

97
00:09:06.560 --> 00:09:10.520
David Barron, who's a professor of political economy at Stanford University, offered what

98
00:09:10.520 --> 00:09:13.040
I think is an intriguing explanation.

99
00:09:13.040 --> 00:09:24.040
He said that a profit-maximizing news organization tolerates bias if and only if that bias allows it to hire journalists at a lower wage.

100
00:09:24.040 --> 00:09:27.040
Now think about it.

101
00:09:27.040 --> 00:09:34.040
And so let's assume reporters are also qualified to work in public relations, technical writing or ad sales.

102
00:09:34.040 --> 00:09:41.040
Mean reporter salaries are just over $40,000, according to the latest information, 2005, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

103
00:09:41.040 --> 00:09:47.040
But public relations, technical writing and ad sales salaries are an average of nearly $13,000 higher.

104
00:09:47.040 --> 00:09:58.040
The mean disparity grows to over $30,000 when you compare editor's salaries, basically editors or managers, with those of public relations and advertising managers, $30,000 a year.

105
00:09:58.040 --> 00:10:06.040
Now, there are many reasons why journalists would probably take lower salaries, maybe the potential for travel or the publicity associated with bylines.

106
00:10:06.040 --> 00:10:14.040
But for many reporters, at least in my experience, they like the quasi-academic feel of being divorced from a for-profit organization.

107
00:10:14.040 --> 00:10:24.040
But nevertheless, just about all of them know that they could make more money elsewhere if they wanted to switch jobs, sometimes even doubling their salaries in large metro areas.

108
00:10:24.040 --> 00:10:32.040
And by the way, for anyone on the business faculty of a college or university right in between those numbers, the average salary is $67,500.

109
00:10:32.040 --> 00:10:47.040
So the model I suggested so far is one of an industry with cartel-like aspects that has historically been marked by relatively high barriers to entry, at least on a national scale.

110
00:10:47.040 --> 00:10:53.040
On the supply side, reporters tend to be liberal and owners may tolerate this bias in exchange for paying lower salaries.

111
00:10:53.040 --> 00:11:00.040
But this model that has been in existence for decades now starts to crumble when barriers to entry are low,

112
00:11:00.040 --> 00:11:02.040
which brings us to the Internet.

113
00:11:02.040 --> 00:11:05.040
We've already seen some instances of blogs raising topics

114
00:11:05.040 --> 00:11:09.040
that the mainstream media has been unwilling to touch.

115
00:11:09.040 --> 00:11:12.040
By unearthing information, publicizing it aggressively,

116
00:11:12.040 --> 00:11:16.040
they've practically forced mainstream journalists to pay attention on occasion.

117
00:11:16.040 --> 00:11:23.040
Now one of those happened in President Bush's re-election campaign in 2004

118
00:11:23.040 --> 00:11:27.040
when CBS News ran a story raising the question of favoritism

119
00:11:27.040 --> 00:11:30.040
during his time in the Texas Army National Guard.

120
00:11:30.040 --> 00:11:35.040
You don't have to see the details, but basically this is one of the documents

121
00:11:35.040 --> 00:11:38.040
that CBS News' 60 Minutes claimed were authentic.

122
00:11:38.040 --> 00:11:41.040
Dan Rather claimed that they came from the late Colonel Killian's personal files

123
00:11:41.040 --> 00:11:45.040
and they had been authenticated by outside independent experts.

124
00:11:45.040 --> 00:11:48.040
Now the segment aired two months before the November election

125
00:11:48.040 --> 00:11:53.040
and this and other documents indicated that Bush disobeyed a direct order

126
00:11:53.040 --> 00:11:55.040
to appear for his physical.

127
00:11:55.040 --> 00:11:59.040
Documents alleged that the Bush family friends intervened on his behalf.

128
00:11:59.040 --> 00:12:06.040
Hours after the story aired on 60 Minutes, conservative bloggers started assailing the documents and the credibility of the reporters.

129
00:12:06.040 --> 00:12:12.040
The discussion seems to have started on sites like Free Republic and Powerline and quickly spread outwards.

130
00:12:12.040 --> 00:12:23.040
Some bloggers questioned the fonts used, saying that it looked like the alleged original documents had been created by a modern version of Microsoft Word rather than something typed in 1972.

131
00:12:23.040 --> 00:12:51.040
CBS and Dan Rather initially stood by the document's authenticity, but after about two weeks they vowed to criticism from bloggers and other competitors that were essentially forced by bloggers to pick up the story, USA Today among them, and acknowledged that the documents could not be authenticated and no originals were actually available.

132
00:12:51.040 --> 00:12:55.740
CBS News President Andrew Hayward would eventually say,

133
00:12:55.740 --> 00:12:59.540
based on what we know now, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic,

134
00:12:59.540 --> 00:13:03.340
which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in this report.

135
00:13:03.340 --> 00:13:06.540
We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret.

136
00:13:06.540 --> 00:13:12.740
Now, what made this incident even more embarrassing for CBS News is that the producer put her source of the documents

137
00:13:12.740 --> 00:13:18.240
in contact with John Kerry's presidential campaign, something that's not a neutral or even professional thing to do.

138
00:13:18.240 --> 00:13:33.240
What's worth noting is that political bloggers tend to be overtly biased instead of covertly biased, and even proud of these biases, whether it's liberal, conservative, libertarian, or other.

139
00:13:33.240 --> 00:13:37.240
I mean, certainly all of the most popular online writers and bloggers fall into this category.

140
00:13:37.240 --> 00:13:44.240
And my hunch is that it's a market response to the lack of media organizations, at least mainstream national ones that are openly partisan,

141
00:13:44.240 --> 00:13:50.240
Partisan, even ones that are, in fact, biased, of course, claim not to be.

142
00:13:50.240 --> 00:13:54.240
It's also a throwback to the earlier days of journalism.

143
00:13:54.240 --> 00:13:58.240
To pick up a book, it's called Debating the Issues in Colonial Newspapers,

144
00:13:58.240 --> 00:14:03.240
and it's a compilation of original sources, hundreds of pages of newspapers

145
00:14:03.240 --> 00:14:08.240
that describe the partisan political debates that took place at that time in those pages.

146
00:14:08.240 --> 00:14:13.240
The Federalists had their network of weekly newspapers, primarily in New England,

147
00:14:13.240 --> 00:14:16.440
but with a strong presence in Pennsylvania.

148
00:14:16.440 --> 00:14:19.200
Here's an image from one of them.

149
00:14:19.200 --> 00:14:21.720
It's a pro-Federalist poster circa 1800

150
00:14:21.720 --> 00:14:23.480
with Washington urging support for pillars

151
00:14:23.480 --> 00:14:26.560
of Federalism, Republican and Democracy.

152
00:14:26.560 --> 00:14:28.280
At Alexander Hamilton's urging

153
00:14:28.280 --> 00:14:29.460
and with some of Hamilton's money,

154
00:14:29.460 --> 00:14:31.800
Noah Webster founded New York's first daily newspaper

155
00:14:31.800 --> 00:14:35.720
with an unabashedly Federalist slant.

156
00:14:35.720 --> 00:14:38.560
Both allies and enemies attributed Thomas Jefferson's

157
00:14:38.560 --> 00:14:40.520
eventual presidential victory in 1800

158
00:14:40.520 --> 00:14:47.240
to Newspapermen with Anti-Federalist Biases, and even so, the Jeffersonians were outnumbered

159
00:14:47.240 --> 00:14:51.460
with some estimates showing that Federalists were losing ground but still had a 2-1 numeric

160
00:14:51.460 --> 00:14:55.360
advantage in terms of newspapers controlled by the turn of the century.

161
00:14:55.360 --> 00:15:00.080
In other words, some corners of new media are just reverting back to that time-honored

162
00:15:00.080 --> 00:15:01.920
tradition of partisan reporting.

163
00:15:01.920 --> 00:15:06.040
If you wanted to have a balanced view of the news back then, you just read both the Federalist

164
00:15:06.040 --> 00:15:13.480
in the Anti-Federalist Papers, and you didn't expect neutrality from one single source.

165
00:15:13.480 --> 00:15:18.360
So liberal bloggers have also had chances to take potshots at politicians. When Senator

166
00:15:18.360 --> 00:15:22.960
Trent Lott spoke at Strom Thurman's 100th birthday party, he said, when Strom Thurman

167
00:15:22.960 --> 00:15:27.640
ran for president, we voted for him, we're proud of it, and if the rest of the country

168
00:15:27.640 --> 00:15:31.160
had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all those problems over the years either.

169
00:15:31.160 --> 00:15:36.840
Now, Lott clearly was supporting the ideas that Thurman ran on as a Dixie crowd in 1948,

170
00:15:36.840 --> 00:15:41.820
but it's less clear what ideas he meant. Was Lott making a Federalist point about states'

171
00:15:41.820 --> 00:15:45.640
rights that many of us here would agree is perfectly reasonable, or was it a thinly veiled

172
00:15:45.640 --> 00:15:50.640
racist remark? Well, liberal bloggers said it was the second, and they kept the story

173
00:15:50.640 --> 00:15:54.880
alive. Eventually, the mainstream media returned to it. They just treated it as a gossip item

174
00:15:54.880 --> 00:15:59.640
initially, and after losing the support of some of his fellow Republicans and the White

175
00:15:59.640 --> 00:16:03.280
House, Lot resigned as Senate Majority Leader two weeks later.

176
00:16:03.280 --> 00:16:07.800
Now, it's not just bloggers doing end runs around print media, of course.

177
00:16:07.800 --> 00:16:12.800
I mean, recently, fast Internet connections and cheaper digital and video cameras have

178
00:16:12.800 --> 00:16:16.160
let sites like YouTube and Flickr become household words.

179
00:16:16.160 --> 00:16:21.800
When John Kerry showed up at a campaign stop for California gubernatorial candidate Phil

180
00:16:21.800 --> 00:16:27.440
Angelidis last October, Kerry said, if you make the most of education, you study hard,

181
00:16:27.440 --> 00:16:32.440
If you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in a rack.

182
00:16:32.440 --> 00:16:36.440
And that video quickly appeared on YouTube and you all remember the rest.

183
00:16:36.440 --> 00:16:45.440
And then there's Representative John Sweeney who found out that the perils of having embarrassing moments like this one endlessly replayed online.

184
00:16:45.440 --> 00:16:48.440
And for him it wasn't something that he said, it was something that he did.

185
00:16:48.440 --> 00:16:53.440
He showed up intoxicated at the Alpha Delta Phi fraternity at Upstate New York's Union College.

186
00:16:53.440 --> 00:16:58.440
One of the students had a camera phone, you can see a second one, aiming a phone right there in the bottom right.

187
00:16:58.440 --> 00:17:02.440
The incriminating photographs hit the net, and Sweeney lost his re-election bid.

188
00:17:02.440 --> 00:17:07.440
Correlation or causation? I don't know, but it certainly didn't help.

189
00:17:07.440 --> 00:17:12.440
There's Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican, had much the same treatment, but with a twist.

190
00:17:12.440 --> 00:17:20.440
Let's see if we can actually hear this.

191
00:17:20.440 --> 00:17:24.440
Anyone remember the Tubes video? Maybe it's not playing.

192
00:17:24.440 --> 00:17:28.440
Stevens at the time was chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee,

193
00:17:28.440 --> 00:17:32.440
which is charged with a hopeless task of writing laws to regulate the Internet.

194
00:17:32.440 --> 00:17:36.440
We may not agree with that, but we could probably agree that Internet legislators

195
00:17:36.440 --> 00:17:40.440
should at least have a modicum of understanding of the medium they're trying to regulate.

196
00:17:40.440 --> 00:17:44.440
Unfortunately, Stevens did not. He said the Internet is not a dump truck,

197
00:17:44.440 --> 00:17:48.440
which probably is reasonable, but his metaphor didn't really take him much further beyond that.

198
00:17:48.440 --> 00:17:59.440
This was quickly picked up on YouTube on Comedy Central's The Daily Show and on a techno remix that I tried to play but failed to do.

199
00:17:59.440 --> 00:18:07.440
Once your comments make it into a techno remix, you know that there's not much further down you can go.

200
00:18:07.440 --> 00:18:15.440
And then there's Senator George Allen's and his macaque racial slur, which also is probably not going to cooperate.

201
00:18:15.440 --> 00:18:22.440
This was caught on YouTube. He made an ethnic slur at a campaign rally. It was caught on video camera.

202
00:18:22.440 --> 00:18:27.440
He was talking about representatives of the opposing campaign that were there, and he lost re-election.

203
00:18:27.440 --> 00:18:34.440
Now what's interesting is this sort of YouTube and blogging and Wikipedia, MySpace, etc. revolution

204
00:18:34.440 --> 00:18:39.440
is an emergence of free market websites that can propel us beyond this traditional left-right axis.

205
00:18:39.440 --> 00:18:53.440
I'm thinking of sources of commentary, news information, amises.org, rationalreview.com, downsizeddc.com, antiwar.com and probably dozens or hundreds of others that I don't even know about, but certainly could not have existed without the internet.

206
00:18:53.440 --> 00:19:02.440
These sites also represent our best chance of challenging the pro-power bias in the mainstream media.

207
00:19:02.440 --> 00:19:08.440
I'm not aware of any research that's quantified this and I'm probably not even expressing it very eloquently.

208
00:19:08.440 --> 00:19:20.440
My impression is that both liberal and conservative journalists tend to be pro-government power and therefore pro-government expansion for entirely predictable reasons.

209
00:19:20.440 --> 00:19:26.440
Let's think of them. Quoting government statistics is easier than having to do the research yourself.

210
00:19:26.440 --> 00:19:29.440
They're also free. Private organizations may charge for them.

211
00:19:29.440 --> 00:19:36.440
Government officials are always ready to assist in news coverage that's expected to be favorable, sometimes much more so than private organizations,

212
00:19:36.440 --> 00:19:39.440
If you're in Washington, you're a political reporter who lives in Washington.

213
00:19:39.440 --> 00:19:43.440
Your friends and the parents of your children's friends, your social network, in other words,

214
00:19:43.440 --> 00:19:48.440
is made up of government officials, party hacks and like-minded folks.

215
00:19:48.440 --> 00:19:51.440
Covering power can be lucrative.

216
00:19:51.440 --> 00:19:56.440
If you're a reporter in a state house, you're covering an obscure politician,

217
00:19:56.440 --> 00:20:00.440
and that politician ends up on the presidential campaign trail,

218
00:20:00.440 --> 00:20:08.440
If you're covering an obscure politician, that politician ends up on the presidential campaign trail and you get a six-figure advance.

219
00:20:08.440 --> 00:20:16.440
It can pay off in other ways. Journalists landing civil service jobs for life, becoming lobbyists for trade groups.

220
00:20:16.440 --> 00:20:24.440
At the most basic level, if your job is to cover the federal government and the federal government begins to shrink, you just may not have a job anymore.

221
00:20:24.440 --> 00:20:32.440
So these are just a few of the temptations that the mainstream media has, that the YouTube blogging revolutionaries do not.

222
00:20:42.440 --> 00:20:50.440
And so let's hope that as the Internet grows, as technology advances, as more people find it easier to do things online,

223
00:20:50.440 --> 00:20:55.440
Let the internet give birth to many more Henry Hazlitts. Thank you very much.

224
00:21:04.440 --> 00:21:06.440
We'll have any questions now.

225
00:21:08.440 --> 00:21:17.440
The whole issue of why the media is so left-wing, the two economists named Michael Jensen and Bill Meckling wrote about this about 20 years ago.

226
00:21:17.440 --> 00:21:37.440
They were from the University of Rochester, and one part of their theory was that if you're a journalist, most of the news you cover is government information, comes from the government that you just sort of thought about, so that if you don't treat government in a positive way, you risk being cut off from that information flow, and your career is ruined.

227
00:21:37.440 --> 00:22:07.440
And so that was, I think that was their main theme of why the media is so biased, that the information flow from government, maybe it wasn't like that 50 or 75 years ago or 100 years ago, but a friend of mine who just moved from Canada told me that one of the big differences she noticed is that almost all the national news in America is always politics, whereas in Canada at least a lot of it was about life, it wasn't about politics. So you would watch the evening news, it was nothing but politics.

228
00:22:07.440 --> 00:22:37.440
So the question is to repeat it for the online audience. There's evidence that two researchers at the University of Rochester who said that journalists are essentially pro-large government because so much news comes from the government and if you write things that are too critical you cut off your sources and that's of course entirely true. The better news organizations will have a good cop and a bad cop. There will be a good cop reporter who shows up at the press conferences at the Department of Commerce or

229
00:22:37.440 --> 00:23:07.440
or the Department of State or whatnot, it writes the nice flattering article and then you'll have the bad cop reporter who does the digging, writes the investigative pieces that make the government look like idiots and because PR people and government tend not to be that aware, they may still keep talking to the good cop reporter and generally do, thinking that it's more of a personal thing rather than an organizational or institutional thing. But you're right. If you piss off your sources, you tend to lose information in the future.

230
00:23:07.440 --> 00:23:14.440
exclusive access or the interview of a senior official that could advance your career.

231
00:24:37.440 --> 00:25:00.440
The question was, or two parts, first was, there's the book, I have a copy of it by the Emory Fellow saying that there's no gun culture. It was given to me by the head of a Washington, B.C. liberal advocacy group who said, read this and learn something.

232
00:25:00.440 --> 00:25:07.440
And the other point is an excellent one, which was journalists are biased because they tend to be intellectuals.

233
00:25:07.440 --> 00:25:13.440
They see people who are high school dropouts making much more money as entrepreneurs.

234
00:25:13.440 --> 00:25:19.440
And I think that's right. It's even worse in business and politics to some extent,

235
00:25:19.440 --> 00:25:24.440
because business reporters are covering people who are making insanely more than the reporters.

236
00:25:24.440 --> 00:25:26.440
The reporters get jealous.

237
00:25:26.440 --> 00:25:40.440
There's politics, it's probably just as much. You see these not-so-smart, lying, conniving politicians who then turn around and become lobbyists at mid-six-figure salaries, and you, well, anyway.

238
00:25:40.440 --> 00:25:47.440
There's, okay, any other questions? In the far back, yes, you.

239
00:25:47.440 --> 00:25:51.440
Do you think old media can survive in the credit world?

240
00:25:51.440 --> 00:25:54.440
The question is, can old media survive in today's world?

241
00:25:57.440 --> 00:26:00.440
Yes and no. I'm going to hedge the question a little.

242
00:26:00.440 --> 00:26:04.440
This is a huge topic of conversation in journalism circles.

243
00:26:04.440 --> 00:26:07.440
Sites like Pointer.org, P-O-Y-N-T-E-R.

244
00:26:07.440 --> 00:26:09.440
Endless discussions about our newspapers.

245
00:26:09.440 --> 00:26:12.440
Certainly circulation hasn't been doing very well.

246
00:26:12.440 --> 00:26:17.440
At the same time, there's more advertising going online.

247
00:26:17.440 --> 00:26:20.440
My employer, CNET Networks in San Francisco, is benefiting from that.

248
00:26:20.440 --> 00:26:32.440
And so you have circulation dropping, advertising moving online. This is not a great position to be in if you're in the newspaper biz. Most of the people I know who work at newspapers are thinking of exit strategies or at least contemplating them in the back of their mind.

249
00:26:32.440 --> 00:26:42.440
And so I'm not sure if newspapers are going to be around as we know them today in 20 years, but is the mainstream media going to be around? Probably.

250
00:26:42.440 --> 00:26:51.440
I mean, even after you have these millions and millions of blogs being created, you still don't have a substantial number of people who use them as a daily news source.

251
00:26:51.440 --> 00:26:56.440
Under less than 10%, according to, I think it was Pew Research stats.

252
00:26:56.440 --> 00:27:04.440
And so if you don't have the many people who are using them as info sources, then I think the mainstream media is going to exist for a while.

253
00:27:04.440 --> 00:27:09.440
I've been involved in a patient last year who wanted to get into reducing cost cases and I will say that

254
00:27:09.440 --> 00:27:22.440
Now you can subscribe to broadcast television that is produced by someone with much lower budget but looks just as good or almost as good as the nightly newscast or maybe with a less free market antagonism bias.

255
00:27:22.440 --> 00:27:24.440
Another question in the back. Yes.

256
00:27:24.440 --> 00:27:41.440
I've been involved in a patient's last year who wanted to be under the influence due to a cost case, and I will say that we bloggers have tended on the news media to sort of get some information out there.

257
00:27:41.440 --> 00:28:04.440
Now, what happened was the mainstream media all decided to get into these guys' guilty, and it's really been interesting because I started writing on it, and I started hearing here, like, you know, I've got a mole with the New York Times telling me about, oh yeah, this reporter really screwed up on this story, so we had to finally take him off it and put somebody else on there.

258
00:28:04.440 --> 00:28:14.440
and so it was interesting to see what happened in that the blogs actually have had an effect upon the mainstream coverage.

259
00:28:14.440 --> 00:28:22.440
I tell people that, you know, last day there were, you know, really you had, there's about four of us writing on the case

260
00:28:22.440 --> 00:28:32.440
and it was up against the New York Times and all the other mainstream media and the, as well as the judicial system of the state of North Carolina

261
00:29:32.440 --> 00:29:38.440
In short, I agree with you. There is a market. It's hard to know exactly how it's going to go.

262
00:29:38.440 --> 00:29:47.440
One thing is that we are no longer going to have to depend on getting a piece of paper to tell us what happened the day before,

263
00:29:47.440 --> 00:29:54.440
because we already know what happened. Thanks to the internet or whatever, the form will be different.

264
00:29:54.440 --> 00:30:00.440
The team speaks of these organizations that make people actually get in place, and there's something to map them.

265
00:30:24.440 --> 00:30:33.440
by journalists and editors, you're not going to have bloggers packing up and moving to Afghanistan or Iraq to cover what happens there.

266
00:30:33.440 --> 00:30:38.440
They're not going to be able to take off two months of their life and cover a high-profile trial.

267
00:30:38.440 --> 00:30:43.440
Yeah, they might be able to drop in on a lark, but some events do not lend themselves to blogging.

268
00:30:43.440 --> 00:30:50.440
But, you know, court documents, original things, especially anything you can find on the Internet lends itself to readily available blogging.

269
00:30:50.440 --> 00:30:54.440
It requires some digging, requires lots of telephone calls, lots of in-person visits.

270
00:30:54.440 --> 00:30:59.440
Yeah, that's not going to happen for a while until we get some very good micropayment system set up.

271
00:30:59.440 --> 00:31:05.440
Click here, spend 20 cents to read an article, and then the journalist can get presumably paid that way.

272
00:31:05.440 --> 00:31:09.440
It hasn't happened yet. Maybe it never will. I've been predicting it for a while and I've been wrong every time.

273
00:31:09.440 --> 00:31:11.440
Yes, sir?

274
00:31:11.440 --> 00:31:19.440
Well, we're all, for the past time, I think, pretty well aware about the concept of market failure by mainstream economics.

275
00:31:19.440 --> 00:31:26.440
And the idea is that if the price cycle can turn out something, can be quantitized, then the government should step in.

276
00:31:26.440 --> 00:31:31.440
And like we don't have enough left-wing propaganda, and you painted a quite oblique picture of that,

277
00:31:31.440 --> 00:31:38.440
we have an NPR and PBS turning the same kind of thing on our behalf, using government taxes.

278
00:31:38.440 --> 00:31:45.440
So we think that the subsidy, that's practically a subsidy of left-wing views, affects the whole market.

279
00:31:45.440 --> 00:32:14.440
I haven't thought about it phrased in those ways. The question is, does the existence of NPR and PBS move the entire market to the left?

280
00:32:14.440 --> 00:32:26.440
I suspect you're right. NPR and PBS are large operations. They've got studios all over the place. These are multi-billion dollar operations.

281
00:32:26.440 --> 00:32:38.440
And so if you wanted to compete with them and have free market or even remotely libertarian conservative talk radio, you're going to have a very difficult time doing that.

282
00:32:38.440 --> 00:32:53.440
And also because NPR breeds a lot of journalists and PBS breeds a lot of journalists then you tend to have that supply that you mentioned and it probably does move things to the left but I haven't actually thought about it before now.

283
00:32:53.440 --> 00:32:54.440
Yes, we're in the front.

284
00:32:54.440 --> 00:33:19.440
So the question is, are journalists really liberal when they've gone along with the Bush administration and have been insufficiently aggressive in covering it?

285
00:33:19.440 --> 00:33:29.440
Well, I mean, some of us have been aggressive in covering the Bush administration. I have been since 2001, but the question is, has everyone else?

286
00:33:29.440 --> 00:33:41.440
I mean, maybe this goes to the last thing I mentioned, which is reporters have this love for power, and to get close to power, and power in Washington is measured by your proximity to the presidency,

287
00:33:41.440 --> 00:33:49.440
and anything you can do to move that along is going to help your status in many ways.

288
00:33:49.440 --> 00:33:59.440
That's probably the best answer I can offer. It's not like reporters are now 90% Democrat registered and voting, 90% Republican registered and voting.

289
00:33:59.440 --> 00:34:09.440
It could be overcompensation. Liberals don't want to be viewed as soft on terror, much like the Democrats also lost their spine for many, many years.

290
00:34:09.440 --> 00:34:16.440
It's probably some combination of sucking up to power versus not looking, versus the terror thing.

291
00:34:16.440 --> 00:34:19.440
I don't have a great answer for you. Yes, in this order.

292
00:34:19.440 --> 00:34:26.440
Just a comment on that. I would say that the Bush administration is big government socialist team A,

293
00:34:26.440 --> 00:34:30.440
and then you have big government socialist team B, which might be the Democrats in Kerry.

294
00:34:30.440 --> 00:34:36.440
And as long as you have journalists covering this team A, team B thing,

295
00:34:36.440 --> 00:35:02.440
My question is, do you think that the powers that be, the elite that you're talking about here, will restrict the Internet, that they will restrict the freedom of this, and are they truly threatened by it because Americans are naturally anti-establishment and an essential people?

296
00:35:02.440 --> 00:35:19.440
You made two points. The first was a better response than I gave, which was that Bush's big government anyway, no child left behind, is hardly a very Federalist type of thing to do.

297
00:35:19.440 --> 00:35:28.440
And the second is, will the government restrict the Internet? I've been writing with that topic since 1996, actually even earlier.

298
00:35:28.440 --> 00:35:58.440
Early on, the danger was greater because not as many people knew about the internet. There weren't as many alternative news sources on the internet. There have been a bunch of censorship laws. The Communications Decency Act, which punished four-letter word usage online, was one of them. The Child Online Protection Act of 1990 was one of them. I was one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the Communications Decency Act. We sued Janet Reno in 1-9-0 before the Supreme Court, which is always kind of fun. Early on, the danger was greater because not as many people knew about the internet. There weren't as many alternative news sources on the internet.

299
00:35:58.440 --> 00:36:03.440
in 1998 followed that. It's still in litigation. It went up to the Supreme Court. It went back down.

300
00:36:03.440 --> 00:36:08.440
We're now awaiting a decision from a district court judge in Philadelphia.

301
00:36:08.440 --> 00:36:13.440
That's on the free speech front. On the privacy front, there have been a bunch of, I mean, this is the liberal

302
00:36:13.440 --> 00:36:18.440
view of privacy, which is data collection and retention regulations aimed at for-profit businesses.

303
00:36:18.440 --> 00:36:23.440
And those have been enacted, but not as broad as it could be.

304
00:36:23.440 --> 00:36:29.400
Regulations, not as broad as it could be. The best example is the Federal Election Commission

305
00:36:29.400 --> 00:36:35.840
attempt to regulate bloggers, and that came down about a year or two ago. I interviewed

306
00:36:35.840 --> 00:36:43.400
Brad Smith, who was at that time a Libertarian leading FEC commissioner, and he essentially

307
00:36:43.400 --> 00:36:47.720
blew the whistle through my article on what the FEC was going to do in terms of regulating

308
00:36:47.720 --> 00:36:50.600
and Registring Bloggers.

309
00:36:50.600 --> 00:36:53.320
After that happened, the FEC backed down.

310
00:36:53.320 --> 00:36:58.440
They said, oh no, of course we don't want to do this even though it was a deadlock three-to-three

311
00:36:58.440 --> 00:36:59.440
Republican versus Democrat.

312
00:36:59.440 --> 00:37:03.900
The Republicans needed a majority to appeal their lost sum in court, saying that the regs

313
00:37:03.900 --> 00:37:06.600
were unconstitutional.

314
00:37:06.600 --> 00:37:10.200
The bottom line is that the Democrats backed down really quickly because they didn't want

315
00:37:10.200 --> 00:37:17.360
to alienate their blogger base, and that got shot down about 90 percent of the teeth in

316
00:37:17.360 --> 00:37:22.080
Regulation fell out. That's the best example, but it's probably going to

317
00:37:22.080 --> 00:37:26.560
happen again. This is government and this is what regulators do.

318
00:37:47.360 --> 00:37:51.360
The question is, is the fairness doctrine going to rear its ugly head again?

319
00:37:51.360 --> 00:37:54.360
I don't write about broadcast stuff, and so I don't actually follow this.

320
00:37:54.360 --> 00:37:58.360
There has been some talk among Democrats at reviving it,

321
00:37:58.360 --> 00:38:04.360
in terms of, this is more heated conversations and serious policy proposals,

322
00:38:04.360 --> 00:38:09.360
but that has been talked about, it has not been talked about in the context of the internet as far as I know,

323
00:38:09.360 --> 00:38:12.360
and that would be a pretty big step for them to try to make.

324
00:38:12.360 --> 00:38:15.360
Yes, sir?

325
00:38:15.360 --> 00:38:35.360
YouTube is currently facing different lawsuits for a number of major broadcast companies in terms of news services, and so I was wondering if you see intellectual property copyrighted in any way for the mainstream media to reserve a monopoly over the capital?

326
00:38:45.360 --> 00:38:48.960
Is that a way for the old media to restrain the new?

327
00:38:48.960 --> 00:38:55.760
I mean, copyright and intellectual property in these circles is sort of divisive, and I have mixed views myself.

328
00:38:55.760 --> 00:39:11.160
My reading is that it's clearly unlawful for people, individuals on YouTube, to post content outside of the scope of what fair use permits.

329
00:39:11.160 --> 00:39:18.160
The question is, can there be contributory or vicarious liability attaching to YouTube for this?

330
00:39:18.160 --> 00:39:26.160
The Supreme Court said in the Grokster case that Grokster could be held liable for what its users do,

331
00:39:26.160 --> 00:39:33.160
but Grokster, this is a peer-to-peer sharing or file sharing case, Grokster's executives were really sort of egging it on,

332
00:39:33.160 --> 00:39:38.160
and YouTube's been much more, well, of course we don't want any of that infringing content to appear on YouTube.

333
00:39:38.160 --> 00:40:08.160
So I think it's going to be a much harder case for Viacom to win. Overall, probably, but at the same, this would be a way, but on the flip side, these large media conglomerates, including CBS, have started licensing stuff to YouTube, and so I think in the end it's just a business dispute that's playing out in the courts, and if Viacom and YouTube reach the magic number, that loss is going away tomorrow. Other questions? Yes.

334
00:40:08.160 --> 00:40:13.160
Do you have any thoughts on Roger Ailes and Murdoch's efforts to start a new business channel?

335
00:40:13.160 --> 00:40:19.160
I was particularly thinking about Murdoch's comment that the existing financial news channel was anti-business.

336
00:40:38.160 --> 00:40:46.000
It is odd that a lot of what we call financial journalism nowadays is not very pro-market.

337
00:40:46.000 --> 00:40:50.120
Even Journalists for the Wall Street Journal, not the editorial page, but for the front

338
00:40:50.120 --> 00:40:56.240
page, are somewhat hostile to free market ideas, which when I was a young and somewhat

339
00:40:56.240 --> 00:41:02.320
naive reporter in DC, surprised me immensely when I ran into them at a party one evening.

340
00:41:02.320 --> 00:41:04.200
How could you write for the Wall Street Journal?

341
00:41:04.200 --> 00:41:05.200
How would you?

342
00:41:05.200 --> 00:41:06.200
Anyway.

343
00:41:06.200 --> 00:41:13.680
And so I think that such a thing could probably survive, it could be the Forbes versus the

344
00:41:13.680 --> 00:41:20.080
fortune of the broadcast media sector, but I haven't followed it more closely than that.

345
00:41:20.080 --> 00:41:22.080
Other questions?

346
00:41:22.080 --> 00:41:23.800
I think we're finished folks, thank you very much.