In yet another example of the innate socialist penchant for authoritarianism, the leader of Britain’s main opposition political party has released a new plan to control the media.
Of course, Jeremy Corbyn sees it differently. He says his plan to is actually about liberating the media towards a greater truth. A truth, presumably, that he will help illuminate.
“Presumably” might even be the wrong word. Corbyn is overtly attempting to co-opt the media into coverage that is favorable to his own interests. After all, in his speech, the Labour Party leader announced that he’s considering taxing technology companies like Amazon, Facebook, and Google in order to generate funds for “public interest journalism.” Considering the socialist notion of “public interest” is inherently limited to statism, and that Corbyn despises most of the media, it is a natural conclusion that Corbyn would throw funds at media outlets favorable to his agenda. Outlets like Novara Media, for example, which openly preaches the contemporary merits of … communism. In Corbyn’s mind, outlets like Novara Media are more equal than others because their journalists are not “held back” by millionaire owners.
But this isn’t a sad joke. Corbyn’s language reflects a very detailed proposal to reshape what he says is a “failing” British reporting industry. It is thus far more alarming than anything that President Trump has said about the “fake news” media. It also, not so coincidentally, comes on the back of negative reporting coverage Corbyn has received for salivating over the graves of terrorist murderers.
Corbyn is wrong. The beauty of a free-market press is that its success or failure ultimately depends on how widely it is consumed. Yes, this creates an incentive for clickbait material and hyperinflated stories. But in the context of an educated and discriminating reader base, it creates a far greater incentive for original, in-depth reporting and incisive, illuminating commentary.
Corbyn’s contention against wealthy owners is also misguided. Most millionaire or billionaire media owners have an interest in the successful growth of that which they own. Very rarely do they pressure their editorial staff to write in a certain way — beyond the particular ideology of the publication — because they know that doing so would become public, degrade the publication’s brand, and thus scare consumers away.
Readers are not droids desperate for authoritarian diktats. They are citizens interested in learning new things and being challenged, amused, or inspired by different ideas. And even where media outlets do skew to a particular editorial line, the readers know this — or at least they can know it with a simple Google search — and comparative assessment of owner-publication views.
And that speaks to the ultimate issue here: The choice of what constitutes “fake news” or “great news” or “failing news” or “succeeding news” should be up to the reader, not Jeremy Corbyn.
