If you
haven’t read the recent NY Times article about Rupert Murdoch and Fox News, and
you worry about the future of democracy, you should take time to read the
story. Here’s a link:
This is a
horrifying reminder of the concentration of power and influence in our society
and of how limited our expectation of morality and ethics in public life has
become. Participation in our political
system is hugely expensive, and those who provide the needed funds are granted
enormous access to, and achieve substantial influence with, those who make the
rules.
The Murdochs,
able to offer both money and media, have extraordinary influence around the
world. In Australia, Fox newspapers and Sky
News are major factors on the political scene and, according to the Times
article, were an important reason Malcolm Turnbull lost his premiership to a
right- wing successor. In the UK, Murdoch
newspapers influence many government decisions and were powerful voices for Brexit.
The family has a strong relationship with prime minister Theresa May and on
various occasions has sought to acquire full control of Sky TV. In the US, I think it is logical to believe
that Murdoch had more to do with Donald Trump becoming president than did Russian
hackers, although there is no way to weigh the two.
Since Trump
became President, Fox has abandoned any notion of fairness in favor of
operating as a propaganda machine. And
it’s a success, as measured by the fact that Fox watchers disagree with most
other Americans on many important issues. Recently, Fox has moved to align the
views of the New York Post – the President’s first read – with those of Fox News.
Additionally, Murdoch’s son Lachlan, now chairman of Fox Corporation, has announced
plans to launch a streaming service called Fox Nation, for those Fox viewers
who are characterized as “super fans”. There
seems little chance that a person who watches Fox, reads the Post and uses the
internet to watch Fox Nation will ever have a view different from that of Lachlan
Murdoch!
The
complexities of our time are puzzling for all citizens and beyond the grasp of
many. Newspapers – digital and printed –
curate the information they provide and can explain issues in depth, but often
have a clear point of view. Unhappily,
more and more citizens seem unwilling to read either physical or digital
newspapers and turn instead to social media sites and television for
information. Social media sites make no
effort to correct posts for accuracy and television cares little for depth and
often shapes content to comport with the opinions of its owners, as is very
much the case with Fox. The consequence
of all this is that a badly informed public can be and is heavily influenced by
both inaccurate information and partisan voices.
I think the
degree of control Fox now exercises over what we call “news” is inconsistent
with sustaining democracy. Unhappily, no
legislative or regulatory solution seems imminent and it is likely that Fox and
other advocacy sites will sustain and perhaps increase their collective
influence unless we all do a far better job of filtering the “news” we see and
hear.
If that
happens, democracy may well be at risk, since those who have power and
influence will likely do all they can to sustain and enhance their
holdings. I am reminded of a quote from George
Orwell’s “1984” in which Winston’s torturer has this to say about power: “We
know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.
Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in
order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish
the dictatorship”.
Benjamin Franklin famously responded to a question
as to whether he and his colleagues had created a Monarchy or a Republic by
saying “A Republic, if we can keep it”.
Doing so is
up to us.