RuadRauFlessa wrote:nice point of view and well stated. If you check my other comments on P1 you will notice that I have said as much.
Thank you. I think Rusty disagrees though.
rustypup wrote:this skewed sense of entitlement amuses me... we are entitled to what we can afford - this silly attitude of "we should just get it all for free" is, frankly, repugnant to me...
Well, I suppose it all boils down to what kind of a society we want to live in, and as is usually the case with most political/economic questions, it kinda boils down to a conflict between individualism and collectivism.
My personal take on it has always been that some collectivism is a good thing. After all, social animals form communities towards mutual advantage - they can hunt bigger game, there's safety in numbers, young can be raised communally, etc. The moment those advantages become less than the cost of being a part of that community, the community disintegrates. So it makes sense to me to ensure that a society makes provision to meet the most basic needs of all its members, and to ensure a certain set of basic rights for all. It makes for a more stable, more durable society, which benefits all of us. IMHO, access to news is a basic need, seeing as it has direct survival impact.
The counter argument of course is that individualism breeds excellence, while collectivism causes stagnation. An individualist approach favours competition through capitalism, which in turn makes for quicker advances in science and technology, greater efficiency etc. It also fosters a strong work ethic in it's members in that they every need must be met through struggle, or by sacrificing some other resource.
The dark side of individualism though is a boom-and-bust economy, sociopathic business practices like dumping and child labour and wage slavery, a widening gap between rich and poor, and many other ills. Most of all, individualism causes instability, which is never good for a society in the long run. (of course, neither is stagnation)
Each side has its merits, both have flaws. I don't think that anybody is arguing that we should "get it all for free", but collectively providing for "some" things makes sense to imbue our society with that underlying stability. As with most things, I think, the best case lies somewhere in the middle.
As to the journalists and editors and such - I think they are some of the most awesome people around. They make a real contribution to the world by holding power to account for its actions (in theory) . What we have today though is NOT that situation. Power OWNS the news, and to them it's just a question of maximising profit. The actual producers of the news get paid pathetic salaries while the margins that get added to the news end up going to share-holders. To me though journalism is akin to teaching or nursing or policing in its value to society, and it should be handled in the same way. Basic education, basic healthcare, policing - they're all considered basic human rights, and consequently most societies at least try to provide those things to everybody. Access to news should be the same - it is the Fourth Estate, after all, an integral part of modern democracy. Corporations are more than welcome to provide "premium" services at a cost, like private schools and security companies and such do, hiding their content behind walls, but then they shouldn't complain when their advertisers migrate to where the readers/watchers/listeners are. If Murdoch doesn't want his content on Google, it's a simple enough process to block the crawlers.
Mina.
"Don't waste your whole life trying to get back what was taken away" - The Offspring from "Kristy are you doing okay"
</edit>
