Let the presses roll
Now that all the millennium bugs and glitches are hopefully behind us, we at the Business Journal think it's time to set the record straight on a bug that defies the 2000 glitch.
It's your right to a free and independent press. That's the tenet of this paper and one that has taken root nationwide here over the last decade. But it still has a long way to go before all the bugs are worked out and your interests are ensured.
We're talking about rules governing the media that say sources have the right to authorize stories about them. It's a nasty glitch and here's why.
When a source has control over the information flow, the source's, and not you the reader's, best interests are being served. Not only can sources censor editorial content, but they also exert power over the timely dissemination of information by requiring news groups to hold the presses for a signature.
Where did the glitch come from? In part, at least this is the lofty side of the argument, from the desire to protect the rights of individuals. Other proponents said it's an accuracy issue.
But don't be fooled. Individual rights were not the intent of the communist regime that put its stamp on media rules during the second half of the century. From Vladimir Lenin on down the line, the press was an instrument to control the masses and not let individuals draw their own conclusions and vote with their pocketbooks and ballots.
In those days the information model flowed upstream, exactly the wrong direction to today's democratic slant. In addition to filtering and censoring what was disseminated across the airwaves and onto the printed page, a major role of the press was to gather information and funnel it to party leaders. Thus, the decision and policy makers in the nomenclatura had the first, and undoubtedly best pickings from this info stream.
That "top down" philosophy continues today in this right-to-authorize policy, although to a much lesser extent and with lesser influence than in bygone days. That's mainly a result of the diversity of media organizations that have sprouted nationwide over the past decade building brands on things so simple as timely, accurate and indispensable traffic reports for the growing number of commuters.
No world, however, is perfect, especially the media business. As hundreds of titles and media groups blossomed, a staggering array of the good, the bad, and the ugly ensued. The glut of irresponsible, partisan publications is perhaps the only remaining argument for continuing the rule of allowing sources to authorize content, especially when the price of malicious slander can easily be offset by a few full-page ads.
But holding the press hostage to sources is not a policy to promote accuracy and fairness especially if Poland wants to compete in global commerce. Rather than slow the info flow, beef up the courts, let the presses roll and say good-bye to the good old days.
