Friday, November 19, 2004
When Free Markets go Bad...Economics and the Media
C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning was addressing the question of whether or not news-media reporters should remain "embedded" with our troops in Iraq. By embedded I assume they mean protected by the Pentagon and in return subject to such rules and regulations as the Pentagon Office of Public Affairs (or whatever it is actually called) establishes. This topic seemed to be based in large part on a Baltimore Sun article, which states that the Iraqi insurgents that were shot and killed the other day were being transported back to Dover, Delaware for autopsy. According to the article, "[t]he examinations are part of a Naval Criminal Investigative Service inquiry of the videotaped shooting of an apparently wounded and unarmed insurgent by a Marine at a Fallujah mosque last week, according to three Defense Department officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity." For those of you who don't watch or listen to this particular C-SPAN show it can best be described as a call-in talk show similar to talk-radio, except that the hosts/moderators, this morning was C-SPAN's founder Brian Lamb, do not make personal comments or express opinions of any kind.
Ok enough of the background, what I found interesting was not the underlying story about the shooting of the insurgent or the transport of the bodies back to the U.S., but rather some of the comments regarding why reporters should not be embedded with the troops. By my count at least 5 of the callers, who identified them as "Republicans" or "supporters of the President" stated that the reason reporters should not be allowed to be embedded was because the "liberal media" is "anti-war" and doesn't report enough of the "good" things that the soldiers and other military personnel have done and are doing in Iraq. Of course then several of them went on to state that the press is a "free market" and that reporters should "assume the risk" of death or bodily harm if they wish to report the major news of the day. To me these positions are contradictory.
If the media is indeed a free market, and in this case I think it is, it must act in a way that maximizes profits. I claim the media is free market, because what apparently is happening is that embedded reporters file "pool" reports, photos, and in some cases video in which exclusivity is waived and other news agencies are free to reproduce at any time. Thus, what you have is a free market system, where the reporters (sellers) make a certain amount of supply (reports, photos, video) available and the buyers (TV stations, internet sites, newspapers, etc.) purchase the goods they want. Presumably, the supply contains a variety of information for the buyers to choose from, in other words both "positive" and "negative" stories are available and the buyer exercises its discretion as to what to purchase and reproduce locally that will enhance its organizations standing and maximize profits. Now in the media profit is derived primarily from "circulation" (the number of people who read/watch an outlet). Thus, the greater the circulation the more people advertisers can reach, therefore, the higher the price the outlet can charge for the ad space. This is why, for example, ads on this blog would be very cheap (i.e., free), while 30 second ads for the Super Bowl run in the millions of dollars. Sadly, many more people watch the Super Bowl than read the blog (maybe someday...). Anyway, my point is that the buyers will pick the stories that will increase circulation and unfortunately those stories are by and large the headline producing sensationalism pieces about death, destruction and other violent behavior. While the stories about water supply, school construction and other things don't rate as highly. Simply put, death of American soldiers is news in America, while schools in Iraq that educate Iraqi children is not. Thus, it isn't really fair to say that the media is "liberal" or that it is "anti-war" because it makes the sound economic decision and prints the "negative" news. Media is a for-profit, competitive industry, don't fault it for responding to the same free market forces that some people want everything to respond to.
Ok enough of the background, what I found interesting was not the underlying story about the shooting of the insurgent or the transport of the bodies back to the U.S., but rather some of the comments regarding why reporters should not be embedded with the troops. By my count at least 5 of the callers, who identified them as "Republicans" or "supporters of the President" stated that the reason reporters should not be allowed to be embedded was because the "liberal media" is "anti-war" and doesn't report enough of the "good" things that the soldiers and other military personnel have done and are doing in Iraq. Of course then several of them went on to state that the press is a "free market" and that reporters should "assume the risk" of death or bodily harm if they wish to report the major news of the day. To me these positions are contradictory.
If the media is indeed a free market, and in this case I think it is, it must act in a way that maximizes profits. I claim the media is free market, because what apparently is happening is that embedded reporters file "pool" reports, photos, and in some cases video in which exclusivity is waived and other news agencies are free to reproduce at any time. Thus, what you have is a free market system, where the reporters (sellers) make a certain amount of supply (reports, photos, video) available and the buyers (TV stations, internet sites, newspapers, etc.) purchase the goods they want. Presumably, the supply contains a variety of information for the buyers to choose from, in other words both "positive" and "negative" stories are available and the buyer exercises its discretion as to what to purchase and reproduce locally that will enhance its organizations standing and maximize profits. Now in the media profit is derived primarily from "circulation" (the number of people who read/watch an outlet). Thus, the greater the circulation the more people advertisers can reach, therefore, the higher the price the outlet can charge for the ad space. This is why, for example, ads on this blog would be very cheap (i.e., free), while 30 second ads for the Super Bowl run in the millions of dollars. Sadly, many more people watch the Super Bowl than read the blog (maybe someday...). Anyway, my point is that the buyers will pick the stories that will increase circulation and unfortunately those stories are by and large the headline producing sensationalism pieces about death, destruction and other violent behavior. While the stories about water supply, school construction and other things don't rate as highly. Simply put, death of American soldiers is news in America, while schools in Iraq that educate Iraqi children is not. Thus, it isn't really fair to say that the media is "liberal" or that it is "anti-war" because it makes the sound economic decision and prints the "negative" news. Media is a for-profit, competitive industry, don't fault it for responding to the same free market forces that some people want everything to respond to.
# posted by mouldfan : 8:28 AM
