Mark Tapscott is concerned that the arrangement between the New York Times and the Washington Post to share front pages each night before the papers go to press is collusion, as it would be "in any other industry." But the press isn't just any other industry -- it differs from other industries in at least two fundamental ways that I can think of. First of all, in order for a democracy (and, incidentally, a free market) to function, people must have accurate information about their government and the state of things. This public interest is so crucial to the fabric of our society that it should trump the kind of market concerns Mark brings up. The news is not just another product; it must be present for our society to function.
Also, since the whole point of the press is to propagate information, it's hard to see how an exchange of that same information can be considered collusion. Because the press deals in information, sharing sensitive information doesn't quite mean the same thing that it does in other industrial contexts. How can the front page of your paper be a trade secret when you plan to release it to the entire country in three hours?
To be sure, I can think of reasons why it might still be bad for the Times and the Post to pool resources like this -- the practice could, for example, lead to groupthink and therefore result in less information actually reaching the public. But this is an altogether different problem from the market-disrupting collusion Mark is so concerned about. [via Instapundit]
Post a comment