Only the Market Can Guarantee Freedom of the Press

- Bill No. 170599 proposed by Assemblyman Chungcheongrae Jeong:

Partial Amendment to the Act on Registration, etc. of Periodicals -

1

The ruling Uri Party seeks to amend the Act on Registration, etc. of Periodicals. The Uri Party’s amendment bill drew fierce opposition from the right, centered on the Grand National Party, the main opposition party. To examine the ruling party’s amendment bill, it is only natural first to look at the law it seeks to amend; and to do that, it helps to begin by considering the history and character of newspapers.

The origins of newspapers can be traced to the ancient Roman Empire. At that time, newsletter-like letters reporting news from the capital were distributed to people living far from Rome. Besides such news letters, Europe had several predecessors of the modern newspaper: town criers, proclamations, controversial pamphlets, broadsides, and news pamphlets. Among these, news pamphlets were the direct precursor of the modern newspaper. They appeared in Germany and other European countries in the 16th century, carrying important news such as wars, disasters, miracles, or coronations, and were sold in marketplaces and shops.

Modern newspapers published on a regular basis first appeared in Germany in the early 17th century, and soon thereafter in various countries across continental Europe. These newspapers were all issued by private individuals and provided information to an unspecified mass readership. In other words, newspapers arose spontaneously in societies where capitalism had developed, with the market as their soil.

In any society, the circulation of information poses a threat to power. Naturally, those in power try to control newspapers through censorship. And in order to justify censorship, they invoke all sorts of pretexts. In fact, the greatest obstacle to the development of newspapers was censorship by those in power. In one sense, the history of newspapers can be called a history of resistance to censorship.

2

From the brief history of newspapers outlined above, we can draw the following conclusions.

1) Newspapers are essentially a product of capitalism. People seek information necessary for making judgments in order to pursue their own interests, and under a capitalist system there will naturally be people who try to meet that demand. Therefore, newspapers emerge and exist with the market as their foundation and have no direct connection to the role of government.

2) Because they must satisfy customers’ demand for information, newspapers always strive to deliver accurate news as quickly as possible. Thus, the market allows healthy information to circulate in society. A newspaper that spreads false information will soon disappear as readers turn away from it, so there is no need for the government to step in and guarantee the truthfulness and accuracy of the information carried in newspapers.

3) Because newspaper publishers depend on an unspecified mass readership, they are not tied to any particular individual or interest group. Therefore, the market guarantees a free press in the surest possible way.

4) Because newspapers perform the function of circulating information, newspapers and power are always in conflict. Naturally, those in power seek to control newspapers, and in fact censorship by those in power is the greatest threat to the freedom and development of newspapers.

5) Newspapers are essentially businesses just like any other business. The information carried in newspapers is a commodity with the same characteristics as other goods. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to treat the newspaper industry or newspaper firms differently from other industries or firms.

What we must note here is the fact that newspapers are not public goods. The rapid circulation of accurate information is essential to the health of society, and naturally the role of newspapers is great and their public interest function is always emphasized. However, contrary to conventional wisdom, newspapers themselves are not public goods. This point must be taken into account in any discussion of newspapers.

There are two characteristics that distinguish public goods from private goods. One is excludability, which means that the owner of a good can prevent others from using it. The other is rivalness, which means that when one person uses a good, the value that others can derive from it decreases.

Public goods are goods that lack excludability and rivalness. National defense and public safety are representative public goods. When national defense and public safety are provided and society is stable, the benefits are shared equally by all citizens; particular citizens cannot be excluded, and the benefits they enjoy do not reduce the share available to others. By contrast, private goods are goods that possess excludability and rivalness. That is, they are goods whose owner can prevent others from using and whose use by one person reduces the opportunity for others to use them.

A person who buys a newspaper can prevent others from reading it together with him, and others’ simultaneous use of it negatively affects the purchaser’s ability to read and use it. Therefore, newspapers are not public goods. If newspapers were public goods, newspapers would never have come into being in the first place. Everyone would have become a free rider, trying to read newspapers paid for by others.

As is well known, private goods are well supplied by the market. There is no need for the government to step in. The government need only supply public goods that the market does not adequately provide. Since newspapers are not public goods, and therefore are sufficiently supplied by the market, the conclusion follows that the government has no role in the newspaper market in the first place.

3

As discussed above, newspapers arose spontaneously in the market; they are no different from other industries or businesses; they are not public goods, so there is no reason for the government to supply them; and because they serve an unspecified mass readership as their customers, the information conveyed is bound to be accurate and freedom of the press is also guaranteed. Therefore, there is no reason for the government to interfere in the newspaper market—unless the purpose is to control newspapers critical of it through censorship. There is no need to enact a separate law on newspapers, either. As with other industries and businesses, general laws such as the Criminal Act, the Civil Act, and the Commercial Act are sufficient. Naturally, one is led to infer that laws concerning newspapers are highly likely to have been enacted for the sake of censorship.

Indeed, once we examine the law on newspapers, it immediately becomes clear that this inference is correct. If one looks closely at the “freedom and independence of editing” provision, the most important part of the Act on Registration, etc. of Periodicals, one sees that it is nothing more than a pretext for justifying government censorship. The provision stating that “No one shall, with respect to the editing of periodicals, impose any regulation or interference except as provided by this Act or other Acts” clearly shows this point: it was not established, nor has it actually functioned, to guarantee freedom of the press, but rather as a channel through which government censorship became possible. Provisions such as the “social responsibility of periodicals,” the “fairness and public interest of periodicals,” the “protection of readers’ rights and interests,” and “registration” are likewise, in reality, all channels for government censorship of newspapers.

That being the case, the right course is to abolish this law altogether. There is absolutely no reason for the government to interfere with newspapers, which arose spontaneously in the market and whose freedom and soundness are guaranteed by the market. How could a law created by power, which is inherently hostile to newspapers, for the sake of censorship possibly benefit society or avoid harming it?

4

The amendment now being attempted by the ruling party would make an already harmful law even more harmful. The amendment bill violates the principles of capitalism and the market economy and attempts to introduce the characteristics of a controlled, command economy into an important industry. What is especially harmful is the fact that all the measures in the amendment bill seriously infringe upon property rights and freedom of contract. For example, the provision stating that it is to “enable readers to participate in decision-making concerning the editing or production of periodicals and Internet media” clearly reveals the ideological basis on which this amendment bill was prepared.

Those who seek to protect freedom in our society must pay particular attention to the following point. Once an amendment bill appears bearing plausible justifications, debate will proceed on the basis of its contents, even if it fundamentally runs counter to the organizing principles of our society and would cause great harm. And in the end, a considerable portion of those contents will be reflected. It becomes a fight that cannot possibly be won.

In such a situation, a more rational and fundamental approach is to make widely known the fact that there is absolutely no need for laws on newspapers themselves to exist, and that in reality they are nothing more than channels for government censorship. And on the basis of that fact, one should push for the abolition of the law.

This is, of course, not easy. Because the circulation of information is so important to society, the fixed idea has taken deep root in our society that firms engaged in that work should be controlled to some extent by society. Naturally, even winning public sympathy will be extremely difficult. In fact, those engaged in that work themselves—that is, newspaper and broadcasting reporters—hold the view that what they do is different from ordinary commercial activity. If this can be made an opportunity to reveal why such a view is wrong and what harms it brings about, it would be a great blessing for our society.

Bok Geo-il (novelist)

Wiki:

https://www.cfe.org/w/bbsDetail.php?idx=80

---

Original title: 언론의 자유는 시장만이 보장한다

Author: Geo-geol Bok

Date: 2004-11-12

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=bill&pn=3&idx=25837