Media haters

Media haters

: Larry Lessig’s cadre of media haters has a new book out. Mark Cooper is the author of Media Ownership and Democracy in the Digital Information Age from Lessig’s Stanford unthinktank. Please, please don’t buy it. That would be so un-creative-commons, so big-media of you. No, go get it for free and then read along with me.

I have two problems with Lessig et al. The first is that they hate media and media companies so thoroughly and indiscriminately. The second is that their cure for this is government involvement in media — which is to say, government interference in news and journalism. They disdain the free market of ideas and commerce. They want the government to impose ownership structures and even content on a free press to fit some paternalistic view they have of proper information in a democracy. That is the last thing government should ever decide. I find that constitutionally and democratically abhorrent.

I remain surprised that Lessig et al are the darlings of the libertarians. You’d they’d disdain anybody in favor of greater government meddling in our press and media. But they apparently hold their media disdain more dearly than their ideology… or their logic. Lessig wants less government involvment in copyright but wants more government involvement in media ownership. The thread that ties that together is only media hatred. It’s an intellectually and ideologically illogical stance.

Further, Lessig et al purposefully ignore the changes that have come to media in recent years. Today, we have far more outlets of news and information on TV than we have ever had, thanks to cable. We have far more viewpoints, thanks to the Fox revolution. We have new and diverse outlets of media in the Internet and in ethnic media. The barrier to entry to media is now lower than in the history of language.

At the same time, there are tremendous economic pressures on media thanks to new competition, necessitating new ways to do business (and sometimes, yes, that means consolidation).

In addition, technology means that consolidation is not only a matter of business but also of reporting: a text reporter can be a photographer can be a TV reporter — but only if that reporter works in an environment where he can do all those things, a consolidated environment.

They simply can’t stand the idea — the essential reality — that news is a business, not a government program. And in a free society, news is the last business that should be regulated by government. News must be regultated by the marketplace, the free marketplace of ideas.

But Lessig, Cooper, et al ignore all that in the face of their media hatred. They want to stick it to media any way they can. They want to see us spoonfeed what they think we ought to know rather than what we, the market, want to know — just at the time when, on the Internet and in weblogs, the citizenry is revolting against that sort of Mama-media.

I pulled a few choice quotes from Cooper’s book. Click on the “more” link below to read on…

Cooper writes:

I refer to the

10 responses to “Media haters”

  1. Chris Avatar

    I don’t think Lessig’s popularity among the technolibertarian set is related to what you’ve laid out here. It’s his opposition to things like the DMCA, UCITA, “perpetual copyright on the installment plan”, and so forth that have made him popular, and I think there’s a much stronger liberarian case for those causes.

  2. Dishman Avatar

    I have to agree with Chris.
    I used to read Lessig for his thoughts on IP.
    Unfortunately, I can’t support a Maoist.

  3. Richard Bennett Avatar

    If Lessig were really concerned about media consolidation, he’d be promoting changes to the Internet that would allow it to deliver broadcast-quality video. Instead, he’s on a Luddite agenda to reformulate the Internet and all of its protocols according to picture that exists in his head (and nowhere else) of the way the ‘Net used to be back in the good old days.
    The man’s seriously deranged.

  4. Alexander Crawford Avatar
    Alexander Crawford

    Lessig seems suspiciously ignorant regarding the Public Access TV movement that’s mirrored the growth of cable… perhaps the idea of actually going to the trouble of DOING something, like.. oh, say… putting in the hours to exploit the PA requirements already on the books in order to develop his own communities reserved cable channels… isn’t nearly as easy engaging in rhetorical gimmicks from his law school lecturn on the subject. (The same goes for the Chomski-ites). It’s as if they’re saying to themselves: “I KNOW! I’ll convince someone ELSE to do the actual work!”.
    The question and concerns regarding copyright are another weird blackhole for those, like law professors, who don’t have practical experience actually trying to protect them or use footage someone else owns without paying for it. There’s no practical way to protect one’s copyright in a tech universe of broadband streaming just as there isn’t a way to protect pop songs being ripped and burned by college kids on campus servers. Paranoia over “corproate media ownership” of file footage or stock libraries is likewise not a serious concern of professional working TV producers… that’s what we pay E&O insurance for in the first place.. so we’re protected from the mob of law firms representing dead celebs who use dubious claims to shake down anyone and everyone for a license fee. And every other Public Access channel in the universe wantonly violates copyright twenty times a day by passing the responsibility for clearing footage onto individual, independent producers who no network hack in the world imagines is worth taking to court over a minor violation…. anyway.
    Here

  5. PhotoDude Avatar

    Though some of you seem to applaud his stand on intellectual property, to this individual creator of IP, it’s the very same thing. His proposals on IP are formed with corporate ownership in mind, ignoring the individuals who earn their living from copyright. And he appears to feel the same way about corporate IP as he does about corporate media; a Big Evil to be contained. Period. Some black, a little white, but no gray.
    Let me introduce myself. I’m Mr. Gray, one of millions of individual shades of gray. And the media comes in many shades of gray, too. But this “cabal” always seems to reduce it to a binary matter. And that is a disservice to all involved.
    Personally, I’m beginning to wonder if a tenured academic mindset can properly relate to the IP reality that goes on “off campus.” The glaring errors you point out (and the ones I’ve seen on IP matters) would seem to indicate that they don’t have a firm grasp on what actually goes on in these fields they critique.

  6. Matt Welch Avatar

    Speaking as someone who is exposed to more libertarians than the average bear, my view is that Lessig is a pretty controversial character in that camp, too. Reason magazine, in fact, is printing a terrific article in the January issue (available on newsstands in December) that rips apart the propaganda polluting the Cooper/Lessig wing of the anti-deregulation movement, and reiterates the literally incredible positive advances in media diversity over the last two decades.

  7. Dishman Avatar

    I find myself on both sides of the IP law debate.
    For the last 5 years or so, I’ve worked as an embedded systems engineer designing machines that copy and play back media. The first half of that was with audio and now I’m doing video.
    I make my living creating IP that potentially infringes on the IP of others.
    There are rabid partisans on both sides, Lessig and his armchair Maoists on one side, the Valenti and Rosen crowd on the other. I think both sides are jabbering with reckless disregard for the consequences. Both sides want to completely control what I read, hear and see.
    It strikes me as being rather like a debate between Stalin and Hitler.

  8. Alexander Crawford Avatar
    Alexander Crawford

    Assuming Intellectual Property is basically the same as filing a copyright on original work..
    My experience is that Mr. Grey is the standard, and that black and white are dependant on circumstance and how visable one’s violation is on one hand versus how much one has to blow on legal fees challenging a violation by some studio or inhouse guy who’s sharked your material.
    I’ve been on both sides in a pretty big way… in one case a major studio stole the title of a film that was duly protected, distributed, and even reviewed in the Times (mixed) in order to paste in onto a straight to video Adam Sandler flick. I sued. They gave me a lot of dough to settle and keep the title on both films… basically I never really had much choice, as I couldn’t have afforded the tab to fight them.
    The other example was a two hour A&E bio I produced on Lucy and Desi that aired one Thanksgiving and was shelved. The A&E exec unreasonably demanded several minutes of gag footage from the Lucy Show. Let’s see…. her daughter, Lucy Jr. owns the rights to her parents likenesses, CBS has the original rights to the series and controls syndication, and at the time Viacom was airing the show on Nick at Night. CBS wanted something like $400,000 for use of a minute or two of highlights, which wasn’t even close to affordable. But the Nick at Night exec was willing to let us use all the footage we wanted as long as it had the Nick logo on the corner and we gave them basically a free promo. I didn’t imagine we were doing other than stealing the footage from CBS (dirty, dirty, dirty news dept there), but my bosses were hungry to appease the A&E exec… The show aired, two hours… great numbers… and all hell broke loose the following Monday. Luci Jr. sued CBS sued Viacom and A&E and us, Viacom sued us and A&E, and A&E (i think) sued by bosses.
    The total cost to us was something like $15,000 to the insurance co. and the legal expense of closing down that company and filing with a new name. Peanuts compared to paying CBS! Do I feel sorry for ripping off CBS and Luci Arnez? hell no. Do I feel sorry for costing A&E or Viacom a bucket full of dough? Hell no. Thats what Errors and Omissions Insurance is for in the first place… libel, slander, misrepresentation, no release, copyright violation, phony claims, etc.

  9. Kevin Marks Avatar

    There is an anti-commercial strand in the CC licenses, but they are open to discussion. The answer in my opinion is to create new markets that avoid the limitations of the old. see http://mediagora.com for some discussion of this.
    Mr Bennett is trailing his usual non sequiturs about video over the net needing telco-like routing here. He is wrong. Video as files move over the net fine, and will continue to do so.

  10. Richard Bennett Avatar

    Right Kevin, you can move video files through the net as easily as you can move CDs through the US Mail, but that’s not really what we’re talking about. Lessig will find some reason that only selected companies that meet government approval will be able to enage in A/V services in the future, and you’ll be outraged, so why wait?