Random Thoughts
Not really for mass consumption, but I need a place to put random thoughts that I can actually find later.
It occurred to me that in many countries the press is the US equivalent of short sellers in the stock market. These are the people that bet against stocks, and while their motive may be financial, one of their chief benefits to society is that they force companies to address issues that they most certainly would rather not face publicly. However, a dropping stock price will bring howls from company investors, and with the short sellers pointing out holes in the balance sheet or other strategic problems, management is forced to either defend their practices, or face the music.
This is much the same as in a developing country with a government that is essentially the national corporation. Whether its a company or a politician, if the flow of information can be controlled, than all manner of things can be covered up. Think Enron or Bosnia, Worldcom or Cambodia, AIG or Russia.
If a government can effectively stifle the press, than they can fool their citizenry into believing any manner of lies. The same thing could be said for the management of a company that has been cooking the books for years: as long as they can keep the stock price going up, no one complains or asks the tough questions. Only when people start seeing a dent in their portfolio do they begin to listen to the "fools" that had been shouting against the wind that something was amiss.
Unfortunately, few people see the value of short sellers in America because they exact a high price to perform their service (just read any investing message board and you'll become convinced that shorts are unpatriotic, treasonous bastards that cost the retirement savings of millions). It's not quite as bad for the press in developing countries, there people just don't know what they are missing. However, there are some parallels, since when negative stories do surface about the government, they are lambasted for causing "unrest and disturbances" which the government convinces the citizenry is a risk to them. Furthermore, governments that insist on the press only providing "positive" stories can easily claim that negative stories are bad for the country's morale.
Ultimately the best parallel though is that both short sellers and the press force leaders to address issues that might not otherwise come to light. Sometimes we need to face something uncomfortable to finally accept the truth and take our medicine. I can imagine many of the people I know in developing countries being truly hurt if they found out the ugly truths about many of the leaders they had so fervently supported. In many cases their initial reactions would be outright denial (which is often the same in the US when a scandal breaks and one party or the other tries to deflect it). However, once the shame and embarrasment passes, hopefully a renewed sense of dilligence would be instilled.
You would assume that with the spread of technology that freedom of the press would become a given. However, the mass media is actually concentrating, and lets face it, the internet and blogosphere are not exactly "trusted" sources, even when they are accurate (I heard a Pakastani official making the ridiculous claim that the video of the 17 year old girl being flogged was not authentic, but that is all it takes to call it into question for much of the public). Only an influential press can bring about the kind of public humiliation and pressure that forces a leader to accept responsibility. How to create such an influential press in a developing country is now the question.
It occurred to me that in many countries the press is the US equivalent of short sellers in the stock market. These are the people that bet against stocks, and while their motive may be financial, one of their chief benefits to society is that they force companies to address issues that they most certainly would rather not face publicly. However, a dropping stock price will bring howls from company investors, and with the short sellers pointing out holes in the balance sheet or other strategic problems, management is forced to either defend their practices, or face the music.
This is much the same as in a developing country with a government that is essentially the national corporation. Whether its a company or a politician, if the flow of information can be controlled, than all manner of things can be covered up. Think Enron or Bosnia, Worldcom or Cambodia, AIG or Russia.
If a government can effectively stifle the press, than they can fool their citizenry into believing any manner of lies. The same thing could be said for the management of a company that has been cooking the books for years: as long as they can keep the stock price going up, no one complains or asks the tough questions. Only when people start seeing a dent in their portfolio do they begin to listen to the "fools" that had been shouting against the wind that something was amiss.
Unfortunately, few people see the value of short sellers in America because they exact a high price to perform their service (just read any investing message board and you'll become convinced that shorts are unpatriotic, treasonous bastards that cost the retirement savings of millions). It's not quite as bad for the press in developing countries, there people just don't know what they are missing. However, there are some parallels, since when negative stories do surface about the government, they are lambasted for causing "unrest and disturbances" which the government convinces the citizenry is a risk to them. Furthermore, governments that insist on the press only providing "positive" stories can easily claim that negative stories are bad for the country's morale.
Ultimately the best parallel though is that both short sellers and the press force leaders to address issues that might not otherwise come to light. Sometimes we need to face something uncomfortable to finally accept the truth and take our medicine. I can imagine many of the people I know in developing countries being truly hurt if they found out the ugly truths about many of the leaders they had so fervently supported. In many cases their initial reactions would be outright denial (which is often the same in the US when a scandal breaks and one party or the other tries to deflect it). However, once the shame and embarrasment passes, hopefully a renewed sense of dilligence would be instilled.
You would assume that with the spread of technology that freedom of the press would become a given. However, the mass media is actually concentrating, and lets face it, the internet and blogosphere are not exactly "trusted" sources, even when they are accurate (I heard a Pakastani official making the ridiculous claim that the video of the 17 year old girl being flogged was not authentic, but that is all it takes to call it into question for much of the public). Only an influential press can bring about the kind of public humiliation and pressure that forces a leader to accept responsibility. How to create such an influential press in a developing country is now the question.