Who owns the "saying machines?"

The "saying machines?" What the heck's a "saying machine."

Oh that's one of the machines people cite as authority - the fount of the true truth: "it 'says' in the paper." Or, "they 'say' on TV." Or "you know what they 'say.'" Here we've got not only the "saying machines," but also the illusive they.

For better or worse the atheists, the slave owners, the Fortune 500 of its day, and according to some, a lot of Freemasons- the so-called founding fathers - drafted a Constitution that begins with the word "We" and not "They."

Upon finishing the Constitution of 1789, there were those who felt something was missing - something to really make sure it was clear that the government operated at the consent of the governed and was not intended to be a tyranny - so at the end of the Constitution, ten Amendments were appended to make things very clear on that score - what came to be called the Bill of Rights. According to at least one pollster, if the Bill of Rights were put to a general referendum today, it would be voted down. But, for the moment.

These rights are really cool and the first ten especially cool - like the government cannot mix into religion, that you don't have to be a witness against yourself, that the government will not torture people, that it can't hold people on general suspicion and must bring any charges speedily in open court, the government needs a search warrant and probable cause to snoop on the citizens, and something called "freedom of the press."

What is this freedom of the press? At the time of the founding it was rather equal. It amounted to a machine that could produce hand bills. We see statues of Franklin operating the thing. It "pressed" a block against a piece of paper and anyone who wanted to get his or her message out could probably do so.

As industrialization continued and technology burgeoned, the press became massive. Inflammatory words like "yellow journalism" describe the fact there were papers, those of "Citizen Kane" among the more infamous, that could put out a message that swamped those who could only put out a few hand bills. My mimeograph machine could not hold a candle to the power of the newspaper plant that could pump pulp out through a mechanized process worthy of the industrial age, as newsboys hawk all the news that was "fit to print," and over coffee every morning, people got the view the media owners thought worthy of readers' attention.

And with this, the power of the press, became unequal and "Citizen Kane" could portray me, or anyone not on their payroll, in an unflattering light with his machinery and all I could do is fight back with my little mimeograph machine and stand on the corner handing out my fliers in Harvard Square and watch most people refuse them, or promptly toss them in the trash. Obviously the words of a crackpot, for if I had something that was "fit to print," the "saying machines" would be saying it, wouldn't they? You bet they would!

And with the power of the news print came the newsprint's ability to take on the mantle of being "the source" of news. Exercising their freedom, newspapermen, sometimes called "muckrakers" turned up stories ranging from what today would be called investigative reporting to tabloids. In the self congratulatory rhetoric of the press, balanced reporting was the format, but it is not a minor point that the newspaper chose who would represent which "side" on an issue to "balance" it.

Before I leave this - there is a lot more to say, but I'll move on with one final thought - the reporter was introduced into the equation who would "report" on what someone said or believed. Any of us who has actually been involved in a news event knows that what actually is reported is not what people there said or thought, but what the reporter thinks and words are often put in people's mouths and all I have is my mimeograph machine to try and correct it.

As Deborah Spar points out in "Ruling the Waves," with the coming of the telegraph and radio, the power to reach many more became ever more disproportionate and the owners of media - print and electronic - made sure that too many signals did not crowd the airwaves and end up jamming one another and canceling everything out. For example, at first radio - a novelty, before it became more - was available to anyone who could put together a set - mainly teen boys who today we dub geeks. They could broadcast as far as their little transmitter could broadcast, but no channel belonged to anyone in particular. It was a noisy "cocktail party" with everyone talking all at once. Order had to be established and at the end, the airwaves were regulated and large corporations operated powerful transmitters and when television came along, pictures were added, and it was (big) business as usual.

But, oh the internet. What now! Completely unregulated, or so it seems, where people are putting up their messages without the help of reporters and with no clear corporate mandate.

From the film "Fight Club"

________________________________________________________

I pause here for a small observation to tie two themes together. In addition to freedom of the press, there is an article of faith in "privatizing." I resist fully looking at the word privateer and the concept of "letter of Marquis." The "revenue model" of the Internet continues to escape corporate America and having its "dot com" bubble burst, the hangover has not produced any new thoughts on what the next binge ought to be, but it did not open the hoped for channels of distribution. The only winner was, perhaps, eBay.

Internet has taken much of news and commerce "private." We recall mediagirl calling our attention to corporations now suing their customers and blacklisting people who actually take advantage of loss leaders. We hear of music media firms suing children for sharing music.

Corporations are reactive.

The consumers are wising up. They are exchanging information. The interlocutory role of the corporate front man telling people what the news is, is threatened as in the Bertrand Pecquerie piece. Pecquerie senses a power vacuum building - a black hole that will suck the media edifice in so that its light will not escape. This gravity well equalizes the message of the mass media and the internet is democratizing the freedom of the press for the first time in a century, perhaps two.

The internet is, in my view, one of the first times in history when freedom of the press matters. For freedom of the press to be meaningful, it must be equal, for if someone with wealth can buy a "saying machine" and I can't, I have lost my access to the "press."

For the first time in memory, the power of the press is going to the people.

And the corporations?

They're scared.