Supposed consumer protection
More education about how the media works, rather than regulation: In these times of upheaval, when many are longing for a more regulatory state, it is high time to sing the praises of freedom. Op-ed by Stephan Russ-Mohl, director of the European Journalism Observatory at the University of Lugano.
Once again, a coalition of know-it-alls and patrons is campaigning for advertising bans. They want to dictate to others whether they are allowed to see cigarette or alcohol advertising. They want to force advertisers to reserve 20 percent of an advertising space for references to the harmful side effects of certain products. Such small-minded people are not only revealing their huckster souls, they would prefer to patronize responsible fellow human beings in a way that is unworthy of a democracy. In doing so, they are depriving the very media of resources that could educate people with well-equipped editorial offices and serious journalism - not only about the dangers of drugs, but also about the risks of power fantasies with which populists, bureaucrats and citizen guardians threaten to stifle freedom in their regulatory frenzy.
Anyone who finds this too flat and "neoliberal" is invited to play a thought experiment: Why don't we radically abolish all advertising? You can read about all the evil things the "secret seducers" are up to and how they manipulate us in Vance Packard's classic - although the methods have certainly become even more sophisticated since then. So it's high time we put a stop to this nonsense...
If you think such experiments through to the end, you quickly realize that the supposed consumer protection would come at the price of a great loss of information and freedom - and that, as is so often the case, the regulators are unable to overlook the unplanned consequences of their "good" intentions. Most of us who were allowed to live our lives west of the Iron Curtain or who, by the grace of late birth, only know real socialism from the movies, can hardly imagine how bleak a world without advertising would be. Somehow it is also nice that this leaden gray has become unimaginable to us.
Because such a social experiment already stretches our imagination, here is thought experiment no. 2. Let's go after the freedom robbers with their own means: How would it be if every European advertisement of the Brussels EU Commission had to contain a reference to the paralyzing side effects of regulatory mania and Eurosclerosis? And every election advertisement from a political party would have to be accompanied by large-print notices like this: "Beware! Don't believe any election promises" or "Those who appeal to the common good may be pursuing their own interests." Such a regulatory proposal would probably be capable of winning a majority in a referendum.
Which is why we quickly turn to thought experiment no. 3: If regulation, why not the other way around? In order to guarantee a minimum of independence, reliability and integrity of a media product and to prevent editorial offices and publishers from becoming the plaything of advertisers, legislators could oblige media companies to generate at least 50 percent of their revenue from media users. That would be the certain end for free newspapers. Dozens of trees would be saved every day, and the disfigurement of train stations, streetcars and city centers by stray waste paper would be stopped - not to mention the mental pollution that we are forced to endure with "free" journalism and would be spared in future.
But we probably wouldn't want to live in a community where the state forces us to pay for more media products. It's bad enough that we are fleeced month after month with the radio and television fee. So it's high time, especially now, in these days of upheaval, when many people are wishing for the return of the regulating state, to sing the praises of freedom. What we should also be wishing for, however, is the responsible use of freedom. This in turn requires a certain level of knowledge. Instead of regulation, more education about the media business and what goes on behind the scenes - and therefore also about public relations, marketing and advertising. In schools, at universities, but also in the media itself, please.
Anyone who finds this too flat and "neoliberal" is invited to play a thought experiment: Why don't we radically abolish all advertising? You can read about all the evil things the "secret seducers" are up to and how they manipulate us in Vance Packard's classic - although the methods have certainly become even more sophisticated since then. So it's high time we put a stop to this nonsense...
If you think such experiments through to the end, you quickly realize that the supposed consumer protection would come at the price of a great loss of information and freedom - and that, as is so often the case, the regulators are unable to overlook the unplanned consequences of their "good" intentions. Most of us who were allowed to live our lives west of the Iron Curtain or who, by the grace of late birth, only know real socialism from the movies, can hardly imagine how bleak a world without advertising would be. Somehow it is also nice that this leaden gray has become unimaginable to us.
Because such a social experiment already stretches our imagination, here is thought experiment no. 2. Let's go after the freedom robbers with their own means: How would it be if every European advertisement of the Brussels EU Commission had to contain a reference to the paralyzing side effects of regulatory mania and Eurosclerosis? And every election advertisement from a political party would have to be accompanied by large-print notices like this: "Beware! Don't believe any election promises" or "Those who appeal to the common good may be pursuing their own interests." Such a regulatory proposal would probably be capable of winning a majority in a referendum.
Which is why we quickly turn to thought experiment no. 3: If regulation, why not the other way around? In order to guarantee a minimum of independence, reliability and integrity of a media product and to prevent editorial offices and publishers from becoming the plaything of advertisers, legislators could oblige media companies to generate at least 50 percent of their revenue from media users. That would be the certain end for free newspapers. Dozens of trees would be saved every day, and the disfigurement of train stations, streetcars and city centers by stray waste paper would be stopped - not to mention the mental pollution that we are forced to endure with "free" journalism and would be spared in future.
But we probably wouldn't want to live in a community where the state forces us to pay for more media products. It's bad enough that we are fleeced month after month with the radio and television fee. So it's high time, especially now, in these days of upheaval, when many people are wishing for the return of the regulating state, to sing the praises of freedom. What we should also be wishing for, however, is the responsible use of freedom. This in turn requires a certain level of knowledge. Instead of regulation, more education about the media business and what goes on behind the scenes - and therefore also about public relations, marketing and advertising. In schools, at universities, but also in the media itself, please.
