Is the Commercial Mass Media Necessary, or Even Desirable, for Liberal Democracy?

As James Madison aptly put it: “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both.” In our day, certainly in the United States and to a growing extent in other developed democracies, most citizens most of the time acquire popular information from the commercial mass media. It hasn’t always been that way and, perhaps, needn’t be that way in the future. In this essay, I ask whether the commercial media is the best vehicle for gathering and distributing information and opinion to citizens of advanced liberal democracies. The role of commercial media in liberal democracy has been the subject of renewed controversy in light of peer-to-to peer alternatives made possible by the Internet and other digital communications technology. I, and other commentators, have asserted that, despite all their imperfections, the commercial media play and will continue to play an important “Fourth Estate” role in liberal democratic governance. Media critics have countered that (1) liberal democratic governance would be better off if peer-to-peer communications were to assume the primary role in the dissemination of information and opinion and (2) digital communications makes that transition possible. This paper seeks to push the ball forward on this issue. Part I broadly outlines the principal tenets of liberal democracy. Part II describes the commercial media’s purported “Fourth Estate” role and briefly notes the ways it falls short of realizing it. Parts III and IV limn two alternatives to the commercial media: political-party financed press and government-funded media. These Parts focus on the advantages and disadvantages of those alternatives as compared to the commercial media. Part V presents the proffered alternative of peer-to-peer communication. Part VI critiques that alternative.