Blogs as "Scribbling Mercuries": Marketplace of Ideas or Duel to the Death of Ideas?
The blog is possible through the convergence of many new technologies: revolutions in human communication that were both tipping points (of ideas) and points of the tip (of new things). In parallel, more than half a millennium ago (1452-1454/55), Johann Gutenberg printed his two-volume, 1,282-page, 42-line Bible in Mainz. He produced 180 copies (150 on paper and, it is believed, 30 on parchment), using about 20 assistants in the process. His innovations included a screw press (a converted wine press) and moveable type with individual elements (periods, letters, upper- and lower-case letters).
Interestingly, the small number of Bibles hardly represented a "mass" communication, but one of Gutenberg's follow-up projects did. To raise money to pay for a crusade against Muslim Turks, the Roman Catholic Church contracted with Gutenberg to print thousands of Letters of Indulgence--certificates the Catholic faithful could buy for cash, absolving them of their sins. The practice was among the chief complaints of a young German monk named Martin Luther who, in 1517, nailed 95 theses to the door of the Wittenberg Cathedral, signaling the beginning of the Reformation. It is hard to imagine that such heresy could have spread so widely and so quickly in the pre-print era. In fact, Luther's theses would have become only sketchily known by world of mouth (and probably easily suppressed before they became too widespread). But in the developed printworks of Germany, the "Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences" would become a mass document.
Unlike in China or Korea, which had invented printing earlier but were unified countries with established ruling classes, the print world of Gutenberg was the free-for-all arena of ideologies and political partisanship of 14th century Europe. Printing, therefore, became an instrument of both orthodoxy and revolution. During the religious wars of the 16th century in Central Europe, for instance, each side would prepare innumerable books that propagandized their cause and demonized the enemy. Crucially, however, it was not quite a marketplace of ideas. In areas under stable Church or government control, censorship in what people could print and what they could read was the norm. In Henry XIII's England, for example, printing a book without the king's license was punishable by death.
Many philosophers of the Enlightenment rebelled against such edicts. The principles they crafted in their writings during the period highly influenced the Founders of America and the Framers of the Constitution. "Freedom of the Press," for instance, assumes that presses will be in competition with each other as bulwarks against government abuse, ensuring freedom from monopoly by any power. One of the originators of such a concept was John Milton, the seventeenth-century English poet, who published a pamphlet in 1644 titled Areopagitia (subtitled "A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicenc'd Printing) in which he insisted that open debate freed the mind to find truth:
"Well knows he who uses to consider, that our faith and knowledge thrives by exercise, as well as our limbs and complexion. Truth is compared in Scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition."
In American history the principle of the "marketplace of ideas" became set as a value of both journalism and society. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote in a decision in a First Amendment case in 1919:
"[W]hen men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas--that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution."
By Holmes's time the mechanics of that marketplace had changed to an industrial model of the press, but the principle remains with us to this day, and blogs and those who embrace blogging as a democratic revolution in media often call the phenomenon the best incarnation of the perfect marketplace of ideas.
Not by coincidence, times of great political upheaval, and even revolution, were when the marketplace seemed at its utmost fury of competition. The great flowering of the print press in England as an expression of countervailing political ideas came during Milton's time, the troubled period in the mid-seventeenth century that saw struggles between King Charles I and the English parliament followed by several civil wars, the execution of Charles, the election of Oliver Cromwell and his Puritan faction to supremacy in England, and then the death of Cromwell and the restoration of the monarchy under Charles's son.
Newspapers at that time were known as "news books"; most of them carried the prenomen "mercurius," a reference to the Roman messenger god Mercury, today commonly drawn with a winged cap or winged feet. It was a good metaphor for these news books, titled such as "Mercurius Aulicus" (a royalist periodical); "Mercurius Britannicus" (a vehicle of the anti-royalist "Roundheads"); "Mercurius Democritus"; "Mercurius Elenticus"; "Mercurius Melancholicus"; Mercurius Politicus"; Mercurius Hibernicus" "Mercurius Pragmaticus"; and "Mercurius Rusticus." Each represented the opinion of either a particular government or faction in power or oppositional groups, religious, political, class, or otherwise. They comprised a huge literature that, while not read by every farmer and apprentice boy, was talked about or mentioned as part of the political debate of the day.
These periodicals were, of course, blog-like in that (a) they represented the opinions of diverse political factions, (b) they were the creations of a few individuals, either independently or representing factional interests, (c) while they cost some expense to publish and distribute, they were not beyond the means of individuals, and (d) they were often scathing in their attacks on political figures and others.
For example, Mercurius Impartialis blamed "the ruines both of King and people" to "the Pulpit and the Presse" and charged further that: "his Majesties Subjects [have] beene Poysoned with Principles of Heresie, Schisme, Faction, Sedition, Blasphemy, Apostacie, Rebellion, Treason, Sacriledge, Murther, Rapine, Robbery, and all" the other "enormous Crimes, and detestable Villanies, with which this Kingdome hath of later times swarmed." But the partisan Mercurian newspapers could vilify in either direction. Oliver Cromwell, the executioner of the king, complained, "My very face and nose are weekly maligned and scandalized by those scribbling mercuries."
Among the most celebrated editors of the many regularly published pamphlets put out, along with periodically published news books, was Milton himself, an adoring supporter of Cromwell and the anti-monarchist government. One of his most famous pamphlets reads like a 17th century blog-post title: "The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates: Proving that is it lawful and Hath been Held so through All Ages, for Any who Have the Power, to Call to Account a Tyrant or Wicked King, and after Due Conviction to Depose and put him to death." Milton was "posting" in reply to arguments made by the more moderate faction in Parliament (the Presbyterians) who were arguing for a retention of the monarchy and the sparing of the king's life. Milton was later appointed by the government to be "Secretary to Foreign Tongues" where--again blog-like--he ended up doing most of his work from his own home.
An important note: When Milton called for free competition of ideas--Unlicenc'd Printing--in 1644, his faction was one of many. In 1655 Lord High Protector Oliver Cromwell banned all newsbooks except one favorable to the government: there is no record that his loyal civil servant John Milton objected to such censorship!
The challenges of the marketplace model that blogs seem to embody are, thus, as follows:
a) Will people actually avail themselves of the various goods (facts, ideas, opinions) at the marketplace or just go to vendors that confirm their preexisting prejudices?
b) Will the competition of the market lead to, not healthy and vigorous debate, but permanent fissures in the body politic that, in previous eras, have resulted in civil wars?
c) Will the excesses of the marketplace of blogs invite government reaction in the forms of regulation or even censorship?
david.d.perlmutter
in Blogs & Marketplace of Ideas, Prehistory of Blogs
|
45 Comments
Reader Comments (45)
a) Will people actually avail themselves of the various goods (facts, ideas, opinions) at the marketplace or just go to vendors that confirm their preexisting prejudices?
My personal reaction to this challenge to the marketplace model is that this is a problem whether looking at The New York Times and the Washington Post or Fox News and CNN. If we are to trust blogs as the one and only source of information and contributions to the marketplace of ideas, the sheer volume of blogs and the ease with which partisan blogs might be segregated may be a problem. Perhaps marketplace pressures like advertisers might keep fair and balanced from being any sort of goal. But, in and of themselves, I don’t think partisan blogs do more than good ol boy networks or watercooler talk.
My opinion not enough? A recent Pew project study “debunks a major criticism of bloggers and the Internet in general.” Namely, that people look for their “preferred brand of politics,” choosing to ignore contrary argument. The 2004 study showed that “wired Americans” are privy to more points of view from more places on the political spectrum than they might be otherwise. (http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2006/01/09/local/iq_3846655.txt)
In the comment by ow1018, a 2004 Pew report was cited about wired Americans seeking out different points of views. In the same report, it was found that of the people who get news online on an average day, 90% of them also get news from newspapers or TV. The Pew report also found that about a quarter of Americans prefers news that comes from sources with similar political outlooks. http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/141/report_display.asp
Perhaps, although wired Americans seek out different perspectives on the Web, it may be true that in the vast media marketplace of ideas they are only seeking out those that confirm their preexisting prejudices.
I don’t believe the competition of the market will lead to “permanent fissures.” I think the discussion occurring on blogs is mainly healthy debate. With most of the debate over ideas and information taking place online, I don’t think a “civil war” will occur. While people may strongly disagree over an idea, all argument will stay online.
I think with the increased popularity of blogs as mentioned above, there will be some regulation over blog use. I think this may occur especially in the area of advertising and business. Unlike the actions taken by Oliver Cromwell in 1655, I don’t think there will be any state regulation or control over sharing opinions and thoughts over political matters.
Because anyone can blog, it is unlikely that the commentary could cause large-scale opposition on either side. Being a journalist, I am skeptical of Big Brother and I think the government watches everything. If a blog gets popular enough and they feel it will do harm, I do think some people will disappear (that's just me :)).
You can slightly compare blogs to the European newspapers. Although almost everyone can read now, not everyone takes advantage of internet access. These are usually poorer people; therefore, their voice will not be heard, or they will not be aware of certain issues.
Concerning the partisan presses of commonwealth England, the “news books,” as they were know, were the voices of parties to the conflict (either monarchist or anti-monarchist). Therefore, they were limited in number and in points of view and not fully a free and open press. They were still chartered by established ideologies. Blogs however are not (for the most part) official points of view advocated established ideologies.
Tocqueville in Democracy in America claimed that one of the benefits of having a free press is that no one dissenting voice could garner the attention of a mass if there were many other competing voices. People would get immune to criticisms of authority if the press was free. Tocqueville claimed that a free press could actually be a safeguard for authority, not threat to it.
Whether blogs will ever have such a singular influence on a political era remains to be seen. A select few bloggers would have to emerge as leaders, to become blogs that help determine headlines and thus influence policy. Just as CNN and Fox News have emerged from the plethora of cable channels to become destination channels for timely news, some bloggers must emerge from the dense jungle of the Internet to claim credibility and prestige as the place to go for dependable information and opinion.
Once those select bloggers come to the forefront, people will go to the sites they view as most dependable or enjoyable, whether it is because they agree with the political viewpoint of the site or because they believe the site is the most fair or because they are most likely to get breaking news. And it naturally follows that as some bloggers emerge with more influence than others, and as people depend more on these sites for information, there will be great debate over censorship vs. First Amendment rights.
Marketplace of thoughts is quite different. It is hard to say that people are always rational. They have more complicated motives for their choices. There is no such invisible hand as in Adam Smith’s market. On the contrary, it’s often disturbed by the visible hands of the government. Nowadays, in democratic countries, law is the main influential power that preserves this market. Thus, the government's role is minimized.
Blogging, unquestionably, has brought more choices into the market and intensified the competition greatly. It may have broken the existing rules of this market to some extent, for example, the anonymity of cyber spaces increases the number of aggressive or insulting words; it may have caused some negative effects, for instance, exaggerating partisan instead of rational discussions on issues in elections. However, I think the law is more efficient than the governmental regulations or censorship, though blogging, as a new existence, has not been controlled by the existing media laws yet.
Much like early publishers, bloggers are a partisan lot. "Webster’s Dictionary" defines a partisan as:
1 : a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance; and 2 a : a member of a body of detached light troops making forays and harassing an enemy b : a member of a guerrilla band operating within enemy lines.
That certainly defines most bloggers of today; however, contrary to early publishers, partisanship is not a financial necessity for the survival of blogs. Blogging costs little money and, unlike printing, anyone with access to a computer can do it. However, despite this significant difference, blogs seem to be following a similar path to that of traditional print: they are moving toward advertising. The American Marketing Association in a recent communication with its members wrote:
"Weblogs, commonly know as blogs, are rapidly gaining momentum and acceptance as credible marketing strategies. Companies are using blogs as customer relationship tools, branding reinforcement, product ideology testing and for creating public relations buzz."
However, as blogs enter the mainstream business world, marketers are faced with how to impose a formal structure on blogs including format/strategy, metrics/goals and ROI. If blogging is a legitimate strategy for your company, do you know how to leverage this new media to complement your existing online and offline marketing strategies? What will success mean to your organization?
Not only are businesses launching blogs of their own, but many advertise on other people’s blogs. It is inevitable that given the right set of circumstances, advertisers will wield as much influence in the blogosphere as they do now in print news. I propose that the issue of marketing infiltration and advertising influence in the blogosphere be included as an addition to the list of challenges presented by the author of this posting.
I believe the competition of the market will lead to healthy debate, but the idea of civil war, though true on occasion in past history, is not as realistic today. As john444 pointed out, a big difference today compared to the presses of early years is the greater number of current competing ideas. I feel that this point fuels the marketplace for blogs to facilitate platforms for the numerous voices of support or opposition regarding political debate.
The question of governmental regulation depends on how well blogs police themselves. I do not believe the government will implement a lockdown on blogs just because of disagreement on political issues with the official administration. We do not see that today with the Bush administration’s actions toward CNN or The New York Times (though they would probably like to). I do think we might see government interference if blogs become unchecked and allow the creation and continuous promotion of violent acts or vulgar language that could become a possibility. Citizens would more than likely not be exposed to this kind of speech or communication (debate) in their newspaper or news network. Why should they with this media? As this new and powerful medium continues to grow and become more powerful, this may become something we must think through in how to protect the citizens of this country without interfering with The Constitution and peoples’ rights.
Yes, Pew Internet Research studies have shown that people access blogs that primarily align with and reaffirm their political ideology. Yes this is similar to how people access TV networks and get broadcast news. But primarily, I would venture that most people recognize the error and ignorance in such streamlined thinking and consumption habits.
Obviously someone watching the news is going to learn more and gain a perspective closer to ‘reality’ if they channel-surf between CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and C-Span. The same applies to accessing a range of blogs, published by people with differing ideologies, and considering their perspectives.
That’s where the potential lies in blogging. You and I can sit in the comforts of our home and read people’s ‘arguments’ on the social issues of the day. We can read arguments that support our own ideas and with hyperlink technologies do further research to find facts that can strengthen our rhetoric. And, we can read arguments that are completely opposite our own. Without engaging in illogical argument to hold our political ground, we can ‘save face’ and truly consider these opposing points of view. We can even research these ‘opposing points’ and decide for ourselves if maybe we should adopt the same ideas, or figure out why they are illegitimate.
This free exchange of ideas which fulfills ‘option A’ as laid out in the posting, will only be realized and enacted, though, if people start talking about its potential and hyping it as such. It will only be realized if people look at how to better use this technological communication tool, and then promote the use from there.
But I think a little history can shed light on PBB/Editor’s other two questions.
If early “Mercuries” qualify as blog-like communication, then perhaps so does the early press of our own country. Before they were institutionalized as engines of party opinion, early American newspapers were partisan, often rose in reaction to factional debate, and were relatively cheap to produce. Also, the men who printed them usually did so on the side of whatever else they were doing, whether that was selling stationery or sausages (printers like Benjamin Franklin did both).
The factionalism and heated debate between these papers did not produce permanent fissures or begin civil wars, as did publications in Europe. I think this is because the nature of our political and social system was so different – and still is. Built into our system (not to mention our early American spirit) was the flexibility to react to ideas without having to crush governments or opposing movements. But, I’d like to note, just because blogs may not lead to civil war does not necessarily mean they will lead to healthy debate either. That’s a question we’ve all parsed through in an earlier discussion.
History also can help is with the question of whether the excesses of blogs will lead to governmental intervention or even censorship. The excesses of early American newspapers led to governmental intervention. Every student of media history knows of the Zenger trial, in which Peter Zenger was tried for libel. During this trial, a jury upheld truth as a defense for libel, even though that idea was not yet a part of common law. They did this contrary to a judge’s orders.
I think that today, it’s nearly impossible to imagine government censorship on any overt level. Our Consitution simply wouldn’t allow it purely on “speech” grounds. If blog-speech begins to fall into the categories of unprotected speech under the Constitution, they’ll likely be stopped (as they should), but that’s not exactly censorship.
Word-of-mouth has been around for centuries and is seen as the most productive mean of acquiring information. Marketers are even seeing the advantages of this through the use of blogs. Blogs are a more advanced type of word-of-mouth marketing. According to an article written by Advertising Age’s Jonah Bloom on January 30, 2006, “Word-of-mouth forces a marketer to give up some element of control, letting consumers take over a campaign, and that is an invaluable lesson for all marketers operating in a consumer-controlled world”.
Concerning blogs sparking healthy debate or creating a rift, it would seem that the former might exist more than the latter. Not to say that both will not exist concurrently, but that healthy debate may exceed a schism. It would take an issue that is so very clear-cut that one must fall on one side or the other to facilitate a partisan break, and there seems to always be another option than simply either/or.
Regulation of blogs would be very difficult because the Internet is boundless and global, and restrictions would almost certainly walk the fine line between constitutional and unconstitutional concerning free speech. Regulations, as they exist for pornography, would likely come in the form of protecting minors from speech deemed inappropriate, but still it seems that because the Internet is available to so many, and is adaptable (moving from email correspondence, to research, to personally published blogs) a regulation that is constitutional now, may not be in years to come.
In terms of censorship, I agree with a previous post-the idea of censorship is too far gone. The amount of effort that would take, first of all, would be extravagant, and the amount of public dissent would be too large to handle. Plus, many important figures in politics have their own blogs. The difference between bloggers today and printers of the past is the value we put on freedom. Our government cherishes it just as much as the people and would not violate it in such a blatant manner.
On another note I do not believe blogs in the overcrowded marketplace will ever be censored by the governmen. If the government were to try to stop or censor the conversation on the web they would have to have numerous efforts to regulate it first. The money spent here would probably exhaust the government on such an issue. I also wonder who would regulate it? The FCC? I just do not see this happening in the future.