This is a topic that has been top of my mind as of late, and with the upcoming election, a topic that should be top of yours as this is still the primary source of news for many people, even if they get it in digital form.

Traditionally, a newspaper has been the primary vehicle of the free press, an establishment that was only first realized in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1539 and a reality that even England — despite its attractiveness for, and ability to produce, great thinkers — did not see until about a century and a half later. In fact, if it was not for the Areopagitica of John Milton, which is among history’s most influential and impassioned philosophical defences of the principle of a right to freedom of speech and expression (Source: Wikipedia), who knows if we would have freedom of the press today? (Milton was obviously among the great thinkers who inspired Hamilton, Madison, and the other delegates who drafted the US constitution which created the country which has produced some of the mightiest advocates for the free press in recent times.) In addition, one of Milton’s central premises was that the individual is capable of using reason and distinguishing right from wrong, good from bad so the press should not have to be licensed or censored.

So given that the newspaper is the primary vehicle of the free press, which is supposed to be the primary means by which free speech is spread in modern times, what ethical responsibilities does it have. Much ado is always made about the ethical responsibilities of the journalist, but what about the ethical responsibility of the publication? For example, what good does it do if the journalist dig deeps, finds something, comes up with a correlation that the publisher doesn’t like, and the story gets buried? What good does it do if a (printing) error is made and it is not corrected in a timely manner? What good does it do to only report one side of the story. (Especially when every story has essentially three sides in the mind’s eye — yours, mine, and the truth, which is meticulously sought by any good journalist.)

If you look at some of the commonly accepted principles of journalism, they typically say that a journalist must be:

• obligated to the truth,
• in allegiance with the citizens and their public interest,
• possessive of a discipline of verification,
• independent from the organizations, corporations, and people they cover,
• open to feedback and criticism, and
• of good conscious.

Based on this, one would think it would be safe to say that a newspaper — which is the outlet through which journalists report on the news, issues, and concerns of the day — must be:

• obligated to the truth,
• in allegiance with the community they serve and the public interests within,
• possessive of a discipline of verification,
• of detached independence from the organizations, corporations, and people they cover – completely separating advertising from news coverage, and
• open to feedback and criticism.

But is that enough? Since a newspaper is a collective of journalists and the primary vehicle through which free speech is promoted and the public interests of the community addressed, it seems only logical that it be held to an even higher ethical standard. It seems fair to say that a newspaper should also:

• hold itself accountable for all that it publishes, and if errors or omissions are made, quickly issue a retraction or correction in such a way that the retraction or correction is likely to be seen by everyone who was misinformed,
• make an effort to report on both sides of a battle where there is a dispute or conflict,
• make an effort to voice dissenting opinions, even if the opinion is limited to one reader; As John Stuart Mill wrote in his book On Liberty, If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and one, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind,
• make an effort to be balanced both in terms of the types of news reported, and the views associated with each topic, story, or debate, and
• serve as an independent monitor of of power. James Madison got it right when he said that all power in human hands is liable to be abused, and that’s why we need a free press to monitor it. Chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted to the press for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression.

Furthermore, in today’s digital age, one could also that if the newspaper has an online edition, or is published digitally, that it also has a responsibility:

• to provide a digital community forum for its readers to interact with it and each other,
• to not criticize, or censor, the views and statements of its readers (unless such views or statements are made in a way that are libelious, hateful, or otherwise in opposition to municipal, state, or federal law, and only if such views are required by such law to be blocked),
• and to address the concerns brought forth by the readers if those concerns demonstrate that a misprint was made, that the reporting was not factual, or that one or more sides to the issue, story, or debate was missed.

After all, if a newspaper is the vehicle of the free press, and the rationale of the free press is to serve the people, then the newspaper should at least react to all of the people it claims to serve. And it should remember, in the words of Andrew Vachss, a free press doesn’t mean it’s not a tame press.

What do you think?

In full disclaimer, just as the doctor has never claimed to be an analyst, he’s never claimed to be a journalist either. He is a blogger. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Want to discuss? Join The Federalists on LinkedIn. The open group has been created specifically to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of the governance of nations, their ramifications on the national and international economics and global trade, and the rights and responsibilities they suggest.

Today we discuss Federalist No. 3. This is the second of four contributions by John Jay (in the thirty-six essays we will cover) who again addresses the dangers from foreign force and influence while writing to the people of the State of New York.

In this essay, Jay notes that among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first. As a result, in this essay, he takes up the subject, but only as it respects security for the preservation of peace and tranquillity, as well as against dangers from FOREIGN ARMS AND INFLUENCE, as from dangers of the LIKE KIND arising from domestic causes. His goal, to examine whether the people are not right in their opinion that a cordial Union, under an efficient national government, affords them the best security that can be devised against HOSTILITIES from abroad.

To this end, he puts forward the argument that when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government. As a result, the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and
consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more SAFE with respect to us.

Let us deliberate on this for a moment. In this paragraph he is making a number of claims which not only serve as the basis for his argument that a Union is stronger than a collection of confederacies, but also highlight the key difference between a Union and a collection of confederacies. In these statements, Jay is stating that

1. A national government will attract the best men,
2. The best of the best men will be elected by the population to manage it, and, as a result,
3. The decisions from the whole will not only be better than the decisions from the part, but, as they will be coming from a nation, they will be more amicable to other nations and, thus, decrease the chance of conflicts, increasing the nation’s safety.

Of these claims, the first two are paramount. If you are going to have an effective republic, then

1. the best candidates have to be put forth and run for office and
2. the people have to elect from those candidate the candidate who is best able to serve them as a whole.

If the best candidates are not put forth, the Union will not offer the benefits it is designed to offer. This means that if you are running a party system, the party has to put forward the candidates who will best serve the interests of all of the citizens with a leaning toward that party, and not just the senior party members. If it doesn’t, then you, as a citizen, have to vote for an independent as it is your responsibility to elect the best possible candidate just as it is the responsibility of the best possible candidate to represent the needs of the people as a whole to the best of her ability. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

In addition, Jay also argues that while the prospect of present loss or advantage may often tempt the governing party in one or two States to swerve from good faith and justice … those temptations … consequently having little or no influence on the national government … will be fruitless, and good faith and justice be preserved. In other words, while it may be easy for a person, corporation, or nation to sway the decisions of a rather small body of people that represent a small entity like a state, it will not be so easy at the level of the Union. For example, while you may be able to bribe a few elected officials to sway a vote at the level of the state, such an act would be considerably harder to do at the Union level.

Want to discuss? Join The Federalists on LinkedIn. The open group has been created specifically to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of the governance of nations and their ramifications on the national and international economics and global trade.

Today, we continue our review of the Federalist. The goal, to review the first thirty (30) before Election Day in the U.S. Why 30? When the Federalist essays — which first appeared in the Independent Journal, the New-York Packet, and the Daily Advertiser between 1787 and 1788 — were first collected and printed in book form in 1788, only the first 36 essays were included, which covered the first three topics that Hamilton said the essays would cover in Federalist No. 1:

• The utility of the UNION to your political prosperity,
• The insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union, and
• The necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed to the attainment of this object.

And since we only have enough time to cover thirty (30) at the rate of six (6) a week, we will content ourselves with that number, as it is still quite significant. 

Federalist No. 2 begins the discussion of the utility of the Union to your political prosperity. One of the four essays authored by John Jay, and also addressing the people of the State of New York, the essay addresses the dangers from foreign force and influence, but the key message is the strength of the Union as a whole compared to the sum of its parts.

The essay, that notes that independent America is one connected, fertile, wide-spreading country with a succession of navigable waters [that] forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities, states that this country … should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties. Because, as a nation we have made peace and war, as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states. In short, the prosperity of America [has] depended upon its Union.

The essay, which ends with the statement that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet: “FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS“, insists that for America to remain strong, it must be a Union, and not a collection of state level confederacies. It is essentially stating that the whole is stronger than the part, and this is a key tenet in the argument for a Union, and a key tenet for one who wants to be an elected representative to take to heart. The idea of a Senate and a House of Representatives is that, as a whole, the representatives in the room are collectively wiser and more capable of serving the nation than each on his or her own. So while a candidate is in a battle during a campaign in which she is vying for the privilege of representing the people in the constituency in which she is running, once elected, she has to stop being combative and start being collaborative, looking for solutions that benefit everyone, not just his or her constituents. Just like failing to put the good of the nation ahead of the good of the state will lead to dissolution of the Union and the greatness it offers, failing to put the good of the people as a whole ahead of select groups of individuals will limit the prosperity of the people as a whole.

Want to discuss? Join The Federalists on LinkedIn. The open group has been created specifically to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of the governance of nations and their ramifications on the national and international economics and global trade.

Elections are coming on both sides of the border, and while this is not a political blog, politics does have a considerable impact on the supply chain when the political parties introduce new trade legislation or economic policies. Since this blog is an educationally focussed blog, it’s a fair topic in that respect. And while the Federalist papers do not have much to do with Supply Management, they do provide the underpinnings upon which the United States was formed and the basis for nearly every republic^* that was formed since. Thus, it is the case that much of the free (trade) world owes its philosophical foundations to the work.

So why are we reviewing these now? Basically, the doctor is starting to think that, in recent times, people around the world are losing their way and forgetting the role of the representative AND the role of the represented. So, given that election time is coming up in the U.S., now is as good of a time as any.

In Federalist No. 1, (Alexander) Hamilton writes to the people of the state of New York and states that, AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America which has, in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed.

In this seminal piece, Hamilton asks whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force, especially considering the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments. After all, we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists and a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for
the firmness and efficiency of government.

And then, after noting that he is asking his fellow-citizens, after attentive consideration, to adopt the new Constitution, as he is convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness, he states that he will not only frankly acknowledge his convictions but lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. His arguments will be open to all, and may be judged by all.

Philosophers and political scientists may disagree, but I think this is the key takeaway from the first Federalist publication. A true politician asking you to ratify something will not only acknowledge his convictions, but share with you the reasons why so you can understand whether or not it is truly in your best interests and why. He or she will present his or her arguments willingly and openly, and let you come to an informed decision on your own. A republic is an open form of government, not a closed one.

^* Why am I using the word republic and not democracy? In the literal sense, the US is a republic. A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter”, not the private concern or property of the rulers, and where offices of states are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed rather than inherited. In comparison, if you look at the definition of (the original) democracy (in ancient Greece), it is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives, but the definition of eligible citizens was restricted to Athenian males at least 20 years of age (as women, slaves, foreigners, and men under 20 could not vote). Furthermore, in this first Federalist publication, Hamilton refers to the true principles of republican government (where republican refers to the type of government, and not a particular party, just so we’re clear).

Want to discuss? Join The Federalists on LinkedIn. The open group has been created specifically to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of the governance of nations and their ramifications on the national and international economics and global trade.