Is the Commercial Mass Media Necessary for Liberal Democracy?

Title: Is the Commercial Mass Media Necessary for Liberal Democracy?

Research Question: Is the commercial mass media necessary for liberal democracy, or can alternatives like political-party financed press, government-funded media, or peer-to-peer communication take its place?

Methodology: The author uses a comparative analysis approach to examine the pros and cons of commercial mass media versus alternatives. They outline the key elements of liberal democracy and then compare the effectiveness of each media option in supporting these elements.

Results: The author finds that while the commercial mass media has a role in acting as the "Fourth Estate" in liberal democracy, it falls short in several areas. Political-party financed press and government-funded media also have their own advantages and disadvantages, with the former potentially leading to biased reporting and the latter possibly infringing on freedom of the press. The author argues that peer-to-peer communication, facilitated by digital technologies, could be the most promising alternative, as it allows for greater citizen participation and reduces reliance on commercial entities.

Implications: The author suggests that the future of media in liberal democracies may lie in peer-to-peer communication. They argue that this approach aligns better with the principles of liberal democracy, as it encourages greater citizen participation and reduces the influence of commercial interests. However, they also acknowledge that this shift would require significant changes in how information is produced, distributed, and consumed.

Link to Article: https://arxiv.org/abs/0109092v1 Authors: arXiv ID: 0109092v1