THE SKIN-DEEP POLITICS OF ILLIBERAL LIBERALS AND AMNESIAC - TopicsExpress



          

THE SKIN-DEEP POLITICS OF ILLIBERAL LIBERALS AND AMNESIAC LIBERTARIANS ON THE IQBAL SURVÉ-TAKEOVER OF INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS I have been trawling media coverage during the past few months for principled opinions on Sekunjalos takeover of the Independent group and have found those who profess to criticise the deal as liberals or libertarians wanting on matters of their own politico-theoretical principle. Apart from journalist Eusebius McKaiser whose arguments on the issue remain consistently principled to the letter and spirit of his liberal views of the John Stuart Mill On Liberty school; an article by Karima Brown (group editor of the Independent group) and Vukani Mde (analysis editor) in the Cape Argus of 27 January 2014 titled Independent will operate by a new editorial charter, ought to put some libertarian and liberal critics to theoretical shame. The opening salvo over this article reads as follows: Dr IQBAL Survé and Sekunjalo, similar to anyone who acquires any private company, have a right and obligation to their shareholders to make changes as they see fit - even when the company in question is a newspaper group. These may include changes to management, staff, the structure of the business, its growth strategies and targets, and even editorial orientation. The only obligation he owes to his editors is the assurance that within the parameters of whatever that orientation is, they are free and unfettered to run their papers as they see fit. If I was a true to principle libertarian I would reject all criticism of, and interference with, the inviolable right of Dr Iqbal Survé and Sekunjalo as new owners of Independent Newspapers to do whatever they want with what they own, provided that the rights of others to do the same are respected. Furthermore, I would decry the audacity of any third party who interferes with what was essentially a private business transaction. In case our neo-libertarian critics have forgotten their political theory on these issues, I recommend that they read the works of the following libertarian apostles: - Frederick A Hayek(1899-1992) - THE CONSTITUTION OF LIBERTY (1960) - Milton Friedman (1912-2006) - CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM (1962) Robert Nozick - ANARCHY, STATE AND UTOPIA 1974). If I was a true to principle liberal I would unconditionally support the Sekunjalo deal because it meets the requirements of liberal theoretician John Rawls Difference Principle which holds that only those social and economic inequalities are allowed that work to the benefit of the the least advantaged members of society (John Rawls JOHN RAWLS (1921-2002) - A THEORY OF JUSTICE (1971). I am sure that if any decent principled liberal does a cost-benefit analysis of the Sekunjalo deal in comparison with the previous owners against which the letter and spirit of the Difference Principle is tested, the conclusions will support Sekunjalo, given this countrys Apartheid past. So what is it about this Sekunjalo deal that makes some liberals illiberal and some libertarians suffer from ideological amnesia? Could it be as politically skin deep as Survés BEE status? There was no such criticism when Tony O Reilly owned the Independent Newspapers group. As for criticism about the involvement of Chinese capital with Sekunjalo; why was it not a problem when an Irish capitalist called Tony O Reilly owned the Independent Newspapers group? However, as for the default position criticism about too much concentrated media power in too few hands; I am almost embarrassed to remind those illiberal liberals and amnesiac libertarians to wake up and smell the capital - you live in a capitalist society! What happened is no different than what happens during any change in ownership of a corporation you would read about in any financial publication. And, in case you have forgotten, as so aptly put by authors David Edwards and David Cromwell in their book NEWSPEAK IN THE 21ST CENTURY(Pluto Press, 2010): The corporate media is not owned by big business, as is often claimed - it is big business. It does not watch over concentrated power - it is power.
Posted on: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:41:36 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015