The press is under attack. It is accused of disseminating fake news, invasion of privacy, distortions, half-truths and conspiracy theories. Journalists are demonised, denigrated, locked up and even murdered.
The media has always faced such problems. Power brokers pay lip service to press freedom but are, at best, reluctant supporters. In rare rational moments they acknowledge its value. But they throw up barriers the moment the media spotlight shines on their unsavoury activities.
The press has always managed to see off such opposition because the courts were behind it, and because its operations were based on sound commercial foundations. The former is still true, but changing in countries where populist governments are twisting the law. The latter is definitely no longer the case. The media’s commercial base is rapidly eroding and public interest is suffering as a result.
For three centuries the press prospered, and it is no coincidence that those same three centuries saw the fastest growth and the greatest advances in science, technology and political thought in the history of mankind. Newspapers and magazines have been a channel through which flowed world-changing ideas and information.
By the turn of the twentieth century every city in the world had at least one newspaper. Commercial restrictions were dictated largely by geography and technology. General circulation of the New York Times and Washington Post were limited to a radius of about 100 miles from their respective printing plants because that was how far the newspaper lorries could drive in the time available. The British London papers did not achieve a national reach until the development of the railways.
Market forces dictated that the editorial content reflected the varied interests of the readers in the respective geographic areas. New Yorkers read about events in New York with a focus on the business and financial world. The Washington Post was the paper to read for American government happenings. The national distribution of the London newspapers were different. They pointed the way to a readership base based on ideology rather than geography.