Mike Murray essay -- Power to the People

Opinion Paper: 8 November 2007

Power to the People

--by Mike Murray

“You can’t fight City Hall.” “Money talks.” “Never pick a fight with someone who buys his ink by the barrel.” Ever heard those expressions? Each essentially says the same thing: that a very few people grasp the levers of power, and that it’s useless for the rest of us to try to do anything about it.

Hogwash. Entrenched politicians, wealthy people, members of the mainstream media – they are not as powerful as they once were. Today, they can be overcome.

It wasn’t always so. When it came to mayoral kingpins, few have ever dominated to the degree that the late Richard Daley did in Chicago. He did pretty much what he wanted, when he wanted, how he wanted. In one infamous exchange with a reporter, he was confronted for having hired a relative into a key city position.

The reporter protested, “ That’s nepotism!”

Mayor Daley’s calm reply: “Of course it is. What kind of person would I be if I didn’t take care of my own?”

Daley may have scored points for candor, but he flunked the good-government test. Big time. Even worse, he was unabashed in his flaunting of the law. Rules, he was happy to let you know, were for other people. In his town, he answered to no one.

Then there were the well-heeled. Cash gushed forth from them by the bushel basket. It funded countless promotions during political campaigns. Want to know which candidates were backed by big money (their own or other people’s)? Just look at who did the most advertising.

And those who advertised the most usually won. For too long, there was little that regular folks – and their poorly financed candidates – could do to combat big spending. A twisted version of the Golden Rule applied: “Those with the gold made the rules.” That inequity dominated for far too long.

Finally, there was the traditional media. When it came to influencing elections, newspapers were practiced and highly effective. Considered by many to be faithful stewards of the public interest, editorial boards for years succeeded in steering voters to favored candidates.

There is no doubt that many who worked in the field of journalism took their responsibilities seriously. Plenty still do. For the best among them, ensuring the free exchange of thoughts and ideas – and scrupulously reporting governmental activities in unfettered, unbiased fashion – is nothing short of sacred duty.

But such is not true of all who have comprised the Fourth Estate. For too many in the media, personal preferences have shaped editorial and, what’s worse, news content. William Randolph Hearst used both the op/ed sections and the front pages of his newspapers to beat those with whom he disagreed into submission. He was the inspiration, I believe, for the expression relating to bulk ink purchases.

The message was clear: it was a losing proposition to “go to the mat” against an opponent who had the means of mass communication at his disposal. Hapless adversaries had little hope of influencing hearts and minds that they could not even reach.

That was then; this is now.

Sure, entrenched politicians, wealthy people, and big media are still able to throw their weight around. But they don’t own the franchise on power any longer. Regular folks today have many weapons at their disposal. Prime among them is the enhanced ability to communicate.

Thanks to innovations like the Internet and e-mail, anyone with a computer and a connection can talk to the world. You don’t need a big advertising budget. You don’t have to own (or edit) a newspaper. All you need is the will and the courage to speak out.

As candidates have discovered at the national level, “netroots” activity has empowered millions of everyday activists. Politicians ignore them at their peril.

When it comes to local politics, however, Internet activity lags. Here in Berea, for example, it is unclear what impact that new websites (or websites like mine, that have only recently added political content) will have on upcoming elections. But where concerted efforts have extended beyond a year or two, the balance of power has already started to shift.

In such communities, fewer people are turning to editorial boards for help in making up their minds. More and more voters are instead considering the views of their fellow citizens. To be sure, the quality of discourse varies. But such has long been true of traditional media outlets as well – and it’s lately getting worse.

Readers fed up with bullying editors (ones who habitually misuse the power of their positions in the furtherance of personal agendas) have begun to take matters into their own hands. Those people have learned that they have more clout than they previously realized.

They have discovered the enormous impact of paid subscriptions on publications’ bottom lines. There is the matter of direct income that results from the subscriptions themselves, of course. But there is the even more potent issue of advertising revenue, a source of income that can dwarf the amount of money that derives from subscriptions.

The fly in the ointment is that ad rates are directly tied to circulation. The greater the number of subscribers that potential advertisers are able to reach, the more they are willing to pay to do so. More subscribers equals more expensive ad rates. Trouble is, the reverse is also true. When subscribers leave, they take advertising revenue with them.

Publication executives who thumb their noses at readers who’ve become angered by editorial misconduct, then, play a dangerous game. Print media faces serious financial challenges these days; inviting more – by alienating customers who directly and indirectly deliver revenue – is suicidal.

Publishers and CEOs: when editors drive your subscribers away, they drive your business into the ground. Subscribers: take note of that fact. You have more power than you might imagine.

Finally, when all is said and done it’s “one person / one vote” on Election Day. So long as there is no hanky panky at the polls or in the counting (always worrisome considerations), money and power take a back seat to the collective will of the people.

Despite the best efforts of entrenched politicians, big donors, and the mainstream media to convince us that such is the case, results of elections are not inevitable. They are not foregone conclusions. As is true in many other ways these days, power ultimately lies in the hands of legions of ordinary people.

Regardless of outcomes in upcoming elections, however, the worm is slowly turning. The old reality held that it was foolhardy to pick fights with the powerful, most especially the ones who buy their ink by the barrel. The new paradigm is that it is perilous for the privileged to wage war with common folks armed with computers – everyday people who buy their bytes by the giga.