YOUR ROYAL HIGHNESS, EXCELLENCIES, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT IS A GREAT HONOUR AND PLEASURE TO BE ASKED TO ADDRESS THIS MOST INTERESTING AND DISTINGUISHED FORUM.

WE MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA ARE NOT ALWAYS WELCOME PARTICIPANTS IN SUCH DISCUSSIONS. INDEED, MOST SENSIBLE PEOPLE HAVE QUITE AN AMBIVALENT VIEW OF THE MEDIA.

ON THE ONE HAND, THEY ENJOY READING NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES, LISTENING TO THE RADIO, WATCHING THE TELEVISION OR USING THE INTERNET, AND THEY CONSIDER THESE ACTIVITIES TO BE BOTH ENTERTAINMENT AND A SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND EDUCATION.

ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY MISTRUST THE MEDIA, FEELING THAT JOURNALISTS AND BROADCASTERS ARE SLIGHTLY AWKWARD PEOPLE TO HAVE AROUND. WE ASK AWKWARD QUESTIONS, WE DONT ALWAYS DRESS PROPERLY, WE CANNOT REALLY BE TRUSTED. WORSE STILL, WE WRITE AND BROADCAST THINGS SOME PEOPLE DO NOT WISH TO SEE PUBLISHED OR BROADCAST. AND, AT THE SAME TIME, PEOPLE ARE CONSCIOUS THAT THE MEDIA CAN BE MANIPULATED BY OTHERS WHO HAVE THEIR OWN POLITICAL, BUSINESS OR SOCIAL AGENDAS, BE THEY GOVERNMENTS, POLITICAL PARTIES OWNERS, ADVERTISERS OR OTHER OUTSIDE GROUPS.

SO WE ARE IMPORTANT BUT ALSO DANGEROUS. WE ARE ALSO, THOUGH, OF QUITE VARYING QUALITY AND RELIABILITY. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT YOU CANT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ IN THE NEWSPAPERS, AND NOT ONLY BECAUSE IT MAY BE MANIPULATED. IT MAY NOT ACTUALLY BE TRUE. PEOPLE IN THE MEDIA MAKE THINGS UP OR EXAGGERATE THEM. AND THEY CERTAINLY OFTEN PREFER ENTERTAINING TRIVIA TO SERIOUS NEWS, ALTHOUGH IN THAT THEY ARE BASICALLY REFLECTING HUMAN PREFERENCES RATHER THAN SIMPLY JOURNALISTIC ONES.

NONE OF THIS IS NEW. INDEED IT IS AS OLD AS THE HILLS. AS LONG AS THERE HAVE BEEN MEDIA, SO THERE HAVE BEEN GOOD MEDIA, BAD MEDIA, TRUSTED MEDIA, MISTRUSTED MEDIA AND SO ON.

IN THE 1950S, FOR EXAMPLE, AN AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, ADLAI STEVENSON, COINED ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS PUT-DOWNS OF PEOPLE LIKE ME.

THE FUNCTION OF AN EDITOR, HE SAID, IS TO SEPARATE THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF (THE GOOD FOOD FROM THE BAD). AND THEN HE PUBLISHES THE CHAFF.

I, OF COURSE, HOPE THAT I AM NOT A CHAFF-PUBLISHER. I LIKE TO THINK THAT I SEPARATE THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF AND THEN PROCESS THE WHEAT INTO THE MOST NUTRITIOUS BRAIN FOOD POSSIBLE, AND THEN PROVIDE IT FOR OUR READERS.

READERS CAN TAKE THEIR OWN VIEWS OF THAT, AND WHETHER I DO THE JOB BADLY OR WELL. BUT WHAT IS CLEAR IS THAT THEY DO PAY ME, AND ALL OTHER JOURNALISTS, TO PROCESS THE NEWS. THEY DO NOT JUST PAY US TO REPORT THE NEWS. THESE DAYS, MANY COMPLAINTS COME IN TO THE MEDIA ALLEGING THAT WE OUGHT JUST TO REPORT THE NEWS, AND NOT PROVIDE OPINION OR ANALYSIS.

YET THAT IS NOT AT ALL WHAT READERS ACTUALLY WANT. THEY PAY US TO SELECT THE NEWS, TO DECIDE WHAT IS IMPORTANT AND WHAT IS NOT, TO PUT THE NEW FACTS INTO CONTEXT, TO SAY WHY IT MATTERS AND TO OFFER SOME POINTERS AS TO WHERE THIS NEWS MIGHT LEAD.

THIS IS TRUE OF A WEEKLY LIKE THE ECONOMIST, BUT IT IS ALSO TRUE OF EVERY JOURNALIST ON EVERY NEWSPAPER OR TV CHANNEL IN THE WORLD. THE ONLY DIFFERENCES ARE A MATTER OF DEGREE—WHAT IS THE BALANCE DIFFERENT OUTLETS CHOOSE BETWEEN NEWS-REPORTING AND NEWS ANALYSIS, BETWEEN FACTS AND JUDGMENT.

THOSE WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT TOO MUCH OPINION AND TOO LITTLE FACT ARE REALLY COMPLAINING ABOUT THE BALANCE, OR MORE OFTEN ABOUT THE PARTICULAR OPINION THAT IS OFFERED, AND ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS WELL-FOUNDED IN THE FACTS OR SEEMED JUST TO BE A PREJUDICE OR BIAS.

IT IS, IN OTHER WORDS, A QUESTION OF TRUST, OF BALANCE, OF REPUTATION, OF INTEGRITY. IT IS ALL THOSE THINGS, THOUGH ALSO OF COURSE IT IS TO A LARGE DEGREE A MATTER OF TASTE.

WHAT, THOUGH, DOES ALL THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT? WHAT ROLE SHOULD THE MEDIA PLAY IN DEVELOPMENT?

WE MEDIA PEOPLE HAVE AN EASY ANSWER: THE FREER THE MEDIA, THE LIKELIER IT IS THAT ECONOMIES DEVELOP FREELY, BECAUSE PEOPLE NEED TRUSTWORTHY INFORMATION AND A SENSE OF ACCOUNTABILITY OF ALL INSTITUTIONS IF THEY ARE TO TAKE THE ACTIONS THAT MAKE ECONOMIES GROW, IN THE LONG TERM.

BUT THAT VIEW IS SELF-SERVING. NATURALLY MEDIA PEOPLE FAVOUR FREE SPEECH, A FREE PRESS. IT IS IN OUR INTERESTS.

PLENTY OF PEOPLE DISAGREE. THEY THINK A FREE MEDIA CAN DAMAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY BRINGING CONFUSION, CONFLICT AND INSTABILITY, BY BREEDING MISTRUST OF GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS, BY OFFERING A MEANS BY WHICH SOME SPECIAL INTERESTS CAN MANIPULATE, DISTORT OR DESTABILISE THE DEVELOPMENT.

PERSONALLY, I THINK WE IN THE MEDIA SHOULD BE CAREFUL WITH HOW GLIBLY WE CLAIM THAT A FREE MEDIA IS ESSENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT FREE SPEECH IS AN ESSENTIAL HUMAN RIGHT IN THE WESTERN, LIBERAL WAY OF THINKING, THOUGH LIKE ALL FREEDOMS ITS USE BY INDIVIDUALS MUST BE TEMPERED BY THE NEED TO AVOID DAMAGING OTHER PEOPLES FREEDOMS. IT IS NO DOUBT ESSENTIAL FOR DEMOCRACY. BUT THAT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN THAT IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. IF WE OVER-CLAIM, WE RISK MAKING PEOPLE MORE SCEPTICAL ABOUT US RATHER THAN LESS.

INSTEAD, THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS TO TRY TO ASK WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND THEN TO SEE WHETHER THE MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS FIT ANY OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS, AND IN WHAT WAY.

THERE IS NO SIMPLE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION. IF THERE WERE, THEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ITSELF MIGHT BE SIMPLER. CIRCUMSTANCES DIFFER, SOCIETIES DIFFER, ECONOMIES DIFFER, AND ALL ARE HIGHLY COMPLEX SYSTEMS. THERE IS NO SIMPLE RECIPE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

SOME GENERAL POINTS CAN BE MADE HOWEVER, BASED ON THE EXPERIENCE OF THOSE ECONOMIES THAT HAVE SUCCEEDED IN DEVELOPING DURING THE PAST HALF CENTURY. THEY VARY IN MANY WAYS. BUT MOST OF THEM SHARE SOME THINGS IN COMMON.

RESEARCHERS AT THINK-TANKS AROUND THE WORLD, LED BY A CANADIAN ONE, THE FRASER INSTITUTE, HAVE, FOR THE PAST DECADE OR SO, TRIED TO MEASURE THE DEGREE OF ECONOMIC FREEDOM COUNTRIES HAVE AND TO RELATE IT TO THEIR PACE OF DEVELOPMENT.

THE RESULTS SHOW A STRIKINGLY STRONG CORRELATION BETWEEN ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND DEVELOPMENT. FREER COUNTRIES GROW MORE RAPIDLY AND MORE SUSTAINABLY.

THAT SIMPLE CONCLUSION IS MORE COMPLEX THAN IT APPEARS, HOWEVER. FOR WHAT IS FREEDOM? THE RESEARCH SHOWS THAT IT IS NOT SIMPLY FREE MARKETS OR FREE SOCIETIES OR FREE TRADE. BY CONTRAST, THIS FREEDOM SEEMS TO INVOLVE A BIG ROLE FOR THE RULE OF LAW AND FOR GOVERNMENT.

FOR WHAT IS MEANT BY FREEDOM IS THE ABILITY TO USE YOUR MONEY, PROPERTY AND TALENTS IN A WAY THAT IS NOT CONSTRAINED BY FEAR OF DEATH, OF CONFISCATION, OF INSTABILITY, OF RAPID INFLATION. PEOPLE, WHETHER AS INDIVIDUALS OR BIG COMPANIES, INVEST THEIR CAPITAL AND LABOUR AND TIME WHEN THEY THINK IT IS WORTH DOING SO. AND TO THINK IT IS WORTH DOING SO THEY NEED A SECURE RULE OF LAW, IN WHICH CONTRACTS ARE ENFORCED AND JUSTICE IS MORE OR LESS EQUAL. THEY NEED A STABLE POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT, WHERE THEY DO NOT FEAR CRIME OR VIOLENCE OR WAR OR EXPLOITATION. THEY NEED A STABLE MACROECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT, WHERE THEY DO NOT FEAR INFLATION OR THE DEGRADATION OF THE CURRENCY.

PEOPLE NEED RULES AND STABILITY AND MOST OF ALL THEY NEED TRUST: TRUST IN WHO THEY ARE DEALING WITH, IN WHAT THEY ARE BEING TOLD, IN THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE WORLD THEY LIVE IN, AND SOME FAITH ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN NEXT. THIS SEEMS TO BE AS TRUE OF A FAMILY DECIDING HOW MUCH TO SPEND ON THEIR CHILDRENS EDUCATION AS OF AN ENTREPRENEUR DECIDING WHETHER TO BUILD A NEW FACTORY.

IN A HIGH INFLATION COUNTRY, WITH VIOLENCE, CIVIL WAR, ARBITRARY CONFISCATION, A JUDICIAL SYSTEM BIASED TOWARDS THE POWERFUL AND AGAINST EVERYONE ELSE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TENDS NOT TO HAPPEN.

I HAVENT MENTIONED THE MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION. WHERE DO THEY FIT IN? THEY, ON THIS ANALYSIS AND IN MY OPINION, ARE PART OF THE BACKGROUND OF TRUST, THE RULE OF LAW AND THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF ACCOUNTABILITY.

THE MEDIA PROVIDE INFORMATION TO PEOPLE ABOUT THE WORLD THEY LIVE AND INVEST IN. AS SUCH, THE REASON WHY A FREE, INDEPENDENT MEDIA IS VALUABLE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS BECAUSE SUCH A MEDIA HELPS TO INCREASE PEOPLES TRUST IN THE WORLD THEY LIVE IN, THE RULES THAT SURROUND THEM, THE POWER STRUCTURES THAT SURROUND THEM.

THE FREE MEDIA IS THUS AN IMPORTANT POTENTIAL SERVANT FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. IT IS NOT A MASTER IN ITSELF, NOR VALUABLE IN ECONOMIC TERMS IN ITS OWN RIGHT.

IT IS, RATHER, VALUABLE AS PART OF A SOCIETYS MECHANISM FOR PROVIDING ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY AND TRUST. THE MEDIA PROVIDES A WAY TO HOLD PEOPLE AND ORGANISATIONS ACCOUNTABLE. IT PROVIDES A TEST OF TRANSPARENCY AND A PRESSURE-MECHANISM TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY. AND BY PROVIDING DIVERSE AND OPEN INFORMATION, COMING FROM MANY VIEWPOINTS, A FREE MEDIA CAN REINFORCE TRUST.

WHAT, THOUGH, ABOUT THE ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY AND TRUST OF THE MEDIA ITSELF? WHO IS IT ACCOUNTABLE TO? ARE ITS PROCESSES AND MOTIVES TRANSPARENT? SHOULD YOU TRUST IT?

THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS PEOPLE IN FREE SOCIETIES ARE ASKING ALL THE TIME THESE DAYS. THE FACT THAT THEY ARE ASKING THEM IS BOTH REASSURING AND DISPIRITING: IT IS REASSURING BECAUSE THE QUESTIONING PROCESS IS ITSELF HEALTHY; IT IS DISPIRITING TO THE EXTENT THAT TRUST IN THE MEDIA MAY ITSELF BE BEING LOST.

THERE IS NO SIMPLE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM. THE MEDIA IS BY ITS VERY NATURE IMPERFECT. JOURNALISTS ARE GOOD AND BAD, THEY MAKE MISTAKES, THEY HAVE BIASES, THEY CAN SOMETIMES ACT FOR MALIGN OR HIDDEN REASONS. IN OTHER WORDS THEY ARE NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS, EVEN IF WE DONT ALWAYS SEEM EITHER NORMAL OR TERRIBLY HUMAN.

THE MAIN, ALBEIT IMPERFECT SOLUTION IS THE SAME SOLUTION USED IN OTHER AREAS OF BUSINESS AND OF LIFE. CHOICE AND VARIETY. IT IS VITAL TO HAVE PLURALISM IN THE MEDIA AS YOU WILL NEVER ACHIEVE PERFECTION OR IDEAL BEHAVIOUR IN ANY ONE OUTLET OR ORGANISATION. IF THERE IS PLURALISM AT LEAST READERS AND VIEWERS CAN HAVE A VARIETY OF POINTS OF VIEW, CAN COMPARE A VARIETY OF BIASES, CAN MAKE THEIR OWN JUDGMENTS ABOUT WHAT IS GOOD AND WHAT IS BAD. A PLURAL, CHOICE-FILLED MEDIA WILL ALSO BE ONE THAT NO SINGLE OWNER, POLITICIAN OR INTEREST GROUP CAN DOMINATE AND DISTORT.

SO FREEDOM OF CHOICE IS VITAL IN ORDER TO PROTECT FREEDOM OF SPEECH, IN ORDER TO PROTECT ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY AND TRUST. THAT FREEDOM OF CHOICE NEEDS TO BE ENSURED BY REGULATORS, TYPICALLY ANTITRUST REGULATORS, WITH THE LEGAL POWER TO FORBID MONOPOLY OR A HIGH DEGREE OF DOMINATION OF THE MEDIA WITHIN A PARTICULAR MARKET.

IN MY VIEW, SUCH REGULATORS SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN A ROLE OF CENSORSHIP, OF DECIDING WHAT SHOULD BE WRITTEN OR BROADCAST. THAT IS THE JOB OF LIBEL LAWS AND, IF SOCIETY WANTS IT, OF OBSCENITY OR PORNOGRAPHY LAWS, FOR EXAMPLE. RATHER, THE SOLE JOB OF COMMUNICATIONS REGULATORS SHOULD BE TO ENSURE A PLURALITY OF CHOICE.

THAT SHOULD ALSO BE THE BROADER AIM OF GOVERNMENTS, IF THEY WISH THEIR CITIZENS TO HAVE THE BREADTH OF INFORMATION THEY NEED TO BECOME FORCES FOR DEVELOPMENT, AND IF THEY WISH THEIR CITIZENS TO COME TO TRUST THE ENVIRONMENT THEY LIVE IN.

IN OTHER WORDS, YOU MAY NOT LIKE US JOURNALISTS, AND YOU MAY WELL FIND US RATHER UNPLEASANT PEOPLE TO HAVE AROUND. BUT IT IS MUCH BETTER FROM AN ECONOMIC POINT OF VIEW IF YOU HAVE A LOT OF JOURNALISTS RATHER THAN JUST A FEW.

THEN YOU WILL HAVE PLENTY OF US TO CHOOSE FROM. THAT MAY FEEL WORSE, BUT IT IS ACTUALLY BETTER.

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING