Perhaps what bothered the media in 1970s was the shift in liberty being suggested. For centuries, as journalists had operated on the basis of negative liberty, or freedom from external restraints. Suddenly, however, the thrust was positive freedom, a freedom for pursuit of some predetermined goals. This new social responsibility seems grounded on a school of thought that sees negative liberty insufficient and ineffective, somewhat like telling people they are free to walk without first making sure they are not crippled. Who better than government is able to provide humanity with appropriate means? Government, even a democratic government, is seen by social responsibility adherents as the only force strong enough to guarantee effective operation of freedom. This does not mollify observers who find social responsibility to be only slightly disguised version of authoritarianism. Media philosopher John Merrill has been one of the most outspoken critics of the theory. To him, the proposition that pluralism of ideas should be governmentally mandated is ludicrous. Journalists, he says, must retain their freedom to make their own news and editorial judgements. Even well-intentioned attempts by outside groups seeking media improvement are self-serving, and inevitably lessen the autonomy of journalists, Merrill maintains. This leads us to the issue of media autonomy.
What was the basis of the operation of journalists earlier?
