Robert Samuelson

A central question of our time is whether we can continue enjoying the Good Internet while suppressing the Bad Internet. The greatest threat to ordinary Americans comes from the Internet’s role in providing so-called critical infrastructure — cyber-networks for finance, power, transportation, health care, communications and shopping, to name a few. I am not a cyber-expert, but here’s a brief outline of what I think desirable:

Internet usage is no longer a good deal in the US. In France, consumers pay about 90 euros (or $100) a month for a combination of broadband access, cable television and two mobile phones. A similar package in the United States usually costs more than twice as much. Many Americans have a choice between only two internet providers. A few companies have grown so large that they have the power to keep prices high and wages low.

[Commentary] The unmistakable lesson of recent years is that the Internet is a double-edged sword. Despite enormous benefits — instant access to huge quantities of information, the proliferation of new forms of businesses, communications and entertainment — it also encourages crime, global conflict and economic disruption.

The drift seems ominous. We are dangerously dependent on Internet-based systems. This makes the Internet a weapon that can be used against us — or by us. The trouble is that we are aiding and abetting our adversaries. We are addicted to the Internet and refuse to recognize how our addiction subtracts from our security. The more we connect our devices and instruments to the Internet, the more we create paths for others to use against us, either by shutting down websites or by controlling what they do. Put differently, we are — incredibly — inviting trouble. Our commercial interests and our national security diverge.

[Commentary] President Donald Trump seems to have three reasons for attacking the press. One is an effort to discredit media criticism, especially of Trump’s own falsehoods, exaggerations and misleading statements. After Trump’s recent news press conference, The Post’s fact checkers — Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee — found 15 examples of falsehoods or dubious claims. If people don’t believe the press, findings such as these will matter less, if at all. The second reason is an effort to associate all opposition to him with despised media “elites” so that their unpopularity rubs off on his other critics. But Trump’s final reason for attacking the press may be the most powerful. He seems to enjoy it. He likes denouncing journalists as dishonest scum of the Earth. It’s invigorating. Trump can’t be a unifying figure when he’s having so much fun being divider in chief.

[Commentary] The University of Chicago’s Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro have some interesting ideas about the modern media, which they culled by studying traditional media. Namely, newspapers.

They examined the ideological “slant” of newspapers by identifying various words and phrases favored by liberals or conservatives. By tallying newspapers’ use of liberal and conservative phrases, Gentzkow and Shapiro determined papers’ political slant. This compromised their “objective” pursuit of the news.

But why are some papers more liberal and others more conservative? This is how the media resemble ice cream, Gentzkow said. Just as ice cream makers give customers the flavors they want, newspapers give their readers the stories and slant they want. It’s a market phenomenon. Ice cream makers strive to maximize ice cream consumption and profits. Papers try to maximize readership and profits.

Newspapers are commercial enterprises that respond to economic signals and incentives. Editors, producers and reporters sense what appeals to their readers and try to satisfy these tastes. Applied to cable news channels and the Internet, these same forces polarize politics.

Cable and the Internet have splintered media audiences and, thereby, created ferocious fights for ever-larger shares of ever-smaller fragments of the old mass market. The logic is powerful that the commercial imperatives of the new technologies will deepen the country’s political divisions. People will stick to their familiar political flavors and disparage those who choose differently.