photo from the Village VoiceMatthew Winkerl, Editor-in-Chief of Bloomberg News, spoke on the subject in another Times article:
“I think it’s very important that everyone understands that our editorial page is going to be, for sure, consistent with the values and beliefs of the founder — even if he happens to be mayor of New York City... I want people to come away from reading the Bloomberg View infused with those beliefs and values.”
Pumping money into an Opinion section that reproduces the rationale behind his own interests, the Mayor of New York now has a news outlet explicitly devoted to legitimating his point of view through corroborating experts.
New York Magazine grabbed a quote from Jamie Rubin, another Bloomberg editor, who argued that the View would publish "ideology-free, empirically-based editorial positions about the pressing issues of our time." Admittedly, to date the news network has not engaged in the inflammatory squabbles in which other stations, anchors and pundits delight. Thus far that mindset has rendered Bloomberg Opinions, yet to be renamed the Bloomberg View, rather bland.
But banality does not compensate for the danger that this move represents. In fact, a veil of neutrality may render the View more palatable and less likely to receive close scrutiny. But as Bloomberg News constructs this pulpit for its Pope, it's difficult to forget the practices of another wealthy media magnate become political juggernaut.
Silvio Berlusconi injects opinions, editorials, and articles into the public debate through his own television and publishing empires, Mediaset and Mondadori. When their boss is under scrutiny -- or, hell, on trial -- columnists defend their fearless leader by providing testimony on his behalf, lamenting their Silvio as victim of a communist plot, or highlighting the well-paid occupations his former consorts enjoy.
Let me be clear: in his political and personal record, Bloomberg holds no candle to Berlusconi. But as the Mayor who amended New York's constitution to grant himself access to a third term, and as the head of an expanding media empire, Bloomberg's Views by necessity will propagate the mandate of their namesake: his right to rule.
In this case the politician quite literally chooses the news; he finds no need to displace power onto a crony figurehead or dependable proxy. The Bloomberg View thus functions as an organ of the state. (Berlusconi, as Italian PM, also controls the Italian state television channel RAI.)
What are the factors that enable such collusion to exist unabashedly? We know that Berlusconi is incapable of shame or remorse, but shouldn't Bloomberg be embarrassed by his dual duties?
In 2009, as Iran's Green Movement protested Ahmadinejad's re-election, Slavoj Zizek wrote an essay entitled "Berlusconi in Tehran." The astute political theorist reflected on democracy and argued that citizens crave order imposed from above even as they demand the ritual of submitting their vote through the ballot box.
"In a democracy, the ordinary citizen is effectively a king, but a king in a constitutional democracy, a king whose decisions are merely formal, whose function is to sign measures proposed by the executive."
In Berlusconi's case Zizek notes that, insofar as the public has not yet revolted, Italians endorse their democratically elected leader despite his increasingly shameless abuse of authority, not to mention his manipulation of media channels to support his politics. Berlusconi's power is based on the peoples' consent, which is increasingly garnered through the soft power of media channels that paint a portrait of the PM as a lovable, flawed, characteristically Italian buffoon.
Zizek also wrote:
"This is how ideology functions today: nobody takes democracy or justice seriously, we are all aware that they are corrupt, but we practise them anyway because we assume they work even if we don't believe in them."
Democracy cannot function if we believe in the myth but do not hold our leaders accountable. As we have seen in Berlusconi's case as well as in Bloomberg's, public officials are like six-year old children: they get away with one stunt and then try another, testing their parents' limits to see how much power they can exercise before being reprimanded. We must remember that, in a democracy, we are the parents. We must keep watch over our representatives, and we must not tacitly endorse their forays into manufacturing consent.
New Yorkers ought not empower their Mayor to hold two seats of power simultaneously. If you find yourself asking, "Does the man have no shame?,” first ask yourself, "Have I brought shame upon him?"
