Long before glasnost and perestroika, there was a nascent program in the former Soviet Union sometimes referred to as the quality control function of free speech and freedom of the press. The late Stuart Bullion, my thesis adviser at Southern Illinois University in the 1980s, introduced me to the concept. I summarize here:
For decades in the Soviet Union farm managers, industrialists and bureaucrats were under pressure to increase productivity in order to catch up with Western nations. You may have read about former Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s boast in 1956 that, “We will bury you,” referring to the West in general and America in particular. Most historians know he wasn’t talking about war or a sneak ICBM attack. Rather, the tightly controlled Communist economy would outstrip Western capitalism and be a model for all countries going forward.
Except it wasn’t. Farm production and industrial output routinely missed targets, which forced managers to lie. And lie some more. The state-controlled press would publish impressive data about its progress that belied the hungry masses, dearth of consumer goods and empty store shelves. Ultimately, the Soviets were forced to correct errors in their reporting (as distinct from correcting errors in thinking, a classic Communist trope) if they were really going to meet their targets.
Note, this was not free speech or freedom of the press in the mold of bourgeois liberal societies, whether or not we always live up to these values. “Quality control” was both scientifically valid and politically neutral, and was limited to accurate reporting on agriculture and industry, with occasional exposes of corrupt officials. As far as true freedom of the press in the West was considered, that was just another myth of capitalism or, as American journalist A.J. Liebling mimicked, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”
The quality control function took root. New labels such as glasnost (openness) and perestroika (reconstruction) emerged, but it was the same thing. Indeed, as Michigan State University professor Lewis Siegelbaum wrote in 1985, “[Glasnost] came to mean in practice a right asserted from below, analogous to freedom of speech and publication (emphasis added).”[1]
Shortly before Stuart Bullion’s death in 2004, and after I’d established my journalism career, I approached him about doing a book together on just this topic, not about glasnost and perestroika directly, but “the quality control function of free speech and freedom of the press.” To my surprise, my old friend and mentor who by then was chair of the journalism department at Ole Miss turned me down. Not only that, he denied any knowledge of the concept. I was disappointed, but then the reason for his abstinence dawned on me. He didn’t want to be associated with a challenge to political correctness on campus or with the claim that mainstream media somehow was practicing censorship, even if it wasn’t government mandated as in the old Soviet mold. By calling for more free speech and freedom of the press in America he could only be interpreted as making just such allegations, I concluded. Indeed, right-wing media was picking up steam at the time, what with rise of Fox News on cable television and so-called neo-Conservatives inside the George W. Bush Administration who brought us the Iraq War. If Stuart were to put his imprimatur on a book calling for more free speech and freedom of the press he might be seen as a neo-con, as one of them. So, he demurred.
I moved on to other projects, but the tremendous retrenchment in true news reporting in recent years among major media outlets together with an inundation of angry commentary, editorializing and preaching to the converted that we see every day on the Cable news networks and on social media, plus the incessant promotional speech we find in both major political parties, has convinced me that I have to revisit the quality control concept, to introduce it anew. Lawyers may duke it out in court by presenting only evidence that serves their client’s interest and seek to quash any that threatens one’s case, but it is in America’s interest to hear all sides, to look at the good and bad in all our public policies and discourse. Question everything, criticize anybody – nothing is beyond review and, if found wanting, take remedial action. That’s a politically neutral and value-free value. That’s a quality control function. If anything is to work as promised, or is to stand up to close inspection, then a true quality control function will always provide the test.
[1] “Perestroika and Glasnost.” Lewis Siegelbaum, “Seventeen Moments in Soviet History,” found at http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1985-2/perestroika-and-glasnost/
Mr. Aamidor,
I was a student of your wife and closer to your generation than the one I graduated with in 2006. I have always believed all news information should be looked at with a thoughtful mind, taking a questioning look at what’s being “reported” and the reason for the reporting. I teach middle school Social Studies and have always tried to convey to my students the importance of not listening to just one news station or one commentary. I believe we should hear them all and then make up our own minds about the information we are hearing. I am, especially this past year, amazed how many of my students spouted only one stream of information, which was all they were fed at home.
I believe in hearing/learning all you can do you can become well informed and educated.
This is a way I believe I can make my judgement on the information presented. When I hear information coming from a wide range of sources versus one or two, I will generally lean towards that majority. But I do always listen with a critical eye.
Thank you for taking the time to try and enlighten others on what is behind our “news.”
S. Smith