It all started when I came across a random link, originally posted on Twitter by the Official Twitter account of the World Economic Forum. The post led me to a new ‘Internet Manifesto‘ on ‘how journalism works today‘ and to a new story for Huffington Post where I posted the first five declarations for discussion.

Truth be told, as a journalist, I’m tired of seeing the usual suspects discuss what is best for all of us. I applaud @Davos and the World Economic Forum for bringing this Internet Manifesto to a wider audience. Now it’s up to all of us to define the type of future we’d like to co-create using the internet and so I give you the next 5 original declarations from the new Internet Manifesto, translated from German by Jenna L. Brinning and reproduced below for your review and comment. (The first five were posted here.)

The Internet changes improves journalism.

Through the Internet, journalism can fulfill its social-educational role in a new way. This includes presenting information as an ever-changing, continual process; the forfeiture of print media’s inalterability is a benefit. Those who want to survive in this new world of information need a new idealism, new journalistic ideas and a sense of pleasure in exploiting this new potential.

The net requires networking.

Links are connections. We know each other through links. Those who do not use them exclude themselves from social discourse. This also holds for the websites of traditional media companies.

Links reward, citations adorn.

Search engines and aggregators facilitate quality journalism: they boost the findability of outstanding content over a long-term basis and are thus an integral part of the new, networked public sphere. References through links and citations—especially including those made without any consent or even remuneration of the originator—make the very culture of networked social discourse possible in the first place. They are by all means worthy of protection.

The Internet is the new venue for political discourse.

Democracy thrives on participation and freedom of information. Transferring the political discussion from traditional media to the Internet and expanding on this discussion by involving the active participation of the public is one of journalism’s new tasks.

Today’s freedom of the press means freedom of opinion.

Article 5 of the German Constitution does not comprise protective rights for professions or technically traditional business models. The Internet overrides the technological boundaries between the amateur and professional. This is why the privilege of freedom of the press must hold for anyone who can contribute to the fulfillment of journalistic duties. Qualitatively speaking, no differentiation should be made between paid and unpaid journalism, but rather, between good and poor journalism.

Now some of you may read all 17 declarations from the Internet Manifesto just to find out why the German constitution is mentioned (the authors of the manifesto are German) or you might wait for my next post but more to the point, what is a manifesto anyway? According to Wikipedia:

“A manifesto is a public declaration of principles and intentions, often political in nature.”

Just above the wikipedia page, a note that puts the declarations below and the intention of this post into perspective: ‘The examples in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue‘. Yes, please..

Author, Juliette Powell

Juliette Powell is an author, entrepreneur and integrated media specialist. Her first book 33 Million People in the Room (Financial Times Press, 2009) builds on her work as co-founder and COO of the Gathering Think Tank Inc., an innovation forum at the intersection of integrated media, business, innovation and technology. A popular keynote speaker and commentator, connect with Juliette directly at juliettepowell.com, twitter and Facebook.

It is mind boggling to think about how many millions of people in the world, let alone in America, still consider whatever is said in the news to be the ‘truth’. Whose ‘truth’? While a healthy skepticism remains about digital news sources, traditional broadcast is still, in many cases, still getting a free pass.

Last week’s post Colbert Shrugged: Ayn Rand Institute Responds to ‘Rand Illusion’ prompted such a strong reaction from fans of both Rand and Colbert that 136 comments later, truths of all shapes emerged from the heated discussion. One topic that came up time and again was the importance of media literacy.

Part 2 of my interview with Onkar Ghate, senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute looks at the way Ayn Rand’s classic 1957 work ‘Atlas Shrugged’ has been mediatized in recent months to communicate political messages.

How have the political left and right used Rand’s characters, stories and philosophy in the media of late to reinforce their positions within a larger audience?

I don’t think liberals or democrats are making use of Rand; rather, they are attacking her and Atlas Shrugged. (I suspect that Stephen Colbert is a liberal.)

Conservatives are making use of Atlas Shrugged, but only in a limited political sense. They rarely mention the fact that Atlas Shrugged is about a moral revolution and not a political one. One major reason they fail to mention this aspect of Atlas Shrugged is that the morality of rational self-interest stands opposed to religious ethics, which demands that an individual subordinate himself to something that is supposedly higher than himself. Explicitly or implicitly, most conservatives support a religious approach to morality. And of course religious ethics is the source of the slogan that we are our brother’s keeper.

On Rand’s view, therefore, conservatives are not actually opponents of socialism but its enablers, because they, like the liberals, advocate the opposite of a morality of rational self-interest: they advocate selflessness and altruism.

How much of what we’re seeing in the media’s recent references to Atlas Shrugged is actually reflective of Rand’s philosophy of Selfishness?

It is true that Atlas Shrugged depicts an America in which the government, through various “emergency” measures, seizes control of the economy. But what most commentators miss is that politics is not the focus of Atlas Shrugged. Its focus is on morality and philosophy. The story of Atlas Shrugged is about productive individuals learning fully to value their own lives and happiness, and coming to understand that this requires uncompromising devotion to their own minds and to what is in fact morally right. They must learn that to fully live their own lives and achieve happiness, they need a new morality of rational self-interest.

As one aspect of this issue, Atlas Shrugged in effect argues that only such a morality can in fact explain, justify and defend why an individual has the moral right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Contrary to the Declaration of Independence, Rand does not regard these rights as self-evident.

Notice that the rights Jefferson lists all sanction self-interest: my moral right to my life, my moral right to my freedom to think and act, my moral right to pursue my happiness. If selfishness is evil, then these rights are wrong, morally wrong.

And so in a society that regards the pursuit of self-interest as evil, like the society depicted in Atlas Shrugged and like today’s society, these rights will be tossed aside as wrong. If we are our brother’s keeper, as Obama declares (echoing the conventional wisdom)–if your moral duty is to serve your neighbor and anyone else who is in need, then you don’t have the moral right to pursue your own life and happiness.

As in the case of any controversial figure, there is no substitute for going to the source. To discover what Rand maintained, read her works. To understand the meaning and importance of Atlas Shrugged, pick up the novel.

Ayn Rand’s work was introduced to this author when I began my first job in journalism as an eager teen. Over a decade later, Rand’s books remain constant reminders of the powerful influence media has in shaping perceptions of who we are as individuals and as a society.

In the last week, I must have received several hundred messages via facebook and twitter suggesting I look at The Colbert Report’s ‘The Word’ segment called ‘Rand Illusion’. And so I did, again and again, torn between a giggle and a sigh.

Call me old school but my first reaction to all of these Atlas Shrugged references in the media of late was to wonder if these pundits have actually read and understood the book. I suspect they have, but probably figure that, of the millions who have read it, few would actually bother to argue in a public forum. Having personally read the book several times- four to be exact - this last couple weeks have shown me that I do care enough to help set the record straight on Rand’s story and philosophy.

Why? Because even though I’ve read Rand’s books multiple times, given the myriad of news articles and television references to Atlas Shrugged lately, I genuinely began to wonder if perhaps I was the one who had completely misinterpreted her work. Since Rand herself can no longer address the way her work is being interpreted, I found someone who could.

Interview with Onkar Ghate, senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (part 1)

by Juliette Powell

What do you think of last week’s Colbert Report and his ‘Rand Illusion’ segment where Colbert asserts that Atlas Shrugged is a ‘Conservative Bible’ and ‘is being used by Conservatives to spur a movement . . .  a calculated work slowdown? What do you think Colbert wanted to accomplish and what did he accomplish?
Stephen Colbert’s television show of course parodies (allegedly) right-wing television hosts like Bill O’Reilly. In the process it ridicules Republicans, conservatives, O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and so on.

The segment on Atlas Shrugged was an attempt to ridicule Rand’s novel. I found the segment distasteful. Many people of course disagree with the ideas contained in Atlas Shrugged. Rand knew that the novel challenged moral ideas entrenched in Western thought for over 2000 years.

To disagree with the ideas and theme of the novel is different from what the Colbert segment did. It treated the novel as though it were not a significant work of literature—the segment suggested that if you’ve read to the end of the book “the world does owe you.”

This is ludicrous. In purely literary terms, Atlas Shrugged is a great novel. The segment then went on to misrepresent the content of the story. For instance, to claim that Atlas Shrugged “can be used to justify anything” is absurd. Perhaps more than any other novel, Atlas Shrugged presents a firm and detailed view of what is morally right and morally wrong. Rand said (accurately) that the theme of the novel is “the role of the mind in man’s existence—and, as corollary, the demonstration of a new moral philosophy: the morality of rational self-interest.” One may of course disagree with the moral philosophy contained in the novel, but to suggest that the book is so vague as to be capable of justifying anything is disingenuous.
Or to take another example, the Colbert segment said that the hero of Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, tells the poor of America: “You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you.” But if you read the actual novel, you will discover that Galt has called on strike the men of the mind (rich and poor alike) and that these words of his are in fact addressed not to the poor. They are addressed to those who advocate or accept a philosophy that damns the individual’s happiness, mind and life. Here is the passage from the novel, in context (John Galt is speaking on the radio):
“Do not cry that it is our duty to serve you. We do not recognize such duty. Do not cry that you need us. We do not consider need a claim. Do not cry that you own us. You don’t. Do not beg us to return. We are on strike, we, the men of the mind.
“We are on strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. We are on strike against the dogma that the pursuit of one’s happiness is evil. We are on strike against the doctrine that life is guilt.
“There is a difference between our strike and all those you’ve practiced for centuries: our strike consists, not of making demands, but of granting them. We are evil, according to your morality. We have chosen not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer. We are only an illusion, according to your philosophy. We have chosen not to blind you any longer and have left you free to face reality—the reality you wanted, the world as you see it now, a world without mind.
“We have granted you everything you demanded of us, we who had always been the givers, but have only now understood it. We have no demands to present to you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you.” (Atlas Shrugged, Part III, Chapter VII)
So what did Colbert want to accomplish? As I said, he wanted to ridicule Atlas Shrugged. Did he succeed? No, because the segment simply ignored to novel’s literary virtues and misrepresented its content.

Is Colbert, and the media in general, taking a cheap shot, going for the easy laugh using Rand’s philosophy of selfishness or are they using humor and irony to open a much needed public debate?

The Colbert segment was a cheap shot, so, no, I don’t think he was trying to open a debate. If anything, by attacking a straw man, he was trying to close debate.

But I don’t think the media in general has been taking cheap shots at Rand or Atlas Shrugged during the present financial crisis. There have been many more accurate stories, such as the one in The Economist (which the Colbert segment mentioned), a news story which reported the dramatic increase in the sales of Atlas Shrugged and suggested a connection between this fact and the financial crisis.

What we are witnessing I think is the fact that precisely because Atlas Shrugged is a radical book—it presents a new view of morality, a morality of rational self-interest—it creates passionate admirers and passionate detractors. And as has been the case since the novel’s publication in 1957..

… detractors almost always misrepresent the book’s ideas because they are unable or unwilling to mount an argument against what Rand actually says. The Colbert segment was a small example of this.

Ayn Rand fans, let’s hear from you. What do you think of the Ayn Rand Institute’s response to Colbert’s ‘Rand Illusion’ segment so far? I’ll try to connect with the folks at Colbert for their comments and hope to have that, along with Part 2 of my interview with Onkar Ghate, senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute shortly. Keep checking in here for Part 2 in the next few hours and days where we discuss the political implications of the mediatization of Atlas Shrugged.

~> j*