February 20, 2002
K.Switters

It is now generally agreed upon, that we are currently living in the "Information Age". If this is the case, then exactly how we get our information, and from whom, should be of paramount importance; because information, simply put, is used to make decisions.

Consider this simple anecdote. You are driving your car on the highway. On the radio, you hear that there has been a horrible accident 5 miles ahead. The radio broadcast suggests that by using the next exit, and following a detour, motorists might be able to bypass this accident. As you take the offramp, you notice that there are many other cars heeding the same suggestion.

You and your fellow motorists come to a stop light. You follow the suggested detour, and you follow the other cars that are following the suggested detour, and - in turn - other cars follow you. By chance, the detour takes you by a small shopping center. As it turns out, roughly 10% of the motorists taking this suggested detour find it convenient to stop at this shopping center to make a small purchase. Had they remained on the highway, they would not have been provided with this opportunity. After some distance, the detour successfully leads you and the other travelers back onto the highway, just beyond the accident; your trip continues unimpeded.

The information received on the radio broadcast helped you to make a decision about your route of travel. Now, I will tell you that there was actually no accident at all. Has the radio station caused any harm to any of the motorists who took the detour?

For the sake of simplicity, let's say that the loss of time and the additional consumption of fuel to make this detour were negligible. We are then left with the fact that the drivers in this scenario had been coerced artificially into making the decision to take the detour; by being told that there was an accident ahead, when none actually existed.

Beyond the negligible effects of time lost and fuel consumed, this detour created the potential for drivers to get out of their cars and use this detour as an opportunity to purchase any number of items available at the shopping center; as mentioned above, 10% of motorists did just that. Those drivers who chose to stop at the shopping center made that decision on their own accord; and yet without the detour, they would not have made this stop. Of the motorist who stopped, some will conclude later, that they were glad they had the opportunity to stop and make some purchases during the detour.

Some of businesses in this particular shopping center benefited financially from the radio broadcast. They received patronage from customers who would have otherwise stayed on the highway [had they had not been told about the accident and then taken the suggested detour]. I ask you again, has the radio station caused any harm to any of the motorists who took the detour?

What if I told you that the radio station owned the shopping center? Does this conflict of interests cause harm to the motorists? Of course it does.

On February 19, 2001, The New York Times reported that our federal government disagrees. They think that even if the proverbial radio station owned the proverbial shopping center, that the proverbial motorist [that's you and me] is not harmed.

I'll let you decide - check it out for yourself; and think about where you get your information.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/20/business/media/20BROA.html

If the above link is not accessible, try the copy of this article archived on our site.