Debate and opinion from the Politics, Philosophy & Economics Departments of Notting Hill & Ealing High School
What is justice? How should societies define and pursue it? Yuhan F
Should social class exist? Meher G
Is the taxation of wealth a positive or a negative? Esha M
Do algorithms create bias in society? Caroline S
The pursuit of the ‘good life’: navigating happiness, morality and meaning Abby G
What would happen if tourists actually "went home" Natasha B
Thanks to a popular new biotech company, The dodo, an icon of extinction, could once again see the light of day: but at what cost? Roxana Q
Accurate news reporting is a public good Does it follow that news agencies should be funded via taxation? Nirupama K
What is justice? How should societies define and pursue it?
By Yuhan F, Year 10
What exactly should justice be defined as, and how should it be measured? According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, justice refers to a proper proportion between a person ’ s deserts and the good and bad things that befall or are allotted to them. It is essential to note that the wider context of a situation, along with circumstantial elements beyond individual control, should be included when considering justice. For example, does someone born poor deserve the challenges and hardships they face, in contrast with someone from a wealthy background? Does a murderer deserve the death penalty for killing someone who wronged them first? Cultural and legal perspectives on justice may differ
Concepts of justice have evolved over time. The ancient Greek philosopher Plato believed justice occurred when society was split into classes where every individual of each class fulfilled their specific role. Further, Plato’s theory of the tripartite soul separates the soul into three aspects: the rational, spirited, and appetitive. Justice is achieved when reason, the rational part, governs passion and desire, the other parts Greece, Plato’s homeland, was directly influenced by his philosophical perspective; thus he shaped the development of Greek political thought and leadership. This in turn influenced Roman Law, and therefore impacted both European and American legal systems. Countries including France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Italy were influenced by Platonic ideas, especially through Enlightenment thinkers.
Plato and his student Aristotle both regarded justice as a fundamental virtue and emphasised the importance of individual roles in achieving overall harmony in society It can be argued that Plato had a more idealistic vision, while Aristotle was more pragmatic. He classifies justice into two main types: distributive and corrective justice. Distributive justice involves the fair distribution of goods, resources, and honours based on contribution and needs. For instance, an employee contributing more to the company should receive a higher salary. However, Aristotle also acknowledged that individuals with greater disadvantages might deserve to be allocated more public resources. Corrective justice is about restoring justice and rectifying
wrongs. When injustice occurs, this type of justice seeks to restore balance by compensating the party that was harmed; corrective justice therefore plays a significant role within legal systems Corrective justice can also encompass retribution, a concept that focuses on punishment.
Another crucial figure in philosophy and ethics is John Rawls, who introduced “justice as fairness” in his book A Theory of Justice. This concept aims to ensure everybody has fair opportunities, especially those who are less fortunate, and consists of two major principles. The liberty principle states that we should all have equal basic liberties; the difference principle holds that social and economic inequalities should be arranged to benefit the least advantaged Rawls prompted various thinkers, including Robert Nozick and Martha Nussbaum, to challenge his theories and produce their own responses.
Different societies and cultures have distinct interpretations of and approaches to justice. In many Western societies, the legal system emphasises individual freedoms and rights; in Asian societies using civil law systems, the government may prioritise community well-being and shared responsibilities Societies may additionally direct their attention to different social issues based on their circumstances.
Justice is a moral principle seeking to ensure equality for all individuals, whilst at the same time considering the needs of the community as a whole through the equitable allocation of resources, the protection of rights and the fair settlement of disputes. Despite the good intentions behind different legal systems, they still all undoubtedly contain flaws such as economic disparity, corruption, discrimination, and wrongful convictions As a result, the law cannot and has not guaranteed justice in every case. Although there is much debate over justice itself, there is no doubt that the reinforcement of it is vital in upholding stability and peace in society. At the very least, the legal system deters criminals; without it, crime rates would likely be much higher. To address the imperfections of the legal system, as many agree, it is essential to improve the root causes of crime such as poverty, lack of opportunity and lack of access to education.
Should social class exist?
By Meher G, Year 11
The concept of social class has been a topic of debate among sociologists, economists, and political theorists for decades Social class refers to hierarchical divisions made within a society; these divisions are based on factors such as wealth, education, occupation, and power. The question of whether social class should exist touches on issues of equality, social mobility, and the overall functioning of society.
Supporters of social class argue that it provides a framework by which to order society. By grouping people based on common characteristics, social class can create a sense of identity and community. For example, individuals in similar economic situations often share experiences and challenges; this shared experience fosters social connections Individuals often identify with a class structure, which can engender community and a sense of belonging Class identification can motivate people to aspire to higher social status, thus driving economic growth and innovation. Additionally, social class can help define roles within the workforce. Different skills and professions contribute to a functioning economy. This division can lead to increased productivity and innovation, as each class has specific responsibilities that drive societal progress. For example, higher class professionals such as lawyers and doctors have different responsibilities than those with lower class professions, but all feed into the economy and help us live an ordered life
On the other hand, critics argue that social class promotes inequality and limits opportunities for those in lower classes. Access to education, healthcare, and job opportunities can be severely restricted based on social class, trapping individuals in cycles of poverty. This lack of mobility can foster resentment and social unrest. Furthermore, social class can create divisions that lead to discrimination
and social stratification. When society is divided into classes, it can lead to stereotypes and biases, undermining social cohesion Some argue that without systemic changes, social class can lead to entrenched privilege in the upper classes, disadvantaging those born into lower classes. While many people like to believe that everyone has a fair chance to succeed if they work hard, critics say that this isn’t true. In reality, a person ’ s background often plays a bigger role in their success than their talent or effort. Children from wealthy families have access to better schools, healthcare, and connections that enable them to get ahead.
While eliminating social class entirely may be unrealistic, many experts suggest reforms to reduce inequality Policies aimed at improving access to education, healthcare, and fair wages can help level the playing field, allowing individuals to move between classes more freely. A classless society, where everyone has the same opportunities and resources, has been a dream for many people who believe in equality. Political philosophies such as socialism and communism are based on creating a world where wealth and resources are shared more fairly, so that no individual is left behind. But creating a society without class is a big challenge. It means changing the way people think, breaking down old systems, and making sure that power and money aren’t controlled by just a few. Even if a completely classless society isn’t realistic, many people believe we should work toward reducing the gap between the rich and the poor
The question of whether social class should exist is complex. While it can provide structure and a sense of belonging, it risks entrenching inequality and limiting opportunities. A balanced approach that seeks to mitigate the negative aspects of social class while preserving the organisational benefits, may be the best path forward for a more equitable society.
Is the taxation of wealth a positive or a negative?
By Esha M, Year 7
A wealth tax is a type of tax that takes a small percentage of a person ’ s total wealth. This includes everything valuable they own, such as cash, savings, property, cars, stocks, and even collectibles like art. Unlike income tax, which is based on the money people earn from their jobs or investments, a wealth tax considers a person's overall financial status. The idea of a wealth tax has become more popular recently as a way to deal with the growing gap between the higher and the lower classes. Many believe it can help make society fairer, especially as economic inequality rises
One of the main reasons people support a wealth tax is that it could create a fairer society. Over the years, the wealthiest individuals have gained huge fortunes while many others struggle to get by. A wealth tax would let governments take a small portion of the fortunes of the very rich and use that money to pay for important public services which benefit everyone. These include healthcare, education, and public transportation. Supporters argue that by redistributing some of this wealth, society can improve access to necessary services for low-income families, leading to a better quality of life for all When everyone has access to essential resources, it can help create a more balanced economy where opportunities are available to everyone, not just the wealthy.
Additionally, a wealth tax could provide governments with the funds they need to invest in important public services. Many countries face serious problems such as underfunded schools, poor healthcare, and outdated infrastructure By implementing a wealth tax, governments could raise significant capital with which to address these issues For example, the money collected could be used to build new schools, improve public transportation, and enhance support for those in need. In areas where public services are lacking, a wealth tax could have a big positive impact, helping to lift many people out of poverty and creating a more stable society.
However, there are also big challenges to putting a wealth tax into practice One major issue is figuring out how to accurately measure a person's wealth
Unlike income, which is straightforward to track through pay cheques, wealth can be complex and vary widely People can hold their wealth in many forms, such as real estate, investments, and luxury items Figuring out how much these assets are worth can be difficult, and their value can change over time. This makes it hard for governments to know how much tax each individual should contribute. Some wealthy individuals might try to hide their assets or move them to countries with lower tax rates, making it even tougher for governments to collect tax fairly. This could lead to less money being collected than expected, which could undermine the purpose of the tax.
Another concern is that a wealth tax could hurt the economy Wealthy individuals often play a crucial role in driving economic growth by investing in businesses and creating jobs. If a wealth tax is seen as too high, these individuals might choose to invest less in their home country or even move to countries with better tax rates. This situation, known as "capital flight," has happened in places that have tried wealth taxes before. For example, in France, many wealthy residents left the country after a wealth tax was introduced, leading to reduced tax revenue and slower economic activity. This raises concerns around whether a wealth tax could discourage investment and innovation, both of which are important for a healthy economy
Managing a wealth tax could also be complicated and costly for governments. Setting up a system to track and value assets accurately would require a lot of resources and effort. Making sure everyone follows the tax rules and preventing tax evasion adds even more complexity. If the costs of running a wealth tax are too high, the benefits may not be worth it. In some cases, taxation could become inefficient, bringing in little revenue while placing a heavy burden on government resources
In conclusion, a wealth tax has the potential to reduce economic inequality and generate much-needed funds for public services. It could help create a fairer society by asking the wealthiest individuals to contribute more. However, there are important challenges that need careful
consideration. Issues such as measuring wealth accurately, preventing tax evasion, and keeping the economy healthy are crucial. For a wealth tax to be effective, it must be designed thoughtfully, ensuring it is fair, efficient, and managed in a way that does not harm economic growth.
Finding the right balance is essential for governments to determine if a wealth tax can be a good solution for addressing inequality and raising funds for public services. Ultimately, the success of a wealth tax will depend on careful planning, clear implementation, and ongoing evaluation. Governments must ensure that the tax meets its goals without negatively impacting the economy or driving wealthy individuals to move their assets elsewhere. A well-designed wealth tax could be a significant step toward a more equal society, but it
requires thoughtful consideration of its challenges and careful management to truly benefit everyone.
With the right approach, a wealth tax could provide the resources needed to improve lives and strengthen communities This makes it a potential tool for positive change in the future By carefully balancing the needs of society with the realities of wealth and investment, a wealth tax could help create a fairer economy where everyone has the opportunity to succeed. It is an important consideration that many governments and communities are beginning to explore as they think about the best ways to build a more equal future for all.
Do algorithms create bias in society?
By Caroline S, Year 10
Technology as a whole simply cannot exist outside of the biases prevalent in our society. Therefore I don’t believe algorithms create bias, instead they reinforce and reflect pre-existing social bias. They highlight stereotypes which worsen the inequality between disadvantaged groups (such as women and ethnic minorities) and more privileged groups
From 2014, a team from Amazon.com worked on an algorithm to prioritise efficiency during the recruitment process. However, in 2017, their resume-screening algorithm had to be terminated after it had shown to be filtering out female applicants. The algorithm had gained an unconscious bias through analysing prior appointments to find a common denominator and using this to influence its future decisions. In this case, the common denominator between all candidates was Amazon’s history of preferring male applicants over female
Algorithmic discrimination is once again demonstrated by a 2021 analysis by The Markup, which showed that mortgage lenders who had used algorithms to make their decisions were more likely to reject applicants of colour. The Markup showed that the majority of the applicants were almost identical on paper, with the only underlying factor
being racial background. Racial discrimination, especially in the housing market, poses increasing risks of a spike in racial prejudice. These algorithms could lead to disparities and segregation, with more affluent areas becoming predominantly white and less affluent areas becoming primarily diverse This divide would deepen racial bias and prejudice
Another area of concern is facial recognition. Facial recognition becoming an increasingly relevant and reliable source of information poses a huge issue to darker skinned individuals as well as women, children and the elderly. In 2018, a study published by the MIT Media Lab stated that the error rate in facial recognition technology for light-skinned men was 0.8% yet the error rate for darker skinned-women was 34.7%, a shockingly high difference of around 30%. The accuracy rates, unless you were a white young male, were concerning low Part of this inaccuracy is caused by the societal history of general discrimination, with the majority of facial recognition data being collected from young white males, reflecting the lack of data diversity. Introducing facial recognition to law enforcement processes presents dangers for disadvantaged individuals, particularly darker-skinned ones. If facial recognition becomes a more prevalent and practised process in the court
and criminal justice systems, darker-skinned people face a higher likelihood of being misidentified as suspects. In conclusion, algorithms do not have the capacity to create their own biases, however they do have
the ability to strengthen established views as their whole foundation is human bias. However, if the data inputted into their algorithms was more inclusive and demonstrated less discrimination, it could possibly lead to fairer outcomes.
The pursuit of the ‘good life’: navigating happiness, morality and meaning
By Abby G, Year 10
The ‘good life’ is a timeless philosophical concept describing the condition in which a person is most happy Over many years, there have been various interpretations offered of what constitutes a fulfilling life. Many thinkers, such as Aristotle, Kant, Viktor Frankl, and Sartre, have debated whether the ‘good life’ is defined by happiness, morality, meaning, or a combination of all three. In today’s world, where the pursuit of happiness tends to dominate, how do these three elements interact, and can they truly lead us to a good life?
Happiness is often seen as the foundation for a good life, but what exactly does it mean to be happy? The definition of happiness is interpreted in two wayshedonistic and eudaimonic Hedonistic happiness holds that happiness is a raw, subjective feeling, coming from the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Epicurus argued that simple, modest pleasures lead to a more lasting sense of contentment. Conversely, Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonic happiness goes beyond pleasure, viewing happiness as the result of living virtuously and realising one ’ s full potential. While many chase happiness as the ultimate goal, is happiness alone truly enough to lead a good life, or does it need to be balanced with something more substantial?
While happiness may be a desirable state, many philosophers argue that a truly good life is deeply associated with morality Immanuel Kant, for instance, posed that living ethically is most important. He believed that moral actions should be guided by a sense of duty rather than by personal gain. Kant believed that adhering to universal moral principles is essential for leading a life of purpose and integrity. In contrast, utilitarianism holds a different perspective, suggesting that the ethical choice maximises overall happiness for the greatest
number of people This ties morality directly to the outcomes of actions, questioning whether it is always possible to act morally while also pursuing personal happiness. This leads on to a range of profound questions; is it possible to prioritise ethical considerations without sacrificing our own wellbeing? Can the pursuit of morality actually enhance our understanding of what it means to live a good life?
In addition to happiness and morality, the search for meaning plays a crucial role in the pursuit of a good life. Viktor Frankl, a Holocaust survivor and psychiatrist, posited that finding your own unique meaning in life is necessary for human wellbeing, especially in the face of suffering He believed that as long as individuals have a sole purpose to strive for, they can endure significant hardships. This suggests that meaning often transcends happiness. In comparison, existentialist philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus argued that meaning isn’t given but must be created by each individual. This perspective invites us to reflect on our own lives. What gives our existence purpose? Is it our work, our relationships, or our contributions to society? As we explore the concept of meaning and purpose, we can evidently see that it provides a sense of fulfilment which happiness and morality alone could not achieve The search for meaning ultimately challenges us to consider how our actions and values align with the idea of the ‘good life’ from our own individual perspectives.
To summarise, it is apparent that there is a need to balance happiness, morality and meaning, as they all contribute to our overall sense of fulfilment. While the pursuit of happiness provides immediate gratification, a deeper understanding of the ‘good life’ comes from considering ethical living and
purpose. Moral actions of integrity can enhance our happiness, while a meaningful existence offers more direction for our pursuits. These elements should be balanced and recognised as complementary for a plentiful life. The ideal form of the ‘good life’ is
personal and is shaped by our values, actions and experiences. This poses a final question: is the ‘good life’ something to be achieved or is it a lifelong pursuit of harmony between happiness, meaning and morality?
What would happen if tourists actually "went home".
By Natasha B, Year 12
Several countries hit the headlines in 2024 for their anti-tourism sentiment, with protests in tourist hotspots (such as Barcelona) ordering tourists to “ go home.” However, what would happen if they actually went home?
Making up 9 1% of global GDP in 2023, the tourist industry is one of the most significant economic sectors in the world. It is highly regarded as the backbone for many forms of employment and jobs within cities such as Barcelona. According to the Guardian, the industry contributes 14% of Barcelona’s GDP and in addition “employs around 150,000 people and generates 12.75 billion euros annually.” Whilst enjoying our holidays to foreign countries, many of us indulge in restaurant meals, excursions and souvenirs, as well as making full use of public transport and air travel. These industries supply around 334 million jobs worldwide (as of the World Travel & Tourism Council’s 2019 statistics) If tourists were to “ go home” and the industry were to decline, not only would all these 100s of millions of jobs be put in jeopardy, but companies and sites reliant on tourist revenue would struggle. For example, national historical sites such as the Sagrada Familia cathedral in Barcelona would lose significant funding to continue building and maintenance, as they rely heavily on tourist entry fees. Tourism also provides accessible jobs without the need for educational specialisation, as well as seasonal jobs for students or people searching for part time work. With lower amounts of tourism, the demand for these jobs would overwhelm the availability, thus leading to further unemployment
However, if tourists were to go home, the loss of annual income could be offset by a return of livelihood and authentic culture to the country. One of the key issues locals are protesting over in
Barcelona is the rise of AirBnB and its influence on the housing market. In this app, landlords who would usually rent out their properties to working citizens are instead renting to tourists for short periods at higher prices in order to maximise profit Therefore, housing that local citizens could occupy is being taken up by holiday makers in search of cheaper hotel alternatives. This not only limits the amount of housing availability for locals, but increases demand for housing in these cities and therefore increases the rent prices in the city. This displaces many locals from their hometown and creates a higher tourist population throughout the year. Furthermore, Barcelona’s public transport and public services are adapted to cater to this high tourist population, which dispels the sense of community and culture. If tourists “went home,” these services could regain their authenticity. AirBnB additionally has a high proportion of foreign owners, so locals believe that any income generated is going straight into the pockets of these investors in other countries. Income from the rise of AirBnB rentals therefore may not be circulating through the city's economy.
So should tourists go home or should governments be held responsible to create a sustainable balance? In order to combat the issues around AirBnB and mass tourism, the mayor of Barcelona announced in July that short term tourist rentals would be banned, stating that this measure represented the equivalent of building “10,000 new homes.” Other European cities such as Amsterdam and Paris have already imposed their own AirBnB restrictions, such as forcing AirBnB to pay tourist tax and limiting the number of days they can rent out. It is too early to see the impact of these measures; however, this could be a step towards a more sustainable balance that prevents the need for tourists to “ go home.”
Thanks to a popular new biotech company, The dodo, an icon of extinction, could once again see the light of day; but at what cost?
By Roxana Q, Year 11
Colossal, a company which claims to possess new technology that could revive lost species, has seen a recent surge in both public interest and financial investment, totalling an approximate value of $150 million The announcement brought about not only support, but intense scepticism surrounding Colossal’s claims
Scientists involved argue that the resurrection of the Dodo could halt the “harrowing decline” in bird population whilst also helping aid conservation efforts. Scientists have alluded to the idea that by restoring the Dodo, the equilibrium amongst the avian species could finally be restored. Even as simple a point as bringing back a “little bit of magic to Mauritius" has been used in support of the project. These motives seem perfectly harmless, don’t they? But perhaps the enthusiasm behind this project runs deeper Is it acting as some kind of human redemption from our extermination of the species? If so - do we even have this right?
Director Peter Jackson invested $10 million dollars in Colossal Biosciences just this month. The resurfacing discussions regarding extinction and the extraordinary investments being made beg another pressing question: Why are celebrities so invested in the idea of the revival of the Dodo? It couldn’t possibly be because of their appearance or superior attributes. Instead, one could argue that these investments stem from a deeper, more sinister root. As ever, even the most pure and benevolent of actions can always be viewed through a corrupting lens Perhaps to the celebrities investing millions, the revival of the Dodo represents the capabilities of man, a sort of “ we can
do anything” attitude. This represents a dangerous sentiment indeed.
It is arguable that the extinction of animals is essential to feeling the effect of human errors In many ways the extermination of species such as the Dodo or the Woolly Mammoth provide society with observable consequences of our actions. In a world where extinction simply didn’t exist, would the universal feeling of guilt around the human impact upon our shared environment be in some way diminished? The topic of man ’ s destruction of the natural world is extremely prevalent; the subject of humanity’s direct contribution to climate change is constantly interrogated. Perhaps, if extinction could be reversed, we as a society would begin to think our actions have no impact. This of course could have unimaginable consequences on humanity’s collective psyche, ridding us of an essential human emotion
There is also a sense that these scientists wish to re-edit history. One could say that this attitude towards history is morally problematic. Even if we now have the technological advances to put right past wrongs, does this course of action represent the right thing to do? After all, things that seem like mistakes now could possibly be seen in a very different light depending upon future perspectives. As a society, instead of attempting to reverse history, we should view the extinction of the Dodo as a lesson, as with every other profound event in history Playing with history is a slippery slope, and no level of scientific knowledge nor futurology could predict what may occur The idea that history can and should be picked apart is misinformed, and is certainly playing with fire.
Accurate
news reporting is a public good. Does it follow that news agencies should be funded via taxation?
By Nirupama K, Year 13
To first determine whether news agencies should be funded via taxation, it is essential to define ‘accurate news reporting’. For news reporting to be accurate, it must present unbiased information, collated from suitably vetted evidence, and fixed and unwavering in different articles. To suggest that news agencies should be funded via taxation means that they must provide benefit to the public.
There are a few reasons as to why news agencies should be funded via taxation.
Firstly, taking ceteris paribus and maintaining our assumption that accurate news reporting is drawn from complete information, funding news agencies via taxation would mean governments are internalising positive externalities due to the underconsumption of accurate news reporting.
With increasing numbers of outlets entering the market, so called ‘fake news ’ has become even more prevalent in the day-to-day lives of the general public. Due to enticing headlines that attract readers’ attention and the use of social media marketing, people read and believe a greater volume of ‘fake news ’ than accurate news reporting. The abundance of choices amongst the different accounts of events presented in the media leaves people with choice overload, as they do not know what to believe and ultimately feel unsatisfied with all available accounts. Funding news agencies that promote accurate news reporting internalises the net welfare gain from reading these articles, as it can boost their social media presence and allow for greater reader
awareness, thus presenting more fair and reliable choices. It can reduce misinformation and close information gaps, reducing the risk of moral hazards as consumers are working with less limited information and expanding their bounded rationality. The utilisation of hypothecated taxes in order to fund news agencies would mean increasing the analytical ability of the public. It can further be posited that part of this welfare gain includes strengthening democracy, as the public would have a better understanding of the available candidates alongside the issues they would like to see addressed
Secondly, funding these news agencies via taxation would reduce their production cost. It is costly to engage in the necessary background research to ensure that news stories are accurate Public funding would mean that costs are reduced, thus making sourcing information easier and ensuring that the news reported is accurate. This would also increase
the supply of accurate news stories, again contributing to an increase in public awareness. This can also be seen as government intervention into the market failure of traditional media. By allowing for traditional media to continue to be produced, those of all backgrounds can access accurate news reports, including those who are elderly and struggle to use modern technology. It also reduces the need for news agencies to create paid subscription programmes. Many people do not trust the media as they believe that they put large profits above delivering the truth
Funding news agencies through taxation would mean public welfare is prioritised; newspapers also advertise goods and services alongside providing crucial information. This provides consumers with various purchasing options as well as keeping them up to date with current affairs, ensuring that their purchasing decisions are rational, based in up to date information and of maximum utility News agencies will longer need to charge for readership; this will restore public trust in the media, as delivering the truth can be made sole priority.
By funding these agencies through taxation, the government would also be increasing human capital through reducing misinformation The news is a form of education and according to the human capital theory, the more educated a country is, the greater economic growth they may experience. By using public funding, the government can ensure a multiplier effect; an increase in human capital can produce an improved labour force, increasing investment and consumption, and demand for goods may increase as incomes increase. Providing accurate news reports means providing the public with high quality, free education.
However, there are also several reasons to support the argument that news agencies should not be funded by taxation.
The first reason is that whilst in theory we can assume that accurate news reporting will be bolstered by public funding, in reality, without additional regulation we cannot guarantee that news agencies will remain accurate or unbiased. This suggests that the costs of funding news agencies may be greater than initially perceived It is not simply a matter of reducing the costs of production for these agencies, it is also about policing them to ensure that they remain at the required standard to be classified as ‘accurate’ and ‘reliable’. This is difficult to do as humans act on bounded rationality and therefore have limited information with which to make decisions. This translates to policing news agencies as it is extremely difficult to fact check news stories due to limited information, meaning ensuring that news stories are always accurate is costly.
Therefore, the opportunity cost of utilising hypothecated taxes to fund news agencies is far greater than anticipated This money could be used to improve healthcare, or be invested into the education system, which can produce better educated citizens with the reasoning tools to consider several articles before reaching their own conclusions. It may be more advisable to pursue this route, as education has the ability to improve human capital much more than accurate news reporting alone. Civilians will be able to learn how to distinguish ‘fake news ’ from truthful, which may represent a cheaper alternative.
A second reason is represented by the difficulty of policing ‘fake news ’ . It can be argued that in the modern world there is an overconsumption of ‘fake news ’ . With so many news outlet options, it can be difficult for readers to distinguish ‘fake news ’ stories from accurate news reporting, leading to increased misinformation Even if the government funded accurate news reporting agencies with taxation, the impact may remain minimal In theory, we could predict a large boost in readership due to increased supply flowing from minimised costs of production. In reality, this boost might prove to be quite small due to inertia, since some readers may just prefer reading certain newspapers. This could lead to very little being effectively done to combat misinformation and information asymmetry. Using public funding in this scenario may prove useless if the public have fixed habits, or are even just more enticed by flashy headlines. Instead, focusing on government regulation to limit these ‘fake news ’ stories may prove more effective accurate news reporting It is difficult to fund the multitude of news extant new outlets purely via taxation, but creating
laws which require the cross checking of content or ensure that agencies publish their source material may prove more effective, as consumers can decide for themselves whether the report is accurate or not.
Government intervention via public funding can disrupt the free market. Whilst we have established that accurate news reporting is a public good, the same cannot be said for news agencies. News agencies are non-rivalrous and can compete for greater market shares and profits through their use of paid subscriptions and physical newspapers By using taxation to fund these news agencies, the price mechanism cannot work to equilibrate prices or allow for competition Government intervention could also mean that news reports are biased or corrupt, as certain news agencies could receive greater funding to present a political party a certain way. It would not be putting public funding to good use if it is difficult to ensure that there is no bias due to government “preferences”. Instead of contributing to greater rationality, it could fuel greater irrationality if misinformation is being spread. Newspapers tend to have a certain political inclination, so there is no guarantee that public funding will ensure that no bias remains in the articles presented; however, lack of bias is required for news reports to be classified as accurate according to our definition
Having compared the reasons for and against funding news agencies via taxation, I am of the opinion that this should not be the case With our definition of ‘accurate’ news reporting, it is extremely difficult to guarantee that information presented by these agencies is in fact fixed and unwavering, as well as to ensure that complete information has been used to influence the content of the article. If it is difficult, then it is costly. This may mean that using tax money to fund these initiatives may not be a rational decision, as the opportunity cost may prove to be extremely large. With that being said, it is important the government does what it can to ensure
that (almost) accurate news reports are presented. This would be better implemented if government regulations were put in place to ensure that there is limited ‘fake news ’ being presented to the public. Economic benefits, such as a reduction in corporation tax, could be provided to encourage production of these accurate articles by lowering the costs of production; however, to hypothecate an entire proportion of taxes to this cause is not advisable It is very unlikely that we will ever be able to read a piece of completely accurate news, due to the many cognitive constraints on human beings. We can get close to this, but public funding is better spent in areas such as education and healthcare; it is up to news agencies to report on whether this funding is being put to effective use.
Bibliography:
Nelson, J L (2024) Journalism’s trust problem is about money, not politics. [online] The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/journalisms-trust-problem-i s-about-money-not-politics-230375 [Accessed 30 Jun 2024].
Barthel, M., Mitchell, A., Asare-Marfo, D., Kennedy, C. and Worden, K (2020) Measuring News Consumption in a Digital Era. [online] Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/12/08/ measuring-news-consumption-in-a-digital-era/ The Independent. (2024). Ofcom told to change outdated reporting rules to counter election day fake news [online] Available at: https://www independent co uk/news/uk/politics/ofcomelection-day-rules-fake-news-b2569753.html [Accessed 7 Jul 2024]
Oliver, D E (2004) Human Capital Theory and Higher Education in Developing Countries. Journal of Thought, [online] 39(1), pp.119–130. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42589777.
3. Tax imposed on earnings, a primary revenue source for the UK government (6 letters)
4. Institution that decides interest rates in the UK (5 letters)
5. Amount government collects from individuals and businesses, central to Budget (7 letters)
6. Measure of all goods and services produced within a country (3 letters)
8. Key term in economics, describes rise in general price levels (9 letters)
