Theories help us explain or predict outcomes as we navigate daily life. Furthermore, theories help us detect and analyze behaviors that don’t follow the patterns we expect.

I’ve been pondering the classic four theories of the press over the past few weeks (July 15, July 21). I keep seeing examples of how these theories can help me evaluate what’s going on in current events.

For example, in several Virginia localities, citizens are arguing about whether to remove books from school libraries. Debates have flared so far this year in Hanover and Spotsylvania counties.

In Texas, state Department of Agriculture leadership apologized to employees July 12 for “misinformation” and a “biased view” of employment law in a mandatory training session that day. The issue, the Texas Tribune reported July 13, was that the trainer had explained what made someone “cisgender” or “transgender” and what “deadname” meant (intentionally using the name a person was given before gender transition).

In news reports about these Virginia and Texas cases, the views attributed to “conservatives” about access to information don’t align with the views of “conservatives” in stories from New Orleans about federal efforts to reduce misinformation on social networks. Press theories provide a practical lens for interpreting the dynamics.

In Virginia and Texas, the “conservative” perspective is more aligned with Authoritarian or Communist press theory than the Libertarian or Social Responsibility thinking we saw in the Louisiana court case. In the Authoritarian and Communist theories, “truth” isn’t determined by individuals weighing all sides of an issue (the Libertarian theory dynamic) or by journalists seeking to report all available information—pro or con—about a topic (the Social Responsibility theory dynamic).

In the Authoritarian and Communist theories, “truth” isn’t self-evident. In the Authoritarian theory, “wise” leaders determine the truth. In the Communist theory, the party or state determines what is true. In both the Authoritarian and Communist theories, what is considered “truth” is central to political power and the foundation of social influence. Consequently, the specified “truth” needs to be protected from misinformation. Any challenges to the official line threaten political power.

The “conservatives” in Virginia and Texas knew “the truth” and wanted to shield people from offensive or dangerous concepts that might raise doubts about that truth.

In advocating the free flow of ideas through social media, the “conservatives” in the Louisiana court case presented a classic Libertarian press theory position: All viewpoints should have access to the marketplace of ideas. If people could hear all voices, the truth would emerge from the online debate through the self-righting process. Rational people would determine what was true and false. Misinformation, therefore, wasn’t a threat.

The Virginia controversy came in the wake of a state law that went into effect last year. The law requires schools to notify parents of any instructional material that includes sexually explicit content and allow them to request alternative materials for their children. The law’s goal is to let parents protect children from content the parents don’t want the youngsters to see.

Agriculture Department leaders in Texas said they were apologizing to state workers because “misinformation” about gender in the mandatory training session might have offended some employees who considered the ideas contrary to their religious beliefs.

The trainer—Natalie Rougeux, a board-certified attorney in labor and employment law and a certified human-resources professional—told the Texas Tribune that she “simply gave the proper terminology for ‘transgender’ and ‘cisgender’ and explained the concept of ‘deadnaming.’” Those definitions were among many topics covered during the hourlong session on equal employment opportunity regulations.

Critics of the messages in books or employment training appear to have rejected the Libertarian idea that people are rational and can individually distinguish truth from falsehood. Critics didn’t accept that truth could emerge from a self-righting process, overcome falsehood, and become self-evident to everyone.

In Virginia, the reasoning for the Authoritarian/Communist approach was grounded in parental rights and the need to protect children from ideas the parents don’t accept. Children, this thinking goes, aren’t prepared to critically deal with what they see in books.

In Texas, the concern may have been more political. In 2021, Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller joined a lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The federal agency had said that transgender people should be allowed to use the bathrooms and follow dress codes that corresponded with their gender identities. A federal district judge decided in the state’s favor, and the Biden administration dropped its appeal. State officials now appear to want to limit any references to gender identities in equal-opportunity training.

Libertarian thinking would dismiss those viewpoints.

Children, from the Libertarian perspective, should be able to explore all ideas so they can develop reasoning abilities. In weighing the merits of what they read, young people should consider what their parents and other authority figures had taught them. The children, anchored in the solid moral foundations their parents had established, should ultimately be able to determine truth through the self-righting process. Consequently, they wouldn’t need protection from incorrect ideas.

Similar thinking would apply in Texas. Libertarian thinkers would advise leaders to give Department of Agriculture employees more credit. If the training session presented biased information, employees should be able to recognize any errors and ignore them.

Another theory—third-person effect in communication—may better explain the Virginia and Texas perspectives than the Libertarian press theory. Third-person effect, first explained by sociologist W. Phillips Davidson, says that people often think that a message will influence others even though that same message won’t influence them. Consequently, people who see a “threatening” message act to counter the effects of that message on others—even when “the defenders” have no evidence that others have been affected.

I learned long ago not to expect philosophical consistency in political debates. People usually adopt positions they find expedient, not consistent—no matter what ideology is usually associated with their political perspective. Nevertheless, theories give me a way to interpret what I see in the rough-and-tumble political arena and the pragmatic corporate world.

Copyright © 2023 Douglas F. Cannon