You probably thought it was the other way around, right? But former New York Times bureau chief Bill Kovach illustrated this point for visiting journalists at the State Department’s Foreign Press Center by looking back before the 17th century’s Age of Enlightenment transformed European society.

Back then most, as impoverished commoners, “had no place in the community except to keep their mouth shut and do their work,” Kovach said. “They had no information about how the community was run and how the people and institutions of power did their business because no one told them.”

Occasionally, word would trickle down of the monarch’s latest proclamation, a local religious leader would relay a few pieces of news, or a traveling troubadour would pass through singing about the happenings in a village hundreds of miles away.

But public opinion “is what democracy is based on,” Kovach says. And there was so little information back then that it was basically impossible to have a real opinion on your leaders or how you were being governed.

When people began compiling newsletters of information for their communities, they not only invented journalism, but for the first time they enabled others to have an opinion about anything, which increased the pressure to allow more to have a say in government.

For more on Kovach’s views on the media, see the article “Media Analyst Urges Revival of ‘Independent’ Journalism.”

My (Freedom of Expression’s) very first entry, “Blogs self-regulate to stay credible,” pointed out that bloggers have a vested interest in being honest if they want to build and maintain an audience.

But when money is involved, it seems bloggers might need something more than mere self-policing.

Someone identified as “Johntw” posted a bogus story October 3 saying Apple CEO and founder Steve Jobs had suffered a heart attack, sending the company’s shares plunging more than 10 percent before Apple could quash the rumors.

The story appeared on CNN’s iReport, which some, such as TechNewsWorld’s Renay San Miguel, believe helped add to its credibility. Yet CNN only requires a valid e-mail address in order to post, and the only other information it can now provide to investigators at the Securities and Exchange Commission is the sender’s IP address.

If “Johntw” was doing some day trading on Wall Street, it is estimated he/she could have netted as much as $21 million by buying up Apple’s temporarily devalued shares with the knowledge that they would go right back up once the truth was exposed.

San Miguel, as a former CNN anchor, predicts that because of the Apple fiasco, the staff at iReport will now be vetting all submissions from the public.

“It may be a hassle and colossal time-suck to do it, and the company certainly won’t make a big deal about it, but it will do it. Because in the end, the people in charge of the network really do care about credibility,” he says.

Where do you think the line should be drawn? Can the blogosphere be a self-regulated news source or should measures be put in place to prevent people from exploiting its free-wheeling nature?

The importance of good media relations has long been understood by politicians, corporate leaders and philanthropists, but it seems pirates, even from an impoverished country like Somalia, are becoming media-savvy in the 21^st century, with prepared talking points and authorized spokesmen (spokespirates?).

After the Ukrainian vessel Faina and its crew were hijacked in Somali waters on September 25, the New York Times’ Nairobi-based reporter Jeffrey Gettleman obtained the pirates’ satellite telephone number from a high-level Kenyan contact involved with efforts to bring the incident to a peaceful end.

Gettleman recalled, “It was probably my 50th call. The line had always been busy. Or the phone had been shut off.  But on Tuesday [September 30] morning, someone actually picked up.”  The reporter asked, “Can I speak to the pirate spokesman, please?”

He was actually able to talk to several pirates but was told “in no uncertain terms” that Sugule Ali “was the only pirate allowed to be quoted. Or else.”

For everything Gettleman asked, Sugule seemed to have a ready answer, comparing his band of pirates to a sort of Somali “coast guard,” whose goal is simply $20 million in cash which they claim would be used to buy themselves food.  “[W]e have a lot of men and it will be divided amongst all of us,” Sugule said.

Piracy has been a growing problem off the Somali coast for years, with nearly 30 hijackings in 2008.  But the Faina incident has heightened international attention and prompted the intervention of both the U.S. and Russian navies because the vessel is loaded with armaments, including tanks and grenade launchers.  Sugule was able to turn the cargo into a talking point by claiming the hijacking aimed to inhibit arms trafficking and prevent the weapons from reaching war-torn Somalia.  (See transcript.)

Mark Fitzgerald of Editor and Publisher said the notion that pirates now have public relations flacks who can set the rules over who can and can’t be quoted “deserves a place in the history of journalism.”

“And just what are the ethics of dealing with a pirate? … Aren’t the rules turned upside down?” he asked.   But Gettleman “played fair, and that’s probably all to the good for next journalists who have to deal with, you know, pirates.”

The situation certainly says something about the power of the press, but where do journalists draw the line between informing the public and providing a public platform for criminal activity?

How does press freedom factor into current global concerns over the financial markets and the drying up of credit?

I just went to a conference that discussed the relationship between the economy and the rule of law. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was featured as the keynote speaker. (See “Former Federal Reserve Chairman Predicts Economic Rebound.”)

In the middle of his remarks on how legal guarantees accorded to property rights and ownership have elevated general standards of living since the early 18th century, Greenspan pointed to how a free press, along with the protection of minority rights, has proven “the most effective form to safeguard [private] property.”

His argument is that the watchdog role of the press and its ability to inform the population contribute to economic stability.

“[D]emocracies rarely allow discontent to rise to a point that leads to explosive changes in economic regimes,” he said. This stands in contrast with authoritarian states that, even if operating under a capitalist economy, are “inherently unstable because [discontent] forces aggrieved citizens to seek redress outside the law.”

He quoted Nobel laureate Amartya Sen’s observation that “no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press.”

Why is this? According to Greenspan, it’s because the news media in authoritarian regimes tend towards self-censorship. “[M]arket-interventionist policies – the most prevalent cause of disrupted distribution of food – go unreported and uncorrected until too late.”

So, if you’re living in a society with a relatively free press, consider the possibility that all the gloomy stories you’re reading about the economy might be helping to prevent an even greater crisis.