Media moguls rule

Silvio Berlusconi's victory in the Italian elections of April 13 and 14 — his third elevation to the top job in the Italian state — represents a dangerous entanglement of media and politics in a Western democracy.

Berlusconi won the election partly through "his grip on Italy's media," says The Economist. "Now that he is back in government, he will indirectly control state-run television too, giving him influence over some 90 [percent] of Italian TV."

Whether Berlusconi overtly misused his media power is not as important as his possession of it. Americans have not allowed our large private media to be dominated by any one person, and we have made our small public sector as independent as possible from vote-grubbers. But in our private sector, federal authorities have been allowing mergers and consolidations that undermine this traditional American principle.

It is still unclear which media mogul might reach for the ring. Years ago, it might have been Ted Turner, but he was not big enough or serious enough. More recently, Michael Bloomberg toyed with the idea.

One can imagine a better candidate, with more money and property behind him — even a candidate who might make a good president in some ways. But all media-tycoon candidates have this problem: They control the very channels of news and opinion upon which the people rely to criticize them.

Democracy requires that the media be separate from government — and that means, as a practical matter, media should be in many hands, none pointed at achieving public office.