The fight over Yahoo

The fight over Yahoo, which now apparently involves Microsoft, Time Warner, News Corp. and Google, is about more than business. It is about how America informs itself, which means it is also about how democracy is going to work in the 21st century.

These are questions that ought to be considered by Congress — and not quickly, but deliberately, after extensive public hearings. The heads of all the companies in the Yahoo-takeover battle should be called to Washington, D.C., and asked: What kind of system are you creating? Who will pay for it, who will collect the money, and what will they undertake to do with the money they collect? How will the ordinary American benefit?

The ordinary American has been happy with the Internet. It has slashed the cost of distribution of news and commentary virtually to nothing, and it has passed along the entire savings to the user. At the same time, it has caused billions in revenue to migrate from content providers to content distributors — and most of it to one company, Google.

If the question of the day is who should swallow Yahoo, we prefer Microsoft to Google. Two players are better than one. But the real questions of the day are broader than this.

Congress should hold hearings. We are not asking for the government to design the 21st-century media industry. But we do not want a clutch of rapacious billionaires to design it entirely to their personal specifications.

The media industry should be designed by many hands, each working with its own vision. It should be varied, inclusive, expressive and essentially anarchic. No one person, or two persons, should dominate it.

In some other countries, there is one media tycoon. Italy has Silvio Berlusconi, who became head of state. Other countries have similar figures. Americans do not want that here.

It is not government's job to say exactly what the media shall look like, but from time to time it may be government's job to say what the media shall not look like. And that task begins with Congress.