In selecting this topic I have set for myself a rather daunting challenge because one cannot do justice to a discussion of globalization without examining its relationship to democracy, its impact on the nation state, its fundamental principles, and the individual citizen's role in fashioning a moral and civic framework to moderate the more undisciplined aspects of the globalization phenomenon - and this last concern is where the press, as the representative of the public, has a pivotal role to play. Thus, I shall survey a rather expansive landscape; but at the end I hope to make the proper connections among these various aspects of globalization.

The operative words in the title of this lecture are "democracy," "globalization," and "press." The term "globalization" is used in many different ways and its precise meaning eludes even the most passionate globalists. Suffice it to say - and this is my understanding of the matter--the term as used most frequently in the literature is essentially an economic phenomenon, although its consequences are likely to affect political, social, and cultural systems in ways that are unimaginable. The notion of a global economy is not new, but the current phenomenon known as "globalization" does appear to be something unique in human experience. Globalization involves the integration of capital, information, and technology across national boundaries with a speed and cost effectiveness unrivaled in human history. Although the term might be new, its motivating instinct is of ancient vintage because it plays to the social and selfish side of human nature. Because it has always been true that if it is in my self-interest to do business with a tribal leader in Africa, then I will find a way to do so. It does not matter much whether I like the ideology or the politics of the leaders of the People's Republic of China if it is in my own interest to enter into a trading relationship with those leaders.

Before proceeding further, let me lay my cards on the table and reveal my thesis. Democracy cannot progress - I am not even sure that in the long run it can survive - without a dynamic civil society that has a critical mass of moral and civic virtue. That is to say, on balance, civil society must constitute a moral community. This is required to provide a hospitable environment for international investment. Globalists expect a certain level of ethical certainty before they are willing to take the plunge into an emerging democracy. This point is worth noting because economic globalists insist upon a level playing field when investing in local economies. Corruption, graft, and lack of trust are pathologies that globalists cannot abide. Globalists do not like to deal with crooks.

The converse is also true. Local communities have a right to expect a degree of social responsibility on the part of international investors. This is especially true since the growth of a truly global economy is dependent upon the spread of democratic principles. However, I am concerned that the breathtaking speed with which globalization has proceeded has resulted in an unprincipled phenomenon, lacking any moral framework with which to deal with its excesses. It is not as much immoral as it is amoral. There are, of course, some notable exceptions in the international corporate world. But while globalization has the potential for creating a great deal of wealth and improving the sense of community and the quality of life for the economically disenfranchised, thus far it has proven a mixed blessing. Environmental pollution, depletion of natural resources, the lack of stable financial institutions to insure honest brokering, concentrations of wealth that further widen the gulf between the rich and poor, and cultural homogenization are examples of the dangers of globalization. We are fond of referring to journalists as "government watchdogs," and they should continue in this capacity to confront directly the problem of corruption and other questionable activities by government officials. I would suggest, however, that in this era of unprecedented global economic expansion journalists must also serve as "corporate watchdogs" to alert citizens to both the dangers and the opportunities of globalization.

In a democratic society, it is the press' role to help develop a moral framework with which to restrain the excesses of unbridled globalization. Or to put it another way, the press is crucial to educating the citizens about the impact of globalization on their culture and their lives and to serving as a medium for political discourse on domestic policy decisions that affect the global economy. I am not recommending that journalists become partisans in solving society's problems; but they must do a more effective job in educating their audiences about the agendas of the global economists.

Journalists must become globalists. By "global journalists" I am not referring to reporters who cover news outside their own borders, but rather to reporters who understand all of the connections and interrelated concepts involved in the biggest economic story of the new millennium - globalization - and are able to communicate this story effectively to their audiences. Only then can there be any serious broad-based political discourse about the policy implications of globalization. Unfortunately, I doubt that most journalists are up to the task because contemporary journalism is rapidly becoming the captive of some of the same values that underlie globalization. In addition, many reporters do not have the education or broad-based experience required of global journalists. I will develop both of these themes in due course.

I must acknowledge some initial reservations in selecting this topic. After all, I am not an economist or an expert in international finance, nor do I spend a lot of time crystal ball gazing. My professional background is journalism, my intellectual focus is media ethics, and my interest in the global community stems from the fact that for several years I have been involved in the training of foreign journalists in how an independent and responsible press operates. But it occurred to me that economists, international financial strategists, and political pundits have not acquitted themselves particularly well in their own efforts at crystal ball gazing. What I do know from my reading and observation is that globalization is a big story that needs to be covered. It is not sexy; it is complex; probably is not high on the average consumer's interest scale; and certainly does not lend itself to dramatic pictures. But it is an important story and must be covered!

I must also acknowledge a prejudice that permeates my thinking. I am very traditional - some would say "old fashioned"-in my view of journalism. I still believe that journalists are special, that not everyone who puts pen to paper or stands in front of a camera can lay claim to being a journalist. I have even heard it said that the Internet is the most democratic medium ever devised because everyone can be a journalist. I respectfully disagree with that assessment.

I still subscribe to the canon of objectivity, a concept that many reporters and editors now consider either irrelevant or even dysfunctional to the practice of journalism. And I also believe that journalists are important to civic education and that the political intelligence they gather and disseminate is essential to democratic discourse. Despite its dependence upon the commercial sector, a free press must put public service above other values. Otherwise, its claim to special status within the constitutional order of things is severely eroded. I refer to the press' institutional role in the democratic process as a moral imperative because it is essential to the survival of democratic liberalism, and the failure of the press to fulfill this mandate will, in my opinion, lead to a decline in the vitality of the democratic enterprise. The press' responsibility in deconstructing the process of globalization, and repackaging it in a way that is meaningful to its audiences, is a part of this mandate.

Many reporters and editors today-particularly the younger ones-do not share this passion. And media owners and managers who are not journalists, or at least who appreciate the public service obligations of journalists, are unlikely to share it either.

Consider this two-paragraph lead from a recent story about the new publisher of the Los Angeles Times:

Los Angeles Times Publisher Kathryn M. Downing on Wednesday apologized for entering into an agreement to share the profit from a special issue of the Times Magazine with Staples Center, the new downtown sports arena that was the magazine's sole subject.

Downing said the lapse in judgment-and her failure to disclose it to readers and the paper's journalists-stemmed from her own "fundamental misunderstanding" of editorial principles in the newspaper industry.

The article went on to say that nearly 300 reporters and editors at the Times had signed a petition complaining that the agreement raised doubts about the integrity of the paper. This brouhaha followed a controversial decision at the Times several years ago to pair editors with delegates from circulation, marketing, research, and advertising to establish goals for circulation and readership. In a newspaper survey by presstime magazine published in April 1998, 57 percent of the respondents acknowledged they have marketing committees that include editorial members. One wonders if a newsroom culture influenced unduly by the marketing concept, rather than simply journalistic values, is capable of providing the public with a reliable, uncorrupted flow of economic news.

Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the Times case, my sense is that there is a discernible trend in journalism, both here and abroad, in which the bottom line and the marketing concept are trumping the public service obligations of news organizations. A case in point is the virtual abandonment of investigative reporting at local TV stations because new station owners have leveraged themselves to such an extent that they cannot afford the expenditures required for such enterprise journalism. The irony is that a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism released a couple of weeks ago found that, while the amount of enterprise reporting on local TV has apparently declined, there is clear evidence that viewers will flock to stations that produce high quality journalism.

This repudiation of what I believe to be journalism's moral imperative is not confined to the United States. Even in emerging democracies the newly independent news media have failed to become agents of civic education and to achieve a healthy accommodation between their commercial interests and their public service obligations. In the former Soviet Union, for example, the newly independent press began operation without any moral anchors or any minimum level of ethical consensus on the social responsibilities of a free press. The result was a great deal of sensational coverage, driven by commercial values, and a continuation of the public skepticism of the press as an agent of truth. I believe that the globalization of the international economy has placed additional burdens and challenges on the press to do its job. This is particularly true in emerging democracies where political and economic revolutions are occurring simultaneously. This is a volatile mix, as evidenced in 18^th-Century France where the political and industrial revolutions occurred simultaneously, producing a blood bath. In emerging democracies, where the structures for the protection of civil liberties and the cultivation of disciplined markets are still primitive, an independent press that has the trust of its readers and provides an uncorrupted flow of information can serve as a stabilizing force between the political power structure and civil society.

Globalization and democracy are philosophical soul mates because the international expansion of disciplined markets is ultimately dependent upon government deregulation, privatization, and free flow of information. Incidentally, you will notice that I used the term "disciplined markets" rather than "free markets." A free market that operates without discipline and a sense of social responsibility is antithetical to democratic liberalism, because democracy itself depends upon a degree of order, cultural balance, and political and economic accommodation. If this sounds like heresy, keep in mind that in this country, which arguably has the freest economy in the international community, government policies and unofficial oversight through public interest groups serve as effective regulatory devices in insuring some degree of decorum in the American economic marketplace. Or to put it another way, the capitalistic enterprise - and that includes the expansion of the global economic marketplace - requires a minimum level of virtuous behavior to function most effectively and humanely. Virtue is essential to democratic capitalism.

Economic globalists are pragmatists who probably do not spend a great deal of time thinking about philosophy. But underlying their claims that economic objectives should trump all others are the ideas of such historical figures as John Locke and Adam Smith. John Locke, you may recall, is the seventeenth-century philosopher who helped to give private property its status as a natural right. Property rights are even enshrined in our Constitution. And Adam Smith was the eighteenth-century economist who was famous for his "invisible hand" metaphor of the marketplace and who was instrumental in developing laissez-faire economic theory. But to use their names in support of private enterprise conducted outside of a framework of virtue and moral restraint is to do them a grave injustice. Locke, for example, thought a great deal about virtue. He did not believe in the accumulation of excess property without converting some of it to the common good.

Likewise, the reliance upon Adam Smith as a patron saint of global economic development in which virtue is bracketed is misplaced. Smith never imagined that marketplace competition and the invisible hand would be carried out in an environment lacking in civility or sensitivity to the overarching moral concerns of the community. To put it bluntly, Smith would have been appalled at any system of global economics that operates without moral anchors. Smith was not a journalist, but as an economist and philosopher he would have been equally alarmed at an institutional press system that embraces the marketing concept while denying its responsibility in the cultivation of civic virtue. He would also have probably been disturbed by a media system that has become so concentrated that a true marketplace of ideas is unlikely at a time when democratic societies are most in need of a vigorous public square.

There is a danger that emerging democracies will embrace globalization before they have set in place the infrastructure to control the energies unleashed by an unbridled market economy. I have in mind such things as the rule of law, stable democratic institutions, a functioning civil society to serve as a buffer between the individual and the state, religious freedom to enrich the virtue of the citizens, and an independent press that provides a constant flow of truthful and uncorrupted information. But institutional structures are a necessary but insufficient prerequisite for a smooth transition into the global economy. Nation states must also embrace the "psychology" of modernization, a world view based upon individual initiative, an entrepreneurial spirit, and moral and civic progress. Nation states that do not cross this threshold between the old way of doing business and the new economic order will remain culturally and economically schizophrenic, with one foot in the present and two feet in the past.

Russia is the classic case in which democratic reformers attempted to construct a free society on the ashes of the bankrupt Communist system without any attempt to create a viable civil society that could serve as the moral underpinning for a healthy economy. The failure to acknowledge that a truly healthy economy depends as much upon non-economic factors as financial ones quickly dispelled the optimism that prevailed within Russia shortly after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

Why are globalization and the press' role in developing the moral ecology for the global economy important to us? Because the United States is the leader of the Western World, and the fact is that the modern version of globalization wears the "Made In America" label. It is driven substantially by American economic investments or financial institutions, and much of the investment capital is provided by institutions in which the U.S. has significant influence, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Moreover, American corporations and institutions provide a fertile field and a relatively safe haven for foreign investors. In addition, journalists in emerging democracies, while they still chafe under the restraints of some government control, are looking increasingly to the United States for guidance.

The fact that globalization is essentially an American driven enterprise should come as no surprise. This nation's influence is pervasive, as evidenced by the ubiquitous presence of American corporations in foreign countries and the massive exports of American films, music, and television programming to foreign markets.

One cannot discuss the future of globalization without linking it to the future of democracy, which serves as globalization's life support system. Only in a democracy can a true public policy debate on the moral dimensions of this phenomenon take place. The press, of course, should be a player in this public discourse.

Globalization is a promising counterpoint to the Cold War that divided the world into two spheres of influence, pitting the Western alliance and the Soviet bloc and their respective client states against each other. The dramatic fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, which caught even the most vigilant and knowledgeable experts off guard, has precipitated an unprecedented proliferation of democratic movements within the international community. This has been an energizing force for global markets, which depend upon the free flow of information and liberal government policies. From Eastern Europe to Latin America to Africa to some parts of Asia, the democratic impulse is on the ascendancy. Critics of communist ideology and its state controlled economic system have been elated. In a book published in 1992, Professor Francis Fukuyama boldly predicted an end to history as a result of the inevitable triumph of the democratic will. Likewise, economic globalists are confident of their victory in the international marketplace. Consider this statement from international development expert David Korten (The Post-Corporate World, p. 2) in which he describes the drumbeat of the new global capitalism:

Like it or not - with the death of socialism - the forces of economic globalization and the new global capitalism are immutable and irreversable. There is no alternative. We must deepen our commitment to consumerism, free trade, and economic growth even as we endure the current trials of capitalism's creative destruction. In the end we will be rewarded with universal peace and prosperity. In the meantime, those who would survive and prosper must learn to win in the global economy's relentless and unforgiving competition.

To begin with, I must part company with Professor Fukuyama in his unequivocal assessment of democracy's triumph if for no other reason than to observe that democracy is not the natural order of things. For most of human history authoritarianism has been the reigning political ideology, and old tendencies die hard. Furthermore, as we approach the millennium, it is not at all certain that the apostles of liberalism will trump the totalitarian tendencies of Russia's still well-entrenched Communists. For people who have never known freedom, personal security is often more precious than the liberation that freedom brings - and that includes the economic freedom of capitalism.

Moses learned this painful lesson about freedom when the Israelites, confronted with the possibility of fighting for their freedom against a well-armed enemy in the promised land, revolted against him and conspired to appoint another leader who would return them to captivity in Egypt. After 400 years of slavery, even God's chosen people apparently feared freedom more than they feared their captors.

Despite this assessment, I am optimistic about the future of democratic movements, although I certainly do not believe that we shall have the political playing field to ourselves. Globalization conducted within a framework of moral and cultural sensitivity for local communities is quite compatible with democracy. The benefits of true globalization are undeniable. The infusion of foreign capital into struggling democratic societies and the economic leverage that can be brought to bear by transnational corporations can create an unprecedented level of prosperity. Corporations create jobs and wealth, and they provide consumers with goods and services. Business enterprises are also independent of the state and can help to cultivate middle class values and a viable civil society. Some believe that for the first time in history globalization has the potential of marshalling the vast resources of our planet for the international common good by eroding traditional barriers to cooperation. This unprecedented global interdependence means that no longer can Americans remain unconcerned about economic news from other regions, as evidenced in the recent Asian economic crisis. In this respect, globalization may increase the two-way news flow, although I suspect that much of it will be crisis driven.

There is no doubt that globalization has the potential to create an unprecedented amount of international wealth and to elevate the economic prosperity of the members of the international community. However, some critics of globalization see multinational and transnational corporations as unprincipled economic opportunists with allegiance only to the bottom line and with little loyalty to the local community.

Are they correct? To test this claim, we might briefly examine three articles of faith -- we might also refer to these as "first principles" -- that underlie the globalization process. 1) One article of faith that characterizes economic globalism is "let the market decide." Or to put it another way, give the public what it wants. This is an appealing slogan because it sounds very democratic. Corporate globalists argue that the very essence of capitalism, which is predicated upon self interest, in the end contributes to the overall welfare of society by responding to popular demand for consumer goods and services. Hence, market values must trump all others. Any intrusion by non-economic concerns, such as the public interest or civic virtue, is unacceptable.

The issue of whether society's economic institutions - and that includes the mass media -- should merely respond to marketplace demands or assume some responsibility for elevating cultural standards is an enduring one. Journalism professors in the sixties challenged students somewhat Socratically with such questions as: "Should the media just give the people what they want, or do they also have a responsibility to give the public what it needs?" We never resolved this question to my satisfaction and the debate continued into my graduate courses in the early seventies. When I first entered the academy, I posed the same question to my students. But today, while I occasionally broach the issue in my media ethics classes, the discussion is usually far from stimulating if for no other reason than all of my students have come of age at a time when the notion of public service has been significantly marginalized in the practice of journalism.

Globalizers who constantly survey the international community for investment opportunities stand accused of wanting to buy the media first in order to convert independent-minded citizens to consumers of commercially appealing content. In many countries media organizations are a prominent feature of the globalizers' corporate portfolios. Thus, news becomes a product to be packaged and marketed in pursuit of higher profits. Globally, journalism is under tremendous pressure to reinvent itself in the form of infotainment, which is driven more by commercial than by public service values. In this country, the process is well under way, particularly within the television industry. The results are less civic engagement in serious political discourse and the transformation of engaged citizens into politically detached consumers.

From an ethical perspective "let the market decide" has two serious flaws. First of all, it absolves individuals and corporations from any moral responsibilities for their actions. Second, if corporations can escape moral accountability for their actions just by appealing to the demands of the marketplace, they are claiming a special exemption that sets them apart from the rest of society.

2) Another article of faith of globalization-and one that is closely tied to the notion of "let the market decide"-is that a healthy market equates to a healthy society. But I would suggest that a truly healthy market is one that operates within a broader cultural framework that includes the rule of law, some consensus on core moral and spiritual values, a commitment to social justice, and a reasonable accommodation between the rights of individuals and a respect for the common good. Many societies have market economies, and yet human rights abuses continue. The evidence does not support the claim that a healthy market economy based strictly on capitalist principles has any inevitable relationship to a healthy society. This is an important story, but I am not sure that journalists have acquitted themselves particularly well in covering it.

3) Globalization's third article of faith is that capitalism is the only economic philosophy that has a demonstrated track record on the creation of wealth. Creation of wealth on an unprecedented international scale is undeniably a consequence of globalization. But the claim that this wealth is benefitting all segments of society has yet to be empirically demonstrated. In fact, there is evidence that the gulf between the rich and poor continues to widen in both established and emerging democracies. If there is any Achilles heel for contemporary democracies, it is the problem of social justice for the economically disenfranchised. And in many nations, the democratic media seem as uninterested as the new middle class in the plight of the poor. I found this to be true when I traveled to Chile, where the press has been criticized for its timidity in the coverage of social issues that might offend the more influential segments of the society.

As one who believes in capitalism and free enterprise, I appreciate the role that the creation of wealth through private ownership of private property-even corporate ownership-plays as an individual right in a democratic system. But unbridled capitalism-that is, capitalism without discipline and civic responsibility-is in the long run destructive of democratic principles and detrimental to the public interest. Likewise, media owners who allow their "right" to private ownership-and the creation of wealth that flows therefrom-to trump their public interest obligations could make the press irrelevant as an agent of serious political discourse and civic engagement. This is the danger that lurks when the marketing concept intrudes too heavily into the journalistic function.

Former House Speaker Tip O'Neil was fond of saying that "all politics is local." That is equally true of both economic globalists and the news media, if we take the nation state as our frame of reference. The end game for globalization is the local economy and the individual consumer. The financial resources that drive the world economy are distributed primarily by local institutions and agencies. Therefore, we ignore the social consequences of globalization at our own peril. And journalists risk loss of credibility if they neglect to report these consequences.

I cannot leave this reference to the nation state as the basic unit of political measurement without noting a paradox. Globalization requires a strong nation state to provide the stability required to attract economic investment. But it also insists upon a national political leadership that is willing to allow privatization of ownership, free but disciplined markets, a free press supported by advertising to create consumer demand, and an unrestricted flow of information.

Although the nation state will continue to be the primary unit of the international community for the foreseeable future, the evidence seems to suggest a decline in the role of the nation state as an instrument of cultural isolation. Certainly, such technological advances as direct broadcast satellites and the Internet have hastened this process. Because of the demonstrated success of capitalism and disciplined market economies in the creation of wealth, political leaders are now more likely to be apostles of, rather than barriers to, economic integration within the global community. The power centers in contemporary democracies are now as much, if not more, economic than political. However, this decline in the role of the nation state does have some troubling consequences from the standpoint of global economic stability.

I will briefly describe what I believe are three serious consequences of the decline of the authority of the nation state. 1) In a traditional capitalistic society, investors have usually relied upon governmental policies that promote economic growth. But in this era of globalization, capital can more easily sever this relationship and move to more promising venues, while the nation state is tied to its geographical moorings. Thus, economic globalists assume a dominance over democratic decision making that is unhealthy.

2) The second consequence is an increase in ethnic and religious conflict. Capitalism, of course, is not entirely responsible for this trend. Ethnic and religious strife has a long history. In the modern world, however, the decline of the nation state as a result of capitalist expansion has increasingly marginalized the political sphere as a mediating factor in these disputes. Capitalist restructuring, in this era of globalization, has resulted in increased competition for scarce resources and the dislocation or migration of ethnic groups across national boundaries in search of a better and more secure life. Identity politics - balkanization along ethnic, racial, or religious lines -- is antithetical to the establishment of democratic institutions and can quickly destroy emerging democracies.

Such unstable societies are not candidates for admission to the global community because international investors will avoid nations where there is no rule of law, viable democratic institutions, a disciplined market economy, and a dynamic civil society. Journalists in such cultures, who should be at the vortex of the democratic process, are frequently part of the problem rather than the solution if one subscribes to the view that journalists should be in the truth-telling business rather than functioning as governmental apologists or representatives of their ethnic groups.

3) A third consequence of the decline of the nation state also places the diversity and uniqueness of local culture at risk. Some commentators are concerned that globalization is likely to have an homogenizing effect on local culture without the influence of domestic gatekeepers. A society cannot deal with the effects of globalization if its culture, which serves as the social cement, is simultaneously destroyed by the globalization juggernaut. In the past, the state has served as a mediating factor in protecting local culture. To be sure, the state has also erected barriers to information that could promote international understanding, although the Internet is rendering even this activity more difficult. But we should not dismiss the concern with cultural protectionism so casually because the homogenization of culture would make the global community a less interesting place in which to live.

I am cautiously optimistic that this cultural homogenization can be avoided, because the fact remains that economics may be global while communities are not. Even transnational corporations, such as McDonald's and Coke, must accommodate their operations to local customs. And it is also true that, even when government deregulation results in the lowering of economic barriers and the unrestricted flow of capital into a society, the resulting economic decisions must take into account local customs and traditions.

Thus far, my comments have taken on a decidedly skeptical tone, but I do believe that globalization and the investment of international capital in underdeveloped economies, when conducted within a framework of moral discipline, can lead to a more affluent civilization. But this will depend upon the establishment of democratic institutions that are at once protective of individual liberties and free enterprise and yet are sufficiently responsive to the common good. I do not believe that public policy regarding the globalization process should be decided by the private economic sector and governments alone without public discourse on the matter. And this is where the press can, and should, play a crucial role.

There are two things that must happen to maximize the press' role in globalization. First, journalists, both here and in the emerging democracies, must be trained as globalists. For years, the professional training of journalists at the university level in this country has consisted of a curriculum in which students are taught the fundamentals of writing according to the inverted pyramid style, newsgathering, reporting, and editing, supplemented with a smattering of media history, law, and ethics to validate journalism as an intellectual enterprise. In accredited programs, this training comprises approximately 25 percent of the curriculum. A majority of a student's coursework is devoted to a study of the liberal arts and sciences, which consists of a menu of seemingly unrelated courses frequently taken as electives. At the end of four years the journalism major supposedly emerges with a well-rounded liberal arts education. And incidentally, American journalism educators have been busy exporting this model to universities and institutes in those nations where formal journalism education is primitive or non-existent.

One strength of American journalism education is the close cooperation between journalism programs and the professional community. This is not true in many other parts of the world, but there is a change underway in some countries.

There was a time when universities could provide a minimum level of professional training coupled with a survey of media law and history and the rest could be learned on the job. But in today's highly competitive media market - where virtual reality and the Internet threaten the traditional gatekeeping roles of journalists - on the job training is not good enough. Journalists must hit the ground running. And this requires not only training journalism students in the new technologies but also providing a higher degree of intellectual training than is present in most journalism curricula today.

Journalism educators must teach their students about strategies to integrate knowledge from many different disciplines through the use of critical thinking skills in order to educate their audiences about an increasingly interdependent world in which globalization is only one facet. Today we live in what some refer to as the "Information Age," but I would suggest to you that the world is too complex to be satisfied with this.

Journalists can no longer be satisfied with their roles as information gatekeepers within their own neatly defined "beat." They must integrate information from various perspectives and demonstrate to their readers and viewers the importance of these relationships. Can an environmental reporter, for example, really do a credible job without understanding the mediating influences of finance, politics, technology, cultural mores, and even national security? This is civic education in the noblest sense of the term because it empowers citizens to participate more aggressively in the political system and in public policy decision making. Thus, the economic excesses and even pathologies of globalization become more accountable to the public will.

As we approach the millennium, we must move quickly into the "Knowledge Age" in which information, theories, and ideas from different and seemingly unrelated disciplines are brought to bear on local, regional, and international problems. The global journalist, as I see it, has a pivotal role to play in this cultivation of knowledge. The public must not only be informed; it must also understand the issues. This is essential in any democratic culture that hopes to have any meaningful political discourse concerning the impact of globalization on its local economy and quality of life.

Technology has made this even more feasible. The Internet is not only a wonderful research tool; it also allows journalists to exchange information across national boundaries on issues of common concern, such as the environment, industrial pollution, and the disposal of nuclear wastes.

So the first thing that we must do is produce more broadly trained journalists, renaissance communicators if you will. But in addition, global journalists must reassert their traditional role as fiduciaries of the public. News managers must abandon the notion of audiences as "consumers" of their news "product" and reinvent them as informed citizens. I would consider this an ethical imperative under any circumstances, but in this era of globalization it is essential to journalism's institutional integrity. The pendulum has swung too far in the direction of sensationalism, banality, superficiality, and the marketing of news. News enterprises, at least for the foreseeable future, will continue to depend upon advertising for their daily bread, but they must reassert their independence from the commercial pressures that are increasingly intruding into the editorial decision making process. In suggesting this, I am not some naïve idealist, and I am certainly not the first to express this concern. In some emerging democracies there is not always a clear line of demarcation between the editorial and the advertising functions. But even in this country, as noted earlier, the separation between church and state has been severely eroded. This independence is essential to journalistic credibility. Commitment to the public interest is what has traditionally made journalists special and crucial to the democratic enterprise. Journalists who are controlled or influenced by forces external to their own consciences, including those within their own news organizations, lose credibility and eventually become irrelevant to the democratic process.

In summary, globalization is one of the most important stories of this century, but thus far it has been reported only piecemeal. It promises profound benefits, including a significant improvement in the quality of life in those countries touched by economic globalists.

Globalization also has costs, and these costs can be assessed only within a moral framework that strikes a happy balance between the creation of wealth through corporate economic investment and quality of life for the individual citizen. In a democratic society, journalists must take a leading role in providing the civic education and knowledge required for citizens to participate in the construction of this moral framework.

In the above, I have cut a wide swath, moving rapidly among a variety of topics: globalization, democracy, unbridled capitalism, the nation state, and, most importantly, the role that the media should play in the new world economic order.

In the twenty-first century, we shall inhabit a world where political apathy could undermine democratic institutions. Globalization may be an economic phenomenon, but the need for broad-based political discourse on this subject is essential. The world is on a fast track, economically speaking. Many nations have discovered what we have known for many years, that free enterprise and a marketplace economy can significantly and very quickly improve the individual's quality of life. But the race is now on to see who will provide the information that will allow citizens to make rational choices in this marketplace and to make globalization the servant rather than the master of their destinies. Will it be government officials, spin doctors, special interest groups, self-styled Internet economists - or will it be journalists who are trained in the cultivation of knowledge for their democratic audiences?

This dilemma is symbolized by a parable recounted by New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman in his recently published book, The Lexus And The Olive Tree. (pp. 270-71) It is a story about the lion and the gazelle in the African jungle. The lion goes to sleep each night knowing that, when the sun comes up, if it cannot outrun the slowest gazelle it will go hungry. The gazelle goes to sleep each night knowing that, when the sun comes up, if it cannot outrun the fastest lion, it will wind up as the lion's breakfast. But what the gazelle and the lion both know is that when the sun comes up they had both better start running.
 

John Dalla Costa, The Ethical Imperative: Why Moral Leadership Is Good Business. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1998.

Thomas L. Friedman, The Lexus And The Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1999.

Francis Fukuyama, The Great Disruption: Human Nature And The Reconstitution of Social Order. New York: The Free Press, 1999.

Edward S. Herman and Robert W. McChesney, The Global Media: The New Missionaries Of Corporate Capitalism. London: Cassell, 1997.

Robert J. Horton, Globalization and the Nation-State. New York: St. Martin's Press, Inc., 1998.

Rushworth M. Kidder, An Agenda for the 21^st Century. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1987.

David C. Korten, The Post-Corporate World: Life After Capitalism. Berrett-Koehler Publishers (San Francisco) and Kumarian Press (West Hartford, CT), 1999.

Robert W. McChesney, Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999.