 Earlier we talked about the free media model, and this ideal originally did not allow for censorship nor prodding or nudging through laws, committees, economic sanctions or other forms of government interference. The main premise was that society needed a completely free media system. This model for media governance was quite simple. There should be none. This would allow the media to serve as a much needed check for the misuse of power. For instance, by politicians. Ever since the rise of the fourth estate ideal, and the idea that the media landscape needed absolute freedom to fulfill this ideal, which today we call the free media model of media governance, there had been many examples of exactly this. Journalists uncovering corruption scandals and shedding much needed light on the misuse of power by the political and economical elite. Everybody knows many examples of media functioning as a proper watchdog in society. But there was also a darker side to the free media model, and the absolute freedom that media had. Some leaders in the newspaper, magazine and later in the radio and movie industry, became extremely powerful. Powerful media barons who owned, controlled and shaped significant parts of the media landscape. They could influence public opinion and the flow of information in society, and therefore played an immense part in social, economic and political life. And this led, over the years, to many examples of the misuse of power within the media system itself, where the power and complete freedom they enjoyed was used to gain commercial, personal or political advantage. And one notorious example is when the well documented rivalry between newspaper owners Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer led them to exaggerate an incident between Spain and the United States. And many historians attribute the eventual Spanish-American war mainly to this war-mongering in their newspapers. This news coverage reputedly had more to do with selling more papers than with an objective and balanced news reporting. The Second World War was, according to many, another one of the failures of the free media model. Several thinkers asked the question, shouldn't Hitler's rise have been prevented by the critical media, debunking his lies, exposing the violent tendencies of his followers and their misuse of power within the political system? Was the free media model of media governance really the best way to guarantee a good system of checks and balances? Did society really benefit from the all-powerful media? Or were we in need of a better system, a better theory? Well, these questions grew in importance, as public opinion grew more and more suspicious and wary of the powerful media system. It was believed by many that media professionals misused the power and freedoms they were, in many countries, constitutionally guaranteed. Ironically, the whole point of granting media this freedom was to prevent this sort of misuse of power, and stimulate a healthy function of the media and democracy. So how could we prevent the whole media system from collapsing to greed and opportunism, while preserving and stimulating the Fourth Estate function? It was this question that prompted Henry Luce, publisher of the popular Time Alive magazines, to fund the formation of the so-called Commission on Freedom of the Press in 1943, a commission that tried to come up with a new model of media governance, and did so in 1947.