3 ms·

I would posit that all news companies (some legal definition) should be required to be non-profit entities. They could also operate with some portion of subsidi

I would posit that all news companies (some legal definition) should be required to be non-profit entities. They could also operate with some portion of subsidization if necessary. The public allocation model would be interesting, if difficult to implement.

cbd1984 11y ago
If they're subsidized, they know where that money is coming from, and they'll be less likely to report on the misdeeds of the government subsidizing them.
JackFr 11y ago
> I would posit that all news companies (some legal definition) should be required to be non-profit entities. That's not really compatible with a free press. In terms of regulating the broadcast spectrum you have more latitude because its a scare public good. But I think you'll have a hard time getting Pinch Sulzberger and Rupert Murdoch to stop publishing.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  Another view has it entirely consistent. Universal access to the press, not merely those who have sufficient financing, based on actual quality of product, not dopamine-inducing crap, could be an improvement.
  - JackFr 11y ago
    Using the force of the state as an editorial voice is the opposite of a free press. I understand that a case can be made for what your saying, but make no mistake - it is a case against a free press.
    - dredmorbius 11y ago
      This isn't the "force of the state". It's the capability of the state to channel funds into vital infrastructure and services the private sector does not, and can not serve. We disagree profoundly.
CM30 11y ago
That seems like a nightmare as far as freedom of speech goes, and an even bigger nightmare as far as enforcement goes. I mean, there are an awful lot of internet sites offering news, so would that mean setting up a blog reporting news to make money from ads would suddenly be illegal?

3 ms·

I would posit that all news companies (some legal definition) should be required to be non-profit entities. They could also operate with some portion of subsidi

by frankydp 11y ago

cbd1984 11y ago
If they're subsidized, they know where that money is coming from, and they'll be less likely to report on the misdeeds of the government subsidizing them.
JackFr 11y ago
> I would posit that all news companies (some legal definition) should be required to be non-profit entities. That's not really compatible with a free press. In terms of regulating the broadcast spectrum you have more latitude because its a scare public good. But I think you'll have a hard time getting Pinch Sulzberger and Rupert Murdoch to stop publishing.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  Another view has it entirely consistent. Universal access to the press, not merely those who have sufficient financing, based on actual quality of product, not dopamine-inducing crap, could be an improvement.
  - JackFr 11y ago
    Using the force of the state as an editorial voice is the opposite of a free press. I understand that a case can be made for what your saying, but make no mistake - it is a case against a free press.
    - dredmorbius 11y ago
      This isn't the "force of the state". It's the capability of the state to channel funds into vital infrastructure and services the private sector does not, and can not serve. We disagree profoundly.
CM30 11y ago
That seems like a nightmare as far as freedom of speech goes, and an even bigger nightmare as far as enforcement goes. I mean, there are an awful lot of internet sites offering news, so would that mean setting up a blog reporting news to make money from ads would suddenly be illegal?