3 ms·
> 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.
by 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 agoAnother 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 agoUsing 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 agoThis 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.