3 ms·
So you're saying that the media organization should be allowed to collect information, and filter what gets told to the public, but the public should not be abl
by nickff 10y ago
So you're saying that the media organization should be allowed to collect information, and filter what gets told to the public, but the public should not be able to 'double-check', or use their expertise and perspective to examine the same materials? If we are to entrust all information gathering and interpretation to media organization, shouldn't we let them vote for us too?
- danielrhodes 10y agoI didn't say that at all, but I'm going to respond to your questions anyways. I don't actually believe the media should have special legal carve outs (namely because it creates alignments that end up being against the public interest), but it's fun to argue it anyways. > but the public should not be able to 'double-check', or use their expertise and perspective to examine the same materials? If you have a free market for the media, then they should be double checking each other. > If we are to entrust all information gathering and interpretation to media organization, shouldn't we let them vote for us too? The US is a representative democracy. Your political representatives are already acting as surrogates for your interests. Thus, the media acting as an additional surrogate on top of that would not make a lot of sense.
- pritambaral 10y ago> If you have a free market for the media And how would a new player in a "free market for the media" enter the playground? If you have to say "A new player has to be more than an individual" then it's not a free market.