I 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 be

I 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.