Waiting for the companion piece: How to Fix the New York Times. Also, maybe, How to Fix Ignorant Pundits. Before you fix something, you have to identify what

Waiting for the companion piece: How to Fix the New York Times. Also, maybe, How to Fix Ignorant Pundits. Before you fix something, you have to identify what "fix" means. What's fixing, and what's breaking? How do you make a distinction of evil awful manipulation that must be stopped at all costs, that doesn't also include socially positive activism, journalism, or other legitimate kinds of speech? That's the issue the pundits should be grappling with, before they offer laughable suggestions like "make it a public benefit corporation". I happen to believe that a return to corporate charters that actually meant something, that required some public benefit to balance the public harm of limited liability, would be fantastic. However, saying we should only do that for one company is like a bill of attainder. We haven't done it for financial companies, where it more clearly makes sense. We haven't done it for oil companies. We haven't done it for the media companies like the one that owns NYT. What's a coherent argument for making this one exception to a long-held principle of leaving the market alone?