4 ms·
"One goes against the government's views, the other one pushes it." No, that's not it. A free press is "free" because it's unconstrained by a Government or ca
by meri_dian 9y ago
"One goes against the government's views, the other one pushes it."
No, that's not it.
A free press is "free" because it's unconstrained by a Government or capricious regulation, not because it "goes against the government's views". Sometimes members of a free press will support the government, other times they won't.
It's not a priori virtuous to go against the Government's views. Sometimes the Government is right and sometimes it's not. Like everyone else.
- dguaraglia 9y agoI'd agree with you, except for this: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-campaign-sinclair-broadcasting-jared-kushner-232764 https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-campaign-sincla...
- digitaltrees 9y agoYour definition of free press ignores the impact of government involvement in the press and preferential treatment it confers on specific organizations. Where the government favors one media/press organization and gives preferential treatment, every non-preferred media outlet is less free because they are constrained in ways the preferred outlet is not. You're right it's not inherently virtuous to go against the Government's views. But it is inherently bad to push government views in exchange for preferential treatment which is what appears to be happening here and with the National Enquirer. If you are concerned about a free press, you should be equally concerned about the commingling of government and press such that the government captures certain media properties and converts them to state run media. Free press means a separation of government and press; any governmental involvement damages a free press.
- fmihaila 9y ago> A free press is "free" because it's unconstrained by a Government or capricious regulation [...] Add to that monopolistic corporate power.