3 ms·

True. But free, decentralized speech maps pretty well to free, decentralized markets. A "free market of ideas" is the pitch. The alternative model of news that'

True. But free, decentralized speech maps pretty well to free, decentralized markets. A "free market of ideas" is the pitch. The alternative model of news that's out there is mostly state-sponsored centralized news. Do you see that as an improvement to the status quo? If not, what's a non-theoretical example of an improved system? There is non-profit news, e.g. NPR. But we're often told that it must be at least partially state-sponsored to be viable. Making it more vulnerable to state control. The model does seem to be disadvantaged in the marketplace compared to for-profit news, judging by its relative scarcity. There doesn't seem to be a way to make it dominant without legally restricting for-profit competition, i.e. restricting free speech.

jacknews 6y ago
I think the problem is intrinsic to the market model. Free markets deliver what consumers want. But not necessarily what's best for them, and certainly not necessarily what's best for society. For many markets we can gloss over that to some extent, for example food. We have cheap, abundant, and generally high quality food, but it's often addictive (because that's what sells), and unhealthy, and imposes a very high cost to our health as a society, and to many individuals. But news/information is even more fundamental, it is the blood of democracy. And it seems to be in rather ill-health of late.
- hirundo 6y ago
  I don't question that people often want what is bad for them. That's undeniable. I question the ability to consistently improve on those choices via the judgement of politicians and bureaucrats. They seem at least as likely to mandate choices that are worse than what we could chose for ourselves, often even worse than average free choices.
  - jacknews 6y ago
    I certainly don't think the state should be picking the news. But they could be paying for it, without requiring it to be centralized. I imagine a similar model to how some countries fund political campaigns, in an attempt to 'level the field' between rich and poorer parties. Winning votes does not affect the budget next time, so in the case of news, there would be less incentive to produce addictive, sensational material. Obviously there are many issues with this kind of model too.
    - hirundo 6y ago
      He who pays the piper calls the tune. If the state is paying for it, at the very least, the news station has to be careful not to be too critical. That's a horrible handicap for an institution that we rely on as a check and balance to the state.

jacknews 6y ago

I think the problem is intrinsic to the market model. Free markets deliver what consumers want. But not necessarily what's best for them, and certainly not necessarily what's best for society. For many markets we can gloss over that to some extent, for example food. We have cheap, abundant, and generally high quality food, but it's often addictive (because that's what sells), and unhealthy, and imposes a very high cost to our health as a society, and to many individuals. But news/information is even more fundamental, it is the blood of democracy. And it seems to be in rather ill-health of late.

hirundo 6y ago
I don't question that people often want what is bad for them. That's undeniable. I question the ability to consistently improve on those choices via the judgement of politicians and bureaucrats. They seem at least as likely to mandate choices that are worse than what we could chose for ourselves, often even worse than average free choices.
- jacknews 6y ago
  I certainly don't think the state should be picking the news. But they could be paying for it, without requiring it to be centralized. I imagine a similar model to how some countries fund political campaigns, in an attempt to 'level the field' between rich and poorer parties. Winning votes does not affect the budget next time, so in the case of news, there would be less incentive to produce addictive, sensational material. Obviously there are many issues with this kind of model too.
  - hirundo 6y ago
    He who pays the piper calls the tune. If the state is paying for it, at the very least, the news station has to be careful not to be too critical. That's a horrible handicap for an institution that we rely on as a check and balance to the state.