8 ms·

How could media bias be a problem in a free market like the USA? Obviously all consumers will simply stop consuming news media that gets sponsored by big evil c

How could media bias be a problem in a free market like the USA? Obviously all consumers will simply stop consuming news media that gets sponsored by big evil corporations and only support those who advocate for free open truth. Wait, what do you mean every major news organization in the US is owned by billionaires or media conglomerates, dang, we didn't free market hard enough.

WalterBright 4y ago
> How could media bias be a problem in a free market like the USA? Every media is biased. The free market solution is to allow anyone to be a media company, so the various viewpoints are available. > we didn't free market hard enough You being free to post your views here is evidence the free market is working.
klyrs 4y ago
Adam Smith was pretty clear that monopolies were antithetical to what he called a free market. If consumers had a choice, they'd consume different news, under his theory. But the market is captured by a small handful of billionaires. The US is not a free market.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  Monopolies are to free markets like evil/incompetent dictators are to socialism: they might not be a core tenant of the philosophy, they may even be antithetical to the core tenants of the philosophy, but they sure seem to be encouraged by the practical mechanics of the philosophy.
- kube-system 4y ago
  What people really want when they says "free markets" are competitive markets first, and free markets second. If we have freedom at the expense of competition, we'll end up with neither. The most "free" markets are not the ones with the least regulation, as some might presume, but the ones with just right amount of regulation.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  I guess the problem is that monopolies naturally form in a completely unrestricted market. So to make Adam Smith's free market, some kind of restrictions are required. But a lot of people think a "free market" is one with few restrictions. Either way what we really have is capture of the government by a wealthy elite, and what they try to use the government for is to socialize risks and privatize profits. Whatever pure theories there are out there and no matter how much sense they make, the practical effects of private wealth concentration is elite control of the government.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    Whether this would be possible under a more sophisticated implementation of democracy seems like a useful thing to contemplate, but we shan't discuss modifying our most sacred institution, as only far right Russian trolls think of such things as we all well know from our training courses.
    - JetAlone 4y ago
  - droopyEyelids 4y ago
    The freedom of "Free market" was _freedom from economic rent_ not 'free of all restrictions'
    - mistrial9 4y ago
      London was founded as a trade port where, in exchange for military protection and market advantages, you pay tax and more tax and yet another tax -- if I understand it. There are theories of law and commerce that extend from that.
    - jjoonathan 4y ago
      What? Wikipedia, the Oxford English Dictionary, and nearly every informal conversation I've ever had on the subject all agree that "free market" means free of restriction, not free of rent. In practice, of course, free of "restriction" means chock-full of business entities squatting on each and every rent opportunity, strip-mining the market for maximum extraction and paying off the political establishment to keep the hustle going. I would love to live in a world that believed in freedom from economic rent, but nobody with any power interprets "free market" in that way.
- klabb3 4y ago
  Even Milton Friedman said that prevention of monopolies was a legitimate and even necessary cause for government intervention, in order to preserve the free market. Free market ≠ corporate capitalism. At least it didn’t use to be. Free market rhetoric is almost always using small businesses in their story telling, in which there is a lot of competition and an implicit level field. How to handle the vast concentration of power and wealth is basically outside the scope of most of these theorizers, which is unfortunate because it’s our biggest practical issue, imo.
- greggarious 4y ago
  >Adam Smith was pretty clear that monopolies were antithetical to what he called a free market... The US is not a free market. The last time I pointed out the above in DC, I was called a communist and literally hounded out of the bar. (What is it with people who don't understand economics often also wanting to abuse the label of "service animal"? Someone should commission a study IMHO.)
chaostheory 4y ago
At least there’s a choice with capitalism. Not to mention that we can consume foreign media if we wish. With socialism there’s only one choice and power is much more concentrated. Like capitalism, socialism isn’t immune to corruption. The difference is the much greater concentration of power in one place for socialism which exacerbates the problem of corruption. I don’t deny that we’re either experiencing or about to experience late stage capitalism, but socialism tends to hit the late stage much faster as we’ve seen in the 20th century.
- diordiderot 4y ago
  > With socialism there’s only one choice and power is much more concentrated What makes you think that? I'm pretty sure socialism is an economic system not a political one
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    Socialism is an economic system where the central government owns and controls all production and all distribution of everything. There is no private ownership in that system. If you want choice, that’s capitalism.
    - SQueeeeeL 4y ago
      Both systems in the theoretical limits will result in zero choice, as the govt consumes all choice in one and in the other the most efficient player marginalizes out all less efficient players (i.e. Amazon basic products slowly taking over all generic products due to their scale). Just gotta fingers cross that kings and billionaires keep being low key foolish and somehow destroying their monopolization on power so we don't live in a hell world
      - chaostheory 4y ago
        I agree. My point is that socialism is not a panacea, and it’s affected even more by corruption due to the extreme centralization of power.
verisimi 4y ago
The free market vision you are deriding is failing because of government licensing and law making. Only certain outlets are licensed to print news. And laws are written to prevent what are perceived to be slanderous rumours. This is to say, information is not actually free. And free movement of information is essential for a free market. I also think that implicit in what you state, is a request for greater governance to manage the free market. If you ask me, what you really want is less government oversight. You may respond to say that we will be run by robber barons, if we have even less oversight, or free information. To which I would respond that we are already run by (the worst) robber barons who currently maintain their control via their control of the governance apparatus, and the illusion many hold that we have anything like a free market. It's just that we are suffering under our illusion so much, that we don't even recognise the problem! If you ask me, we actually live under a form of disguised fascism, where governments and corporations work together and pretend we have democracy and a free market. They use their mouth pieces (media, education) to misinform us.
- stonogo 4y ago
  Please link to the licensing agency involved in printing news.
  - verisimi 4y ago
    Yep, not a licensing agency, it's not overt.
    - stonogo 4y ago
      Which government is secretly controlling global media?
concordDance 4y ago
A substack supporter then?
ropable 4y ago
It's almost as though large, powerful organisations will fight to protect their own positions within a market segment, whether they are private or government entities.

WalterBright 4y ago

> How could media bias be a problem in a free market like the USA? Every media is biased. The free market solution is to allow anyone to be a media company, so the various viewpoints are available. > we didn't free market hard enough You being free to post your views here is evidence the free market is working.

klyrs 4y ago

Adam Smith was pretty clear that monopolies were antithetical to what he called a free market. If consumers had a choice, they'd consume different news, under his theory. But the market is captured by a small handful of billionaires. The US is not a free market.

jjoonathan 4y ago
Monopolies are to free markets like evil/incompetent dictators are to socialism: they might not be a core tenant of the philosophy, they may even be antithetical to the core tenants of the philosophy, but they sure seem to be encouraged by the practical mechanics of the philosophy.
kube-system 4y ago
What people really want when they says "free markets" are competitive markets first, and free markets second. If we have freedom at the expense of competition, we'll end up with neither. The most "free" markets are not the ones with the least regulation, as some might presume, but the ones with just right amount of regulation.
TaylorAlexander 4y ago
I guess the problem is that monopolies naturally form in a completely unrestricted market. So to make Adam Smith's free market, some kind of restrictions are required. But a lot of people think a "free market" is one with few restrictions. Either way what we really have is capture of the government by a wealthy elite, and what they try to use the government for is to socialize risks and privatize profits. Whatever pure theories there are out there and no matter how much sense they make, the practical effects of private wealth concentration is elite control of the government.
- mistermann 4y ago
  Whether this would be possible under a more sophisticated implementation of democracy seems like a useful thing to contemplate, but we shan't discuss modifying our most sacred institution, as only far right Russian trolls think of such things as we all well know from our training courses.
  - JetAlone 4y ago
- droopyEyelids 4y ago
  The freedom of "Free market" was _freedom from economic rent_ not 'free of all restrictions'
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    London was founded as a trade port where, in exchange for military protection and market advantages, you pay tax and more tax and yet another tax -- if I understand it. There are theories of law and commerce that extend from that.
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    What? Wikipedia, the Oxford English Dictionary, and nearly every informal conversation I've ever had on the subject all agree that "free market" means free of restriction, not free of rent. In practice, of course, free of "restriction" means chock-full of business entities squatting on each and every rent opportunity, strip-mining the market for maximum extraction and paying off the political establishment to keep the hustle going. I would love to live in a world that believed in freedom from economic rent, but nobody with any power interprets "free market" in that way.
klabb3 4y ago
Even Milton Friedman said that prevention of monopolies was a legitimate and even necessary cause for government intervention, in order to preserve the free market. Free market ≠ corporate capitalism. At least it didn’t use to be. Free market rhetoric is almost always using small businesses in their story telling, in which there is a lot of competition and an implicit level field. How to handle the vast concentration of power and wealth is basically outside the scope of most of these theorizers, which is unfortunate because it’s our biggest practical issue, imo.
greggarious 4y ago
>Adam Smith was pretty clear that monopolies were antithetical to what he called a free market... The US is not a free market. The last time I pointed out the above in DC, I was called a communist and literally hounded out of the bar. (What is it with people who don't understand economics often also wanting to abuse the label of "service animal"? Someone should commission a study IMHO.)

chaostheory 4y ago

At least there’s a choice with capitalism. Not to mention that we can consume foreign media if we wish. With socialism there’s only one choice and power is much more concentrated. Like capitalism, socialism isn’t immune to corruption. The difference is the much greater concentration of power in one place for socialism which exacerbates the problem of corruption. I don’t deny that we’re either experiencing or about to experience late stage capitalism, but socialism tends to hit the late stage much faster as we’ve seen in the 20th century.

diordiderot 4y ago
> With socialism there’s only one choice and power is much more concentrated What makes you think that? I'm pretty sure socialism is an economic system not a political one
- chaostheory 4y ago
  Socialism is an economic system where the central government owns and controls all production and all distribution of everything. There is no private ownership in that system. If you want choice, that’s capitalism.
  - SQueeeeeL 4y ago
    Both systems in the theoretical limits will result in zero choice, as the govt consumes all choice in one and in the other the most efficient player marginalizes out all less efficient players (i.e. Amazon basic products slowly taking over all generic products due to their scale). Just gotta fingers cross that kings and billionaires keep being low key foolish and somehow destroying their monopolization on power so we don't live in a hell world
    - chaostheory 4y ago
      I agree. My point is that socialism is not a panacea, and it’s affected even more by corruption due to the extreme centralization of power.

verisimi 4y ago

The free market vision you are deriding is failing because of government licensing and law making. Only certain outlets are licensed to print news. And laws are written to prevent what are perceived to be slanderous rumours. This is to say, information is not actually free. And free movement of information is essential for a free market. I also think that implicit in what you state, is a request for greater governance to manage the free market. If you ask me, what you really want is less government oversight. You may respond to say that we will be run by robber barons, if we have even less oversight, or free information. To which I would respond that we are already run by (the worst) robber barons who currently maintain their control via their control of the governance apparatus, and the illusion many hold that we have anything like a free market. It's just that we are suffering under our illusion so much, that we don't even recognise the problem! If you ask me, we actually live under a form of disguised fascism, where governments and corporations work together and pretend we have democracy and a free market. They use their mouth pieces (media, education) to misinform us.

stonogo 4y ago
Please link to the licensing agency involved in printing news.
- verisimi 4y ago
  Yep, not a licensing agency, it's not overt.
  - stonogo 4y ago
    Which government is secretly controlling global media?

concordDance 4y ago

A substack supporter then?

ropable 4y ago

It's almost as though large, powerful organisations will fight to protect their own positions within a market segment, whether they are private or government entities.