4 ms·
Media could be owned by the staff. That's what the Hell Gate website does. https://hellgatenyc.com/about-us https://hellgatenyc.com/about-us We could also re
by vharuck 3y ago
Media could be owned by the staff. That's what the Hell Gate website does.
https://hellgatenyc.com/about-us https://hellgatenyc.com/about-us
We could also restrict ownership by audience size. So any one person or non-media organization cannot own or control multiple media organizations if their total audience size is above X people. Audience size would be prorated for partial ownership or control (i.e., owning 1% of a newspaper that serves 100K people would count 1K people towards one's total). This is an off-the-cuff alternative, so assume the regulations would be written by actual lawyers who consider edge cases.
- vxNsr 3y agoEverything you’ve proposed is the media being owned by the government with a single extra step.
- robertlagrant 3y ago> Media could be owned by the staff Agree. That would be private people owning it, though.
- digging 3y agoWell, the state is also people, so state-owned is also private people owning it then. Either that, or you could acknowledge the dramatic material differences between workers owning their own output and a rich individual not-worker owning their output.
- robertlagrant 3y agoEr no, people don't own the state. People do own businesses.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago> so state-owned is also private people owning it This is wrong by definition. There is an actual "true" dichotomy between public ownership and non-public ownership. Two criteria: - "jointly exhaustive": the two subsets contain all possible scenarios - "mutually exclusive": the two subsets do not share any possible scenarios These criteria are met with the subsets of "the state" (meaning "public") and "private people" (meaning "non-public").