0 votes

Press monopoly - What to do?

I wrote this in response to a good Libertarian DP user who had decided to vote against the California Prop 37 forcing GMO labeling. While writing it, it occurred to me this might make a good way to formulate a question for the DP at large on the issue of media monopoly. Thoughts appreciated. Cheers!

From the DP user:
"If you support GMO labeling, you are not a libertarian. I voted No on 37, and it failed. It should stay that way."

My response:
Your actions are pure here and I respect your vote but, please remember to educate as well.

It is not that you are for hiding the identity of GMO foods, (I hope I have not over stepped with this assumption) it is that you are not for government intervention to solve a symptom of a larger problem of information exchange and freedom of choice.

It seems the real issue here is a disappearing free press that would otherwise inform the public as to this issue, and any issue and its various political points both popular and unpopular while at minimum reporting on solutions offered and how they might be consistent with the Constitution and the ideals of a free republic...

Should we lobby to apply the Sherman act to the media of today and explore more of what Turner identified here with FCC anti competition roll backs on all forms of media?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407.turner.html

Maybe push for a Ma Bell style break up of media assets??
(those under 40 search: "Bell telephone break up")

Ultimately, the Press must not remain monopolized as it has become. The Press is the 4th estate of a free republic therefore, in this unique situation yes, I support limiting media ownership today in some way to protect the 1st amendment.

Is a Constitutional amendment preventing press consolidation a direction to consider?
Is it time to constitutionally define the Press to both protect the 1st amendment, the ideal of free market, competition of both business and ideas through access? Seems to me we could find the same benefits communications experienced after the Ma Bell break up.

This video from Ben Swann just today (11-8-12) illustrates well what many of you already know we are facing with quickening media consolidation and the consequences to freedom of exchange of information and ideas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIX1P7BQEzo&feature=plcp
George Carlin with a 49 sec back-up for Ben on this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAFd4FdbJxs

Lastly, how do we get the public or the market if you will to demand it? With the Bell break up there was money to be made. Can we convince venture capital that breaking up big media could be good business? Would it be?

Thanks in advance for your ideas on this everyone!




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

be your own media.

most people are turning away from the established, print media. They are in their death throes now. That such a large % of people are aware of gmo is fantastic imho. Just a couple of years ago practically no-one seemed aware of the ubiquity of gmo in the food supply, now we are well past tipping point.

First and foremost, eschew

First and foremost, eschew the U.S. mass media. There are now many alternative sources of news on the internet. I can get more useful information about the United States from Russia Today than I can from CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, or (especially) Fox News. When I hear how U.S. newspapers and television media are losing money it warms the cockles of my heart. It serves them right for decades of hiding the truths that matter.

How many people following the major U.S. media are aware that Fukushima is still spewing massive quantities of radioactive water into the ocean? You have to follow the alternative media if you want to know what's going on.