I think that that's a great talking point, but from a very practical perspective the solution is to get people to question their media (social, main stream, or otherwise) carefully. Simply removing the big channels won't fix anything.
More importantly, though, it's still just a talking feel-good point: the fact of the matter is that if a cop can blow a hole in your baby with a flashbang during a no-knock warrant it doesn't matter a hoot in hell what news you subscribed to.
>the solution is to get people to question their media
That's contrary to human nature. The solution is to make the media independent of outside interests. The simplest would be to ban all media employees from outside commercial activity, ban investment in media from non-media companies and ban advertisement. Alternatively advertisement could be allowed as long as the money is paid equally to all media, and the ads are randomly allocated.
Third alternative is to have a responsible government channel that competes with the commercial ones, funded by tax money and independent like a central bank. That, however, would require a reasonably decent government to begin with. This model actually works pretty well in many countries.
> The simplest would be to ban all media employees from outside commercial activity
What does this even mean? Media employees aren't allowed to buy groceries? Media employees aren't allowed to buy cars? Media employees aren't allowed to sell Girl Scout Cookies?
Are you sure? I agree that if any individual media outlet stopped accepting ads, it would kill them; but that's because their competitors would still accept ads. Given a choice between a media outlet with ads and one without ads, consumers will choose the one with ads, because they won't have to pay (as much) for it directly. But it's possible that if ads were banned across the board, and consumers only had a choice between paying for media or not having access to media, they would choose to pay.
>> The simplest would be to ban all media employees from outside commercial activity
>What does this even mean? Media employees aren't allowed to buy groceries? Media employees aren't allowed to buy cars? Media employees aren't allowed to sell Girl Scout Cookies?
Well, they should be allowed to buy things, but not sell things and not allowed to own stock, bonds or anything else than cash and the real estate they live in.
>> ban advertisement
>This kills the media.
You say that as if the death of advertisement-funded media would necessarily be a bad thing. To the contrary, it might be a really good thing.
> Well, they should be allowed to buy things, but not sell things and not allowed to own stock, bonds or anything else than cash and the real estate they live in.
That is highly unreasonable. They can't sell their car? They have to live in one house until they die or get foreclosed on? What do you think we would gain by chasing everybody who is remotely sane out of the field?
> You say that as if the death of advertisement-funded media would necessarily be a bad thing. To the contrary, it might be a really good thing.
If there were a better alternative, sure. But there is not. If you cut off the only source of revenue available, just about the only sources of information remaining will be run by rich people who are willing to pay to push their views onto the masses.
More importantly, though, it's still just a talking feel-good point: the fact of the matter is that if a cop can blow a hole in your baby with a flashbang during a no-knock warrant it doesn't matter a hoot in hell what news you subscribed to.
I wouldn't put these on the same level at all.