>> 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.
>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.