Ha! Now this is funny. You are calling that massive trillion dollar broadcasting infrastructure completely owned and controlled by the leftest "elite" members of our society a "free market."
The problem is in thinking that is decades out of date. The media is no longer ABS/CBS/NBS/CNNBS. At that, their market share compared to the internet is small. A vast majority of news media is now consumed outside the old world broadcasting networks.
What is this "alternative" that will allow Conservative voices to reach 20-30 million people every single day without being filtered by the left?
This little thing called the internet (not to mention competing news networks to the big 'bs' networks). Let's look at CNN for example. February 2016 (easiest month to find), CNN had an average of 1.6 million viewers. A lot, right?
Drudge Report's average viewers more than that per day.
Hell, I think FR gets more viewers than that (differentiated from views). So does Breitbart.
Thinking in terms of CNN/ABS/CBS/NBS and the New York Times is like thinking in terms of comparing modern cars to the 57 Chevy.
Our problem isn't access, it is how we use it.
"Information" is not a "free market." Information is power, and those people who have the ability to control it or substitute false information have the power to manipulate elections, and that is what they have been doing since at least John F. Kennedy.
It absolutely is, and it is one of the biggest, most dynamic markets around. As long as you don't think in 1970s terms (like many in the Republican leadership do which is why they still bitch and moan about the BS networks instead of leading), it may seem there is no market, but this is 2017 and a vast majority of media is not consumed off those networks.
If it weren't for airports, nursing homes, and the DC Beltway circle jerk, the BS networks would have very little audience at all.
Competition? How do you have competition in a monopoly? There is no competition. I don't know of a single conservative news source that broadcasts to millions of people every night. All of them are in the hands of liberals, and liberal censors control what gets on the air.
ONN and Fox, both on DirecTV have the same potential audience as CNN- people only need to freely choose that. Even Glen Beck's network is in the homes of millions and millions of households who could watch- but they choose not to.
But you are still thinking in 1970s terms regarding how people get their information.
It establishes the premise that we regard the Media people as enemy combatants for whom we no longer have any respect. It is a point that very badly needs to get made, and most especially made from a position of power, such as the office of the Presidency.
We are the media, each and every one of us. Who you refer to as the media or press are just a handful of publication companies (be it TV or print). They are not the enemy, they are the competition for ideas. Until we learn to sell our ideas, we will be whining about the same things. Shutting them down with the hammer of the government makes us not only no better than liberals who do the same- it makes us the same as them.
You mean it more accurately reflects what has actually been going on for decades? Sounds good to me. Let it be known that these people have always been pushing their opinions while claiming they were "news." As far as a "power play" goes, yes it is, and that is exactly the point.
The fault here is in the viewers, not in those pushing the opinions. People choosing to buy their product choose to take it in knowing it is bad for them- they freely choose to set aside researching for themselves and being skeptical- just like eating fast food every day even though you know it is crap. Using the hammer of the government to force what we think is 'good' is no better than using the hammer of the government to force food we think is good. In the end, you just get more government controlling more and more just to fix our own problems.
The Presidency lends legitimacy to the prattlings of these liberal agents, and now he has demonstrated that he can take it away by denying them face time on Camera in his press conferences.
As the French put it " à bon chat, bon rat."
We aren't failing in the marketplace of ideas because there is no open market of ideas. There is a socialist controlled "stage" upon which puppets mouth words and make gestures. A market place of ideas would allow us to show anti-abortion information, or information about the incidence of diseases running through the homosexual communities. It would allow us to point out information about Muslim practices such as this, or how the crime statistics are always hushed up to ignore the elephant in the room.
We operate in a system where the left controls and censors what the people may hear. It is a system that turns the very purpose of "free speech" on it's ear. And it's not a "free market" of ideas.
Lather, rinse, repeat all my statements above.
