The source of the "censorship" is everything. The difference is that "censorship" by a private party amounts to the private entity not publishing views with which it disagrees. Censorship by the government amounts to the government saying that nobody may publish views with which it disagrees.
To the best interests of the public, what difference does it make who is censoring their news? They are still being deprived of essential information which they need to make informed decisions.
I think we need to get down to a more fundamental understanding of the purpose of the first amendment in a Republic. I believe it was accurately summed up by Benjamin Franklin.
Printers are educated in the Belief, that when Men differ in Opinion, both Sides ought equally to have the Advantage of being heard by the Publick; and that when Truth and Error have fair Play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter: Hence they chearfully serve all contending Writers that pay them well, without regarding on which side they are of the Question in Dispute.
If truth and error do not have fair play, then how are the public supposed to make good decisions? If all they are permitted to hear is error, (fake news) then how can a Democratic Republic function?
What licensing system is that? Broadcast media is dying anyway, and unlicensed cable news is more and more powerful all the time.
The broadcasting licenses built the empire upon which the current media system imposes it's will. Call it "fruit of a poisoned tree" if you are familiar with the reference.
Broadcast radio is licensed, but with the removal of the Fairness Doctrine, political content is unregulated. And conservatives have almost a de facto monopoly there after Air America crashed and burned.
And what portion of the population obtains most of their information in this manner? Is it significant compared to the numbers that get their information from the boob tube? The needs of the nation are that the people be informed with as accurate of information as possible.
Drudge Report. Discuss.
Rush Limbaugh used to say that his tiny radio show "balanced" the left wing media. That was a joke. It wasn't intended to be taken seriously. If you think "Drudge" and any other websites balances the trillion dollars in media assets the other side has, you are not looking at the problem accurately.
Look, the problem with what you're saying is that the only solution is to give the government actual power over all of that. The cure is much, much worse than the disease.
I haven't said that at all in this thread. You are trying to apply a previous discussion in which I asked for ideas on how to deal with a liberal monopoly, to this thread. You also conflated my idea of a "board of governors" to "The Government" when in fact that is not the same thing at all.
I am saying that allowing censorship of information is detrimental to the best interests of the nation, regardless of who is responsible for censoring this information.