To return to the interesting part.
If there is no rule saying you must subsidize it all and then own the press, billionnaires will still be able to come up with more journals, better quality, wider audience. So you didn't solve the problem of the press falling prey to corporate interests, which was the point in Jake and my discussing press subsidy. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Argh, drawing conclusions about my supposed ideology. It would be nice if you could limit yourself to countering my arguments. "Outing" me as the Enemy disguised in sheep skin is a bit silly.
No, you are misinterpreting me. I am not saying you are an enemy because you have an ideology, I am helping you see your ideology by pointing it out. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Arguments and ideas is what I'm interested in. I see you don't actually answer to my latest reply on the matter. Maybe you were convinced after all. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
If there is no rule saying you must subsidize it all and then own the press, billionnaires will still be able to come up with more journals, better quality, wider audience. So you didn't solve the problem of the press falling prey to corporate interests,
But - as I have already noted elsewhere - there is no law of nature saying that the private press will always be better, more interesting or have a wider audience.
In point of fact, the state-sponsored press quite often has both higher quality content and greater viewership/readership than the private press in those countries where it's being done properly. Of course, nobody wants to read a Pravda, but that's not what anybody here is proposing anyway, so I fail to see the relevance of that fact...
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
