What is ‘Freedom of the Press’?
When discussing freedom of the press, the general consensus has focused on the press being free to speak. That is a very simple explanation. From that comes the concern that Twitter blocked the New York Post. That is not censorship, nor is it deprivation of the freedom of the press. The New York Post’s own publication satisfies that. Twitter’s refusal to re-cover their content is a non news decision. Twitter is its own news-media. Nothing requires reprints.
First define news media: Collins Dictionary defines news media as “those media that provide news coverage for the public”. [1]
Then define media: the means of communication. In this definition define media as any means of communication. The means is not the content. The content is what is ‘free’.
The collective ‘news media’ then is a means of communication used solely for the dissemination of news coverage. It cannot have its goals other than that and still be press.
The press, (as defined by the news media and those who work in it,) is wholly different than freedom of speech. Many jurists have argued otherwise but the logic is impeccable: Freedom of speech is an individual right that gives rise to the freedom of the press, which is the right of a class. That class is both individual and collective. For the class to maintain its state of protection it cannot deviate from the class.
For the press to be free it must not be encumbered. It must not be restricted. It must not be controlled by any force not of the press. Simple.
Yet that is not how politicians have permitted the press to evolve in this country.
For the press to be free it must be free both externally for publication and internally for influence.
Today the press is more than just newspapers, television and radio stations. The only difference is the media, not the function.
Therefore the most logical method to save freedom of the press from the disastrous abomination it has become is to do the following:
Pass a national law that will:
1: Establish the press as a recognized class regardless of the means of communication. (Internet news only sites without conflicting ownership included.)
2: Restrict the control of the press to itself.
A law that prohibits ownership of the press by any entity not a part of the press.
A law that prohibits controlling interest in a press entity from any non person. Another business, not of the press, cannot own a news-media outlet. To do so literally changes that media outlet to an arm of whatever business that owns it.
This means divestiture of news media by corporations that are in businesses other than news collection and publication, or divestiture of all non news related businesses. News media can be owned by media companies but those media companies cannot be in any other industry. Means and content. Media companies can own and operate the means of distribution; television and radio stations, newspapers, magazines, hosting servers etc; but cannot own or operate any other form of content but news. That includes film production and distribution, direct to consumer hosting companies, satellite companies, cable companies and the like that are not solely news delivery platforms.
That answers the question of who IS the news-media. It also solves the problem we have today: news is controlled by the goals and desires of its non-news corporate overlords. The public be damned.
Tough? Sure is. Guaranteed not to ever again permit the news to reflect the wishes of its corporate master who’s loyalty is to non-news endeavors and not that of the public good.
Will this happen?
Nope. There aren’t enough collective gonads in Congress to pull it off.
[1] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/news-media