The Government is said to be the most powerful entity on our planet, irrespective to note that “mainstream” media is the so-called fourth pillar of your democracy. Democracy is an euphemistic form of mobocratic system and it intends to always “buy the people, far the people and off the people”.
The government-owned-media also has the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power; if I am not wrong. Since government controls the mind of the masses through media or press legislation(s), it is also easy for the state to determine social culture. The pathological attitude of government is very selfish and it is also disliking the spontaneous power of social media, because social media is the “ultimate equalizer” that gives a voice and a free platform to anyone who is willing to engage.
But, as I always say, there are people dangerous than wild animals in our society. To catalyze the media economics of state-owned-media, statists recklessly defend the results of public interest theory. The public interest theory, also referred to as the Pigouvian theory, states that government ownership of media is desirable. Three reasons are offered as to why:
1) the dissemination of information is a public good, and to withhold it would be costly, even if it is not paid for.
2) the cost of the provision and dissemination of information is high, however once costs are incurred, marginal costs for providing the information are low and are therefore subject to increasing returns.
3) state media ownership can be less biased, more complete and accurate, if consumers are ignorant,
To counter the above three unicorns:
A government-owned media outlet would always distort and manipulate information to entrench the incumbent politicians, preclude voters and consumers from making informed decisions, and ultimately undermine both “democracy” and markets.
Because private, social and independent media supply “alternative” views to the public, they enable individuals to choose among political candidates, goods, and securities—with less fear of abuse by unscrupulous politicians, producers, and promoters.
Since government is inherently suffering from emporiophobia, in reality, it is uneasy to install faith in its administrative functions. Moreover, competition among media firms assures that voters, consumers, and investors obtain, on average, unbiased and accurate information. The role of such private and competitive media is held to be important for the checks-and-balances system.
Ronald Coase also points to this hypocrisy of Pigouvian economists: in the very industry where the case for state ownership is theoretically attractive, they shy away from taking it seriously. “It is hard to believe that the general public is in a better position to evaluate competing views on economic and social policy than to choose between different kinds of food.“
Countries with greater state ownership of the media have less free press, fewer political rights for citizens, inferior governance, less developed capital markets, and inferior health outcomes. You can figure out, before defending state-interventionism, in any possible manner.