We’d suggest this claim by George Monbiot is not, in fact, true

We’d claim that it’s definitely not true in fact:

You cannot have both a free market in media ownership and a free market in information and ideas. The oligarchs who dominate the sector stifle inconvenient thoughts and promote the policies that protect their fortunes.

We are, these days, closer to a free market in media ownership than humanity has ever been. It’s possible to set up a media outlet - a YouTube channel, a Substack, a blog - for less than the price of a hamburger meal with fries. Capital, that is, does not in fact come into it. Mere simple centrists like ourselves are able to speak unto the nation, there’s a vast frothing nonsense on the right - as there always is - and that equal vast frothing nonsense on the left - as there always is. Why, even George Monbiot gets published.

Now think of how it would be without freedom of media ownership. If there was a system that said that only these, these righteous, were allowed to publish or speak words to the public. We would not have a free market in information and ideas now, would we? For only those with the ideas approved of by those running the permission system would be allowed to have a media position from which to do so. The denial of freedom of entry would mean a denial of the freedom of information.

As happened everywhen and everywhere that there was a restriction upon who may set themselves up as a media outlet.

Think on it for a moment. We do have that free market in media ownership. Monbiot gets published. Thus we have, despite the claim, a free market in ideas and information.

What George is really complaining about is that not everyone agrees with what he insists are obvious truths and thus some reason must be found, some conspiracy, some structural failure, to make it so. But maybe it really just is that not everyone agrees with George?

Tim Worstall