[ksaxena]

The problem with this line of thinking is the power that media companies have. Media companies have immense power to alter political discourse to fit the narratives they prefer. Which gives immense political power to the owners of media companies, like Rupert Murdoch. Sometimes, enough power to "choose" senators, congresspeople, and even presidents. And this power doesn't have competition unless you allow all other companies to fight for their narratives with money.

What you have at the end is a stinking cesspool, but this cesspool is still better than your country's politicians pledging allegiance to the equivalents of Rupert Murdoch. This is exactly like Churchill's characterization of Democracy - horrible system but better than any other alternative.

[badrabbit]

You can't make that argument now with the internet where individuals can and do (see HN or reddit front page) reach a wide audience that can compete with the media. But even with old media, individuals are given a platform from opinion pieces to interviewing regular people. But mixing of journalism and entertainment type opinion shows (most of fox and msnbc for example) is not a good thing for democracy.