Hello.

I believe that certain mass media, like TV networks, radio stations, newspapers should be nationalied.

My reasoing is thus: these institutions are made available through advancement in technology. For example, the invention of television makes possible the eventual TV networks. Advancement in technology is in the public domain. Since it lies in the public domain, its derivatives (TV networks, radio stations, newspapers..etc) should be the intellectual properties of the mass. Given that, the ownership of mass media should be in the hands of the people.

Do you agree?

No.

The last thing we need to do is make government even more powerful. You want the government to be in control of the services through which people get their information? For some reason, I get the feeling that would be a very bad idea

Explain how technology is in the "public domain". If it is, why don't we nationalize everything? I'm being sarcastic here of course, but somehow I get the feeling you'd agree with that.

Absolutely not.

Media should be as open as possible, whoever wants it should be able to use it.

That's how this "free speech" nonsense works.

Are you a troll or just some kind of proto-facist?

Yeah, that's a great idea. China's never been better!

I guess I should have clarified that when I said nationalization, I meant the state of being owned and operated by the people, not by the government.

But in the current state, are our media truly open? TV networks and radio stations are owned by big corporations. They subtly dictate what does and doesn't go on air. For example, you never hear anti-globalization arguments in major media outlets. Nor politically incorrect ideas. Everywhere you turn, there is strong consumerist sentiment being promoted, which only makes sense, because corporates want people to spend money, so they can get richer. Through the careful hiring of writers of certain ideological leanings, corporations indirectly shape our thoughts and opinions.

It is time that media be taken back from the rich and powerful, and given back to the people.

That's why you have to scrutinize everything, cross-reference and verify anything you want to believe.

Yeah, it's work, but go figure, that's humanity. No free lunches.

I say irrelevant. The internet is beating the shit out of the conventional media and corporations don't have much control there.

Who defines who "the people" are?

Rich people are people too...

or by "the people" do you mean The "People"™ i.e. the state

The only real way to deal with the obstruction of free speech is to impose antitrust laws that prevent monopolies on media (which probably already exist in most countries) and otherwise completely deregulate content (no "indeceny" laws, and zero censorship).

It's not 100% in the hands of "the people", but it's a middle path that keeps the public from losing because it prevents both the government and corporate powers from winning.

Its the government or whoever owns it(rich people). Thats your choices.
I would prefer it to be private. And seeing as these types of things depend on the interest of THE people. The most influential ones should (notice I said should) serve the people.