Agreed.
Most people who make such criticisms often fail to respect that it is the nature of market capitalism to give people what they want, and also require that consumers are more active in their decisions, or their apathy will be taken advantage of.
Using the state to control peoples economic behavior and choice almost always fails, makes things worse or leads to corruption and a perversion of democracy. It is also an insult to the freedom and intelligence of the great majority of the population.
That's why a press regulator is either going to be unworkable or authoritarian. You just watch if it goes ahead, the next minister to put their hand in the till or shag their secretary will use the state control of the media to suppress freedom of expression.
And anyway, when are the Parties going to realize that Murdoch's papers
support the people who are going to win anyway, and not that their support swings people. I believe firmly that the Labour would have still lost in 1992 and 2010 even if the Sun had supported Labour. It isn't the "Sun What Wins It", and Blair still would have won in 1997 without the Sun.
(Glucose-Maximus All over the world., Mon 2 Jan 2012, 22:13, 1 reply)

I agree largely,
But I would argue that market capitalism has long since evolved past that point. It used to be "give the people what they want", but I would argue these days it's "tell the people what they want, and then give it to them".

Read up on "the torches of freedom" for a pretty good example of that. Edward Bernays, the father of modern advertising, basically created a social movement from scratch in order to sell more cigarettes. And it worked, of course.
( PMGT -Bacon., Tue 3 Jan 2012, 1:43, closed)