In the world of economics, less government regulation has been the preferred way for governments to go in order to lower prices and stimulate economic activity since the 1980s.

This theory follows the ideas Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, who believed the less government regulation the better and that by just letting the economy work itself, the competition between different businesses would stave off the major problems of stagflation that the economy had been seeing post-Vietnam.

And while deregulation of the economy has for the most part worked since the Reagan years, the question is: Does it work for free speech too?

Earlier this year U.S. courts struck down a Federal Communications Commission rule that prevented a company from owning a television and cable station in the same market. This ruling opens the door for many of the current big media companies, such as AOL/Time Warner, Viacom and Disney, to buy up more of the local network affiliates across the country. Many worry that the ruling will decrease the diversity of information available to the general public.

In addition to striking down the above rule, the courts also asked the FCC to explain why it bars companies from owning media outlets that when added together reach more than 35 percent of U.S. households.

A third regulation, that a company cannot own a newspaper and television station in the same market, is also under review.

The purpose of having free markets is to allow competition to bring prices down and in the end having the product or company that appeals to the majority of the public to be the most successful.

And as new and better products are invented those will slowly become the dominant players in the market. It’s the simple laws of supply and demand.

The same can go for the media. Some will say the entire media has a liberal bias, others that it has a conservative bias. But the truth is media have a good mix of both views. For example, we’ve got Fox News and The New York Times — two media organizations on totally different sides of the political spectrum who both thrive in today’s media economy.

Many argue the reason media should be held to different standards is the need to keep the minority viewpoint out there and to make sure it is not shut out. It’s not like an inferior product that shouldn’t be produced if it’s not making money. Minority viewpoints allow for debate, and the policy of keeping them in day-to-day conversation is the cornerstone of a democracy.

Keeping a diverse number of viewpoints is absolutely necessary to keep alive the philosophies of the First Amendment. Having to debate someone with a different viewpoint makes people’s opinions stronger and provides for a better outcome in the end.

Yet, deregulating some media is not as terrible as many think it is. The most-recent court ruling of ending regulation on owning a television station and cable station in the same market can do good things.

Combining resources will provide many lackluster local stations with money and people to improve their local newscasts, as well as provide more money to fight off lawsuits, which means more media outlets can take bigger risks in reporting the bigger, more investigative stories. This improvement in local news coverage will force the other local media to improve, and ultimately, the overall quality of the news will increase — all due to the increased competition.

In addition, while many hate to think about it, the media are players in the economy just as much as anybody else, which means making money is necessary in order to keep reporting the news. As Michael Gartner, a former president of NBC News, wrote in USA Today, “You can’t be journalistically vigorous if you aren’t economically strong.”

Increased circulation and viewership should be seen as a goal, an accomplishment for media outlets — not seen as strictly a bottom line for the owners. After all, the higher the number of readers or viewers, the more people are getting the news — that’s a good thing that needs money to help make happen.

However, our economy is not totally free of government regulation, as some regulation is necessary to make sure everyone plays by the rules, and the media are no different. While the reduction of ownership rules is a good thing that can allow the typical laws of supply and demand to dictate the media, some regulations, such as the rule that no one company may reach more than 35 percent of U.S. households, should be kept in place.

Monopolies are not allowed in any other business, and to have any one company have a monopoly on the information given to the public would be disastrous. A diversity of views needs to be protected, and this regulation would be sufficient to protect that. The other regulations regarding ownership should be removed, and the media should be allowed to follow the same economic rules as everyone else.

Free speech and the First Amendment absolutely need to be protected to make sure our government is making the right choices, people know all sides of every story and people are allowed to choose for themselves what courses of action are the best. Some regulation is necessary, yes, but the current deregulation of FCC rules will not jeopardize the diversity of information we receive; rather, it can allow for increased competition which can ultimately improve the news the public receives.

Katie Harbath ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in journalism and political science.