The other advantage is that while libs don’t always support private property rights, they hate “big pharma.”
They also like to think that they hate monopoly (notwithstanding that their “logic” leads to government monopoly). My pet peeve - everyone’s pet peeve, actually - is “bias in the media,” but in general that topic is radioactive for a paper to be graded by a lib. But I had an extreme lib uncle (RIP since about 2 years), and I was able to throw him seriously off balance by demonstrating that the Associated Press is a monopoly (and was very aggressively so in the second half of the Nineteenth Century).That was only a personal discussion, not a formal paper, but to the extent that you believe in the prof’s good intentions, you would have a chance to make him seriously think. The AP even was, according to a now-defunct web site, found by SCOTUS to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1945. And the rationale for the AP (and any other wire service) is that it was the only way to economically transmit the news in the years after the telegraph was first commercialized (in the middle of the Nineteenth Century). But now, of course, every Tom, Dick, and Harriet has Internet access, and can use as much bandwidth as the whole AP did in 1900, without a moment's thought.
So the question you could discuss is the extent to which alarums which were raised in the Nineteenth Century over the obvious concentration of public influence which the AP already represented in those (relatively) early days, and Adam Smith’s warning:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nationsmay still be relevant in an era when it is acknowledged by all that the AP did in fact attempt to promote objectivity in reporting (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3179318/posts), at least initially.My own position is that it is always arrogant to take for granted your possession of a virtue - and that by assuming that they are objective, journalists routinely excuse themselves from the arduous work of self examination which is the only way to even attempt to be objective. IMHO journalists - like everyone else - desire to be influential, and that the nature of journalism casts aspersions on the people who arguably could have prevented whatever calamity journalism is currently reporting. Consequently journalism naturally criticizes Theodore Roosevelt’s “Man in the Arena,” and suggests paper-tiger, utopian (government) solutions to all problems. Such nostrums never actually have to work, because their only real purpose is to make journalists promoting them seem superior to the responsible people who, their expertise and dedication to solving such problems notwithstanding, did not prevent the problem which the utopian “solution” putatively addresses.
The result of the wire services (it doesn’t actually matter to my analysis that the AP is monopolistic among wire services) is a continual “meeting together” of journalists, and their arrival at a consensus (“conspiracy against the public”) that slanting the news in favor of their own importance represents “objectivity.” The political result is that politicians whose only desire is to go along and get along naturally associate themselves with journalism’s favored slant - and are rewarded by journalists with positive labels such as “progressive,” “liberal,” or “moderate," while their opponents are tarred with bad PR and negative labels such as “conservative” or “right wing” or “extreme.”