The government won't be able to silence a true message that doesn't "hijack mass media" and spreads by 1-to-1000 at a time.
Do you realize that at one point you yourself could be in a position where you disagree with your government and you want to speak up only to find your message being silenced constantly?
Either all people are equal or they are not, some people can not be more equal than others.
When you let mass media be used by ISIS and others in the name of free speech, you're giving them a free way to do super-untargeted advertising to their new recruits.
People can choose what to hear. It's not random, It's the complete opposite of random.
Anyway you haven't addressed the downsides I posted. All you do is ignore them in favor of the upsides. I could be an anarcho capitalist and insist on the unlimited right to property, also. Saying it's a moral right and ignoring any downsides.
The mass media has a responsibility all right, but not the one you think they do.
And what do you think their responsibility actually is? I thought they had rights to say whatever they want and responsibility is optional...
And I think their responsibility is the conditions under which they were given broadcast licenses in the first place. Something about serving the public good.
I don't agree with that statement at any level! Those 1 million people have absolute freedom to listen or to not listen. This puts you in the position of telling people they can't hear something they want to hear.
As a bonus, those standards you mention can easily become a cudgel against people the government wants to implicitly or explicitly silence.