Should the media be an advocate for democracy?

I see. The story should continue, "And no climate science denier has ever presented empirical evidence to prove their uninformed opinion."

 

We’ve never done particularly well at the outset of new technology and that is the media problem we have today. We have outlets competing under vastly different rules or you can say we’ve created a race to the bottom. All media should be under the same regulatory structure.

My goodness look at what gets attached as credible news on this board: predominately garbage.

If these outlets had to compete on a level regulatory playing field a lot of the trash littering the media landscape would be cleaned up.

 

Only recently have some cable news shows admitted that they were cowardly in pretending Trump was not lying.

 

Only if you ignore the fact that they weren't voting FOR Biden but AGAINST trump.

 

And makes another point. I hate when some respectable media outlets discuss garbage stories and say, well it is out there so we have to discuss it. No you don't.

 

It's impossible for the media to advocate for democracy for several reasons. Some of those reasons are...

1. Sponsors (the people that by the advertising/commercial space) have an impact on what is reported.

2. Media outlets are in the business of making money so the only goal is to keep people watching.

3. Lately, there have been many complaints about "cancel culture" but that isn't new. It's just more evident.

4. America is a melting pot of people from all over the world. Therefore, the term "democracy" means different things to different people. What "democracy" do you suggest we use if the media ever considered advocating for it?

5. Generally speaking, people like to hear their own thoughts from others. It gives a sense of solidarity. This is why people jump on bandwagons. We are pack animals and we want to know others in the pack are on our side. Therefore, people will gravitate toward the media sources they believe most align with their perspective and opinions about the world around them.

Personally, I don't watch television. I've never found it interesting to watch other people live their lives instead of just living my own. I also don't have a strong attention span for sitcoms because I don't find it funny when people have to put down someone else to garner laughter. I hate the news (any of it) because it's too negative. It boggles my mind why we are inundated with negativity all day long, day after day, and then people wonder why they are so depressed or afraid of the Boogeyman said to be around every corner.

Nevertheless, when I did watch television, I never really got into just picking the channels or programs that align with my viewpoint on a particular issue. Even before everyone had cell phones and the internet, I watched all sides and even went to the library to research on <whatever> topic to consider all sides. I tend to be fair toward people that I don't agree with and I'm willing to try to understand their position and why they hold it. I was actually amazed when I started moving away from Christianity because I started to ask questions of other Christians and they didn't make sense to me. In fact, a large percentage of them told me that they chose their religious beliefs because their parent(s) is/are religious. They just never questioned the idea there were other religions and denominations. And, I'm finding that to be true for political alignment as well. Most want to fit in so they do and say the things that allow them to feel "safe" and part of something. Basic psychology.

 

Your red herring notwithstanding, that would turn a news report into an editorial.

To keep it factual, an actual reporter could say "Mr. Biden provided no factual evidence to support his claim." A fact. Or could even be a real actual reporter and state, "Dr. Kenneth Barger, distinguished fellow of the American Congress of Meteoroligists and Climatology said Mr. Biden's claims are unsuppprtable by the current science." Then "Bob Smith, who is a member of EarthFirst and likes genocide said that Dr. Kenneth Barger is a big fat doody-head."

Beginning to understand how actual journalism differs from the hyperbolic windmill-tilting and pearl clutching that passes for "journalism" ??

 

No it doesn't .. Plenty of Media in China .. some of it is even good .

Indeed .. the Blue Clownshow has their authoritarian talons out ... Cancel Culture, Censor this . and that, Punishment for thought sin. and various other sins ..

"Biased towards the Facts" - Nail on the head there mate ... unbelievable how much CNN and MSNBC - engage in false narrative - sin of omission - promulgating State Propaganda ..

No such thing as a funtional democratic process without fair and free media -- freedom of information and speech - something Blue is deperately trying to control and quell .. How is Assange doing these days BTW ? Political Prisoner - Mass violation of the Rule of Law. .. See Joe is working hard on that one .. trying to punish this fellow as much as possible for undesirable speech ..

 

Yes, you turned the topic into a debate on Climate Science.

 

LOL. Cute.

 

People do compliment my looks, thank you.

 

Back on topic, the task of a journalist is to gather the facts and present them to the viewer or reader, not to decide which ones are "true" or "false." That is actually your job as a consumer of news.

 

Interesting. But the question here is "Shouled the news media become propaganda organs"

 

Could you please point me to a webpage mentioning Chinese media reporting objectively on things like the Hong Kong protests?

Those have been huge deal in China more than anywhere else. So I'm sure that, if there is, as you say "good" media, the events have been reported almost non-stop. Not doing so would be as if the U.S. media hadn't reported on Trump's failed insurrection. Or had only reported it as a small note to be continued on page 3B.

I'm not talking about "sin of omission". I'm talking about government control of the press.

 

Agree.

In the case of Trump, most of what he said in the campaign was propaganda.

 

What utter nonsense! You are describing pseudo-journalists, like the ones that are so common on Fox. The job of a REAL journalist is to perform their due diligence and verify that there is reasonable evidence that what they report is factual.

I don't expect Fox (and other wingnut media) consumers to understand how REAL journalism works. But... now you know.

 

Who said anyting about objective reporting on HK protests ? desperately trying to move the goalposts and we have barely started....You claimed one needed Democracy for media to exist .. you didn't say anything about fair and free media . .. but on that note .. since you brought it up .. please point to me a webpage monitoring US Blue media reporting objectively on things like - Covid ..
.

The above follows on the above fallacious insinuation that I said anything about China's media being fair or free.... Just because there are certain things that cannot be fairly reported on in China .. anything critical of the Gov't is not tolerated .. doesn't mean China can not cover other things accurately.

amazing to have to write two paragraphs to help you figure out this simple reality.

.. does not Gov't control of the press include a whole lot of 'Sin of Omission"

Contrats though on contradicting yourself in back to back sentences.

 

The only media who do not want democracy do not support and encourage it.

 

They should report facts, not advocate for a particular ideology or system. Biggest problem is that the definition of "democracy" has been bastardized beyond all recognition by those who believe in top-down government, e.g. authoritarian/socialist dogma. Recently I've rarely seen a public figure, claiming to support democracy, while not arguing for more government control.

Democracy, as encompassed in our system, is suppose limited government intervention and maximum freedom for people to control their own lives.

 

Stating that Bob Smith likes genocide as the example above offered by our colleague would be factual. Stating the President Biden was unable to factually substantiate his claims that global warming was responsible for the Kentucky tornadoes would be factual.

Red herring. Your opinion of Fox viewers is irrelevant and off-topic. Please try to stay on topic.

Fallacy. Argumentum ad hominem. I am not the topic of this thread. A factual rebuttal addressing the topic would better support yoir argument. Now you know.

 

Democracy means rule by the people. I take that to mean the best for the most.

 

I'd say this covers it. You want to believe that the circus acts of the last election should not be perceived as probable cause for fraud.... so people doing so are obviously lying. You dismiss all concerns and other opinions in one stroke, endorsing this. Probable cause to believe fraud took place is vastly greater than probable cause that it did not. You don't have to catch the skunk to know he's been in the barn, do you?

Republicans’ commitment to democracy. They might say they support democratic principles (e.g., “All adult citizens enjoy the same legal and political rights”), but they fail to embrace the most fundamental democratic principle: acceptance of election results and the peaceful transfer of power.

 

I think it's more nuanced. What's good about democracy is it has a "higher floor" in terms of dysfunction because if most people think their interests are not being promoted by the government, democracy is at least potentially self-correcting.

But that doesn't mean no better system exists. A better system would respect science and evidence more than the average person, and incorporate it into policy better than the average charisma-based politician. Rights can be respected or disrespected regardless of whether the leader is elected by average people or a king.

So yeah, I'd rather see a constitutional technocratic system with a firm set of rights and respect for evidence-based policy. That said, the assault on American democracy today is by a coalition of theocratic and plutocratic idiots who think they believe in freedom. And so in that context I'd defend democracy.

 

That's true. Which is why we are fortunate enough to live under a republic, where rules of governance are theoretically in place to temper the less admirable urges of the people. Democracy must be more that two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

 

First sentence is correct, mostly; second is not. And, the reason the Founding Fathers avoided a pure democracy. They were afraid of mob rule and flash mobocracy. "best for the most" is a slick mantra but a weak governing principle.