Should the media be an advocate for democracy?

I think they should. No such thing as two sides of whether democracy should be legitimate.
From a column in today's newspaper:

When authoritarians take over one party but not the other, pursuing “balance” is a gift to antidemocratic forces. And when democracy itself is under attack, horse race coverage — between those attacking democracy and those defending it — becomes indefensible.

U.S. media needs to start championing an unapologetic pro-democracy bias, before it’s too late. Some journalistic biases are corrosive. But it will never be a mistake for reporters to side with democracy and the truth, even if that means condemning authoritarians and liars from one party far more often than another. When reality is asymmetric, balanced reporting is deception.

Opinion | Why the media should have a pro-democracy bias - The Washington Post

 

Does democracy has a future?:

A new survey provides little comfort about democracy’s future

A new survey from Bright Line Watch, an organization that monitors democratic practices, provides some interesting insights but little solace about 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.
Opinion | Bright Line Watch survey points to dangerous anti-democratic trends on the right - The Washington Post

 

The media depends on Democracy to ensure its very existence. It should be no surprise that the first institution that is attacked by those trying to impose a dictatorship is the media. Especially media that has shown a commitment to being as close to the facts as possible. Being biased towards facts is not in the best interest of wannabe dictators. So the media is constantly attacked for it.

 

Until media restores it's ethics and advocate truth, they have no real credibility. It is the fault of those who own and regulate them. Publishers of 100 years ago took fierce pride in the integrity of their reporting, and while deviant sources did and will always exist- the respectable media was always the advocate for truth and justice.

The journalistic ethic is basically dead today- and everyone suffers as a result.

 

Okay, so lets talk about truth in journalism. Has Fox covered and criticized any members of the GOP who are now taking credit for the Relief Bill? Gosar, for example, called the American Rescue Plan "one of the worst pieces of legislation I've seen pass here in the time I've been in the Senate." Yet, yesterday, he released the following statement: "I am pleased to announce that the City of Kingman will receive this critical funding for economic relief related to operational costs for cleaning and sanitizing the Kingman Airport to combat the spread of COVID-19. This funding is essential to maintaining safe and reliable air service to the community." The money came from the Bill he called a Trojan Horse for Socialism.

 

Yep, media first then the courts. The rest is really easy after that.

 

Are we talking about American democracy as limited by a rule of law or are we talking about total democracy where anything the voters want is law?

I just want to be certain before engaging in the discussion that we're all talking about the same 'democracy'.

 

You are as big an idealist on this topic as I've met. Yes, the media should express a bias towards democracy, but Walter Cronkite and the journalists of his age and persuasion are long gone. In their place are the lackeys we've had since Operation Mockingbird started.

A rhetorical question: if democracy could be defined as the people controlling their government, does democracy actually exist, or is it an illusion?

 

I think republicans do indeed accept election results and peaceful transfer of power. But any person of any persuasion other than criminal knows that is predicated on the electoral process being legitimate and honest.
WHY does the left fear and fight thorough examination of the results of the most questionable, most conflicted election in history? Because they have a lot to hide. The same were true if the parties involved in these behavior were reversed- and I would stand for the complete and honest investigation of such an election either way.

 

The media should report facts.

 

Should the media be an advocate for democracy?

It shouldn't be an advocate for anything. It should report meaningful, confirmed facts. It is the one thing it doesn't seem to want to do.

 

It shouldn't be an advocate for anything. It should report meaningful, confirmed facts. It is the one thing it doesn't seem to want to do.[/QUOTE]

What is meaningful? What is confirmed?

 

Fact of someone saying the GOP is pro-democracy? Who fact checks?

 

If a journalist interviews someone saying the Capitol attack was a tour and peaceful, should they report that?

 

each media corporation is free to advocate any form of government they want.

if they wany (as so many of them do) a 1 party trumpist oligarchy they really should spell that out to their consumers, but there is no obligation for them to say so.

 

There was no fraud. Sorry, up is not down. Saying something does not make it true. Trump lost all his election challenges.

 

I remember the cable news shows--CNN, MSNBC--were afraid to call Trump a liar during his campaign. Well, they would say, I can tell you Trump believed it.....

 

That would be an opinion.

 

I'd like to expand that, and say- all the facts. You can tell half the truth and produce a lie, and that is a common tactic.

 

That's the point, isn't it. If a Republican congressman says the Capitol attack was peaceful, do they have to report it? It's a lie, why repeat a lie.

 

Given that the vast bulk of 'the media' is owned by just 4 corporations (that are probably all run via interlocking directorate by the same small group of wealthy elites) I think the more pertinant question is whether it can be trusted to do anything but push an agenda of further enriching the power and wealth of the elites that own it.

And Im not advocating for restrictions on the free speech of private companies here- they can push whatever agenda they want in the free marketplace of ideas. This is a question of trust, and I for one dont trust a single word they say.

 

People controlling their government is a Republic

American or Constitutional Democracy, of course. Total Democracy was seen as unworkable in governments of any size since the times of its first well-known inception in Ancient Athens

Constitutional Democracy is actually a Republic. The American Constitution is the first Document I know of creating a Republic which is supposedly "Democratically" (that is, of the people) based. Republics had existed before then but most were actually oligarchies. Indeed, early America was really an oligarchy with a large slave population and a very limited franchise. Universal male suffrage was not even an ideal until the time of Jackson.

 

I never understood the idea of merely trusting what the media says. I was taught critical thinking in high school and never looked back.

 

Right. No nation has ever advocated or aspired to pure democracy. So it's kind of a fraud to pretend we need to fight against such dangers.