Should the media be an advocate for democracy?

They shouldn't *have* to be, but I'd definitely prefer if they were. Especially now that the GOP is an explicitly anti-democratic party.

 

Seems to me the Democrats don't care too much for democracy, either.

They pulled the "unfaithful elector" ploy trying to convince electors to not vte for the candidate they were pledged to. More recently they advocated packing the Supreme Court.

The Democrats are not Boy Scouts. They will play as dirty as they can get away with, and then some.

Democracy is going to fail because there are very few persons of good will. We have become a nation of partisan hacks who are maneuvering to force their vision on the nation.

 

All you have to do is tell yourself that and truth changes? How convenient.
Biden spent more time in his basement than on the road. Biden could only draw handful crowds even in city venues- Trump drew crowds of tens of thousands even in the country.
All the historical data says the election results do not fit the results of Biden winning under the existing conditions.
So many things wrong here that it stinks like a truckload of dead fish in the summer sun.... and you're nose-blind?

But nobody say anything? When you see the magician make a card disappear, do you really believe it was genuine magic? Hell no- while you may not know how it was done, you damn sure know it wasn't magic. But that is the hogwash the dems have been trying to sell- that despite the known parameters of history, despite the endless shenanigans and the resistance to investigation, Biden's win was honest magic? The whole thing is an obvious fraud- and you are one of those supporting the gas-lighting of the people actually insisting on an honest election.

THAT is trying to invert the scales of justice. Makes you proud to be part of that?
This circus- will not and can not go on forever. Either it will collapse of it's own critical flaws, or we will be forced to destroy it, or- the nation will cease to exist as a free country.

 

Adding new seats to the SC is not anti-democratic. Faithless electors are the closest you've got, it was never a serious effort, and the GOP has gone MILES BEYOND just faithless electors.

 

The Constitution does not state the number of Supreme Court members.

 

So the opinion of the left can't be a lie....
The worst lies are those you use to deceive yourself.

 

Agree.

 

Nothing I said implied that.

 

No, I think you implied that whatever you didn't believe was a lie, thus ineligible to be reported otherwise..

 

No. Please cite something I wrote that substantiates your accusation.

 

sad that republicans define democracy as "mob rule" and send their own militia mobs out to burn our cities.

 

GOP sent a mob to kill cops in the Capitol and take over our government by force.

 

Yes. I assumed it was implied. But you are correct, of course.

 

Let me help you clear up the confusion: Reporting the opinion of a person accurately would constiture reporting a fact. Agreeing or disagreeing with the person would be an opinion. An omission because the reporter thought the quote was a lie as you suggest would also constitute an opinion on the reporter's part.

A bona fide reporter would try to gather all the facts of the issue upon which he or she is reporting and lay them out accurately. If part of that factual matrix includes a statement from a person, a bona fide reporter would also try to find a person who might necessarily have a differing experience.

A good example is recently President Biden attributed the devastating Kentucky tornado outbreak to "global warming." However, there is no evidence to support his claim. He was giving an opinion but stating it as a fact. A bona fide reporter would have found a couple of climatologists who could discuss the president's claims authoritatively and back up their assertions with data.

Was the media wrong to broadcast the president's lie?

 

Sure. Packing the Supreme Court is a constitutional way to subvert democracy. The VP not certifying the EC is another.

 

Yes. Most people do not put forth the effort to sift through the BS and seek objective truth.

 

Of course they should. The people ought to be informed of what their elected representatives are saying,

 

The opinion of a Congressman that the Capitol was peaceful is demonstrably false. It is a fact that nazis believe white people are superior, but why report that?

 

It is propaganda. How Trump came into office. He outsmarted the passive media.

 

Because it is the job of a journalist to simply present the facts. The journalist becomes an editorialist by deciding which facts to report and which to omit.

 

I think deciding on the facts is standard journalism.

 

No, that's called editorialism. They certainly try to pass it off as "journalism," however.

 

"Bob Smith likes genocide." Why report it?

Further: "Bob Smith thinks both sides of the genocide issue should be taught in schools." Why?

 

Because it is a fact that Bob Smith likes genocide.

"President Biden thinks the Kentucky tornadoes were caused by global warming." Why report it?

Because it is a fact that President Biden thinks the tornadoes were caused by global warming.

 

First, shouldn't the people know that their representatives engage in propaganda?

Second, Trump came into power because he identified a constituency unhappy with the status quo. It hardly seems democratic to supress information about a tial candidate.