Should the media be an advocate for democracy?

False.

 

Mayor Blake of Baltimore


https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/b...r-fire-giving-space-destroy-baltimore-n349656

 

Chop or what ever the called it in Seattle, burning down police stations, attacking federal court houses. Nightly riots in Portland for nearly 6 months, hundreds of cops injured. That enough or you want more?_

 

Just asking for one piece of evidence they were trying to overthrow the US government.

 

Should facts ever include specific references to the Supreme Law Of The Land?

 

Journalists have ALREADY reported that, and shown video evidence of that fact. Did you miss it?

 

I don't understand the question. Please be more specific. Thank you.

 

We agree that the media should report facts.

Should it also report facts that include the violation of the Constitution by governmental or corporate entities?

For example, if a reading of Article II of the US Constitution shows that POTUS has no lawful power to order any citizen to take certain drugs, should that fact also be reported to the public?

 

That's somewhat of a loaded question that to answer correctly would require specific context. The media generally should not be in the business of taking a position on the news, only reporting it.

 

So then the media should avoid reporting it when the government violates the Constitution? Remain quiet and tell nobody?

 

That's not what I'm saying. Your assertion assumes a news reporter is an expert in thousands of topics, constitutional law among them. A good reporter would find actual experts - say a couple of Justices - who could speak authoritively on the record on the topic. That said, there are hundreds of facts adjacent to any issue you can think of, and it is here where the media needs to do a better job at repiorting if it wishes to regain the public's trust.

That said, media is a business. Its ovjective is necessarily to make a profit. like any other business. Public trust may not be a top priority.

 

Don't know about you, but I've read the US Constitution many times over the years. I actually took an oath to protect and defend it from enemies both foreign and domestic, back in 1969.

You would be surprised at how simple it is, its language and grammar from 1787 notwithstanding.

The point is, that any person able to read, speak and understand the English language is able to understand its meaning, if only he takes the time to examine the document. Any journalist worth his salt should be able to do that, or any citizen. Maybe I expect way too much.

After reading Article II which empowers POTUS, and person who reads, speaks and understands English will discover that POTUS has no such authority, to require citizens to subject themselves to dangerous experimental drugs. It just ain't there. No need to interview an "expert" about what the document says and means, at least for me.

Maybe I'm too idealistic, but it seems that the government violating the founding document would be a newsworthy story.

 

So you confirm that a right-winger would consider "good journalism" something that is not objective journalism.

Completely expected. And it explains why pseudo-journalism like Fox or Breitbart is so popular to the left.

 

I have no idea who Bob Smith is or what he likes. But claiming that a news outlet is "factual" because they just happened to get something right (if they did get it right) is beyond absurd. I'm not talking about "being right". I'm talking about due diligence. Very few Fox journalists (or from other of the right-wingnut media) do that. Not doing due diligence will get you in hot water in any serious news outlet. Which you most likely never listen to anyway.

 

I would call three cable news shows (msnbc, cnn, fox) political commentary with some news items. It is shocking to me that many people think the news is just what TV present.

 

I'm not talking about democracy. I'm talking about journalism. But I have no idea what respecting science has to do with democracy. Democracy is not just about respecting "rights". It goes way beyond that. But there is one right that a dictator/king would not respect. Which is the right to elect who governs us.

 

What the hell do you want to repeat that for? Of course we have a Republic! We are a Republic BECAUSE we don't have a monarch and, therefore, we don't have a monarchy.

But if you are going to repeat that nonsense about us not being a Democracy "because we are a Republic"... save it! That was nonsense pushed by ignorant pseudo-journalists like Hannity, Tucker and... others. And it has been amply debunked in this forum more times than the nonsense is even worth addressing.

 

A republic is a forum of democracy. I think I learned that in third grade.

 

I disagree. The news that MSNBC and CNN comment on has undergone some basic vetting. Which sometimes is insufficient, but there is some concern for facts. Most Fox hosts (maybe almost all, now that Chris Wallace is gone) just report what they hear without the minimum due diligence to verify if there is some truth to it. In fact, they have very little interest in whether or not what they report is real. What they seek is for others to repeat it. They feel that, if others repeat it, it BECOMES real (as per their "Goebbels Principle")

MSNBC and CNN are corporate media. As such, they are biased towards the interest of their stockholders. And, in spite of due diligence, they are often wrong. But there is an ocean of difference between them and right wingnut media like Fox, Breitbart... and others in that category.

 

media should simply report

who
what
where
when

they should not omit any details and only report facts

now, the reality that we live in the USA is the media is an advocate for Democrats, not democracy

 

Not exactly. A Republic is simply a nation that is not ruled by a monarch. There are democratic Republics (like U.S., France, Israel,....), and there are non-democratic Republics (China, North Korea, Cuba...). There are also democratic Monarchies (UK, Canada, Netherlands,...) and non-democratic Monarchies (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman,...)

 

That is not the only reason we are a republic.

I did some research. The Federalist Papers mentions “republic/republican” 205 times, all favorably. It mentions “democracy” 28 times, all in negative contexts. It does not mention “democratic republic” or “representative democracy.” The word “democratic” is mentioned six times: Once in a neutral context and five times in negative contexts.

“Democracy,” or any derivative thereof, is not mentioned in the Constitution, its Bill of Rights, or any of its other 17 Amendments. In fact, “Democracy,” or any derivative thereof, is not mentioned in any of our founding documents or The Declaration of Independence.

As we all know, the people do not elect the president. We recommend to the Electoral College members whom to vote for. I say "recommend" because though members of the EC are sworn to follow the popular vote, they are not required to do so. And even then, I believe the House and/or the vice president can negate the outcome.



What the Founders Thought About Democracy - EPautos - Libertarian Car Talk (ericpetersautos.com)

Consider the words of the Founding Fathers themselves, who — one after another — condemned democracy. V

• Virginia’s Edmund Randolph participated in the 1787 convention. Demonstrating a clear grasp of democracy’s inherent dangers, he reminded his colleagues during the early weeks of the Constitutional Convention that the purpose for which they had gathered was “to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and trials of democracy….”

• John Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, championed the new Constitution in his state precisely because it would not create a democracy. “Democracy never lasts long,” he noted. “It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.” He insisted, “There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’”


Section 1 - The Legislature

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

As you can see, the Founders did all they could to show we are not a democracy and to prevent the interpretation that we are. It is a common misunderstanding that the public schools have likely taught for some time.

You always say that you thoroughly research before posting. Please read what I include here and do some more research, and please go to the links I include and read further.

Thanks.

 

See: Example.

Quoting somebody verbatim is due diligence, providing the quote is correct.

Very few journalists of from most commercial for-profit networks do that. Their objective is to make a profit for the shareholders. Truth and accuracy are secondary, perhaps even tertiary to that objective.

That is correct. CNN learned a very expensive lesson wrt Nicholas Sandman, didn't they? Looks like NBC is about to learn the same lesson. Now what is it you were saying about "due diligence" ? LOL.

Fallacy, argumentum ad hominem. I am not the topic of this thread. A factual rebuttal addressing the topic would better support your "argument."

 

Names are pretty meaningless. Why I never debate people obsessing on calling our nation a republic.