7 ms·

> ... can a democracy with no independent, local press be considered a democracy still? Expanding this question: can a country where the government lies to its

> ... can a democracy with no independent, local press be considered a democracy still? Expanding this question: can a country where the government lies to its citizens, and withholds information from the press, and actively seeks to discredit news sources critical of it be considered a democracy? If citizens cannot be informed they cannot make rational, democratic decisions.

rocqua 6y ago
Such a country can be considered a democracy, as long as the government isn't too successful in suppressing information and the press. Especially if, in the end, the citizens vote that government out of power.
phkahler 6y ago
The press needs to behave too. They need to report, not sensationalize. They need to be objective, not politically active. And when given the opportunity to sit before a president addressing a global crisis, and then granted the opportunity to ask questions they should not inject their bias and call him a racist. When subsequently shut down "you're a terrible reporter" the rest of the press should not claim they are being attacked. It all boils down to defining the roles (on all sides) and then doing that job. It's when government, press, companies, or individuals make light of their responsibility that things fall appart.
- shuntress 6y ago
  "The press needs to behave too. They need to report, not sensationalize. They need to be objective, not politically active." This is not accurate. The free press has the freedom to report however they want. That is the whole point of the free press.
  - regularfry 6y ago
    How a free press operate and what the people need are not necessarily aligned. The populace needs the sum total of the free press to result in something approximating objectivity. If that's not happening, the people aren't being served by the concept of a free press. If all you've got is two sensationalising ends and nothing in the middle, it's very difficult to tell what's going on. Worse, if you've got one broadly accurate and reliable wing opposed by a group who will intentionally exaggerate, lie, and demonise, and the public think the truth is actually somewhere in the middle, the latter group win. What's not clear or easy is how you might go about cleaning up such a situation.
    - growse 6y ago
      If the people's needs aren't being served by the existing media, part of the 'free' bit of 'free press' is the fact that anyone can be a journalist. They can research, write and publish stories to fill any gap. The internet enables this even more than has historically been possible.
      - regularfry 6y ago
        The problem in the latter case isn't solved by adding more journalists.
- voganmother42 6y ago
  Calling someone a terrible reporter didn’t shut anything down, and it is an attack (on a person not even an action). Don’t answer the question, or call it out as a poor question. There are many sources of news and media. Name calling and attacks are not coming from just one side, but this doesn’t seem like an honest appraisal of how roles are being filled so much as just tribal finger pointing. Where is the alternative or proposed solution? The person who possesses one of the biggest platforms and with the most reach in the world cannot articulate anything more substantive than complaining of persecution?
  - phkahler 6y ago
    The initial attack came from the reporter. Even if true it was totally off topic. He also asked a relevant question which was answered. I found the exchange petty on both sides, but the media made much more of it.
- adamsea 6y ago
  > ... when given the opportunity to sit before a president addressing a global crisis, and then granted the opportunity to ask questions they should not inject their bias and call him a racist. Look - I know it's hard to say this and remove the judgement from the statement, and I certainly do have my own judgement in play here, but, empirically speaking, President Donald Trump is racist. Or at the very least someone who consistently makes racist statements over time. And at that point what's the difference? So w/regards to that I think reporters should have been saying that more, tbh. Let's review the facts: 1. Trump's comments about The Central Park 5, back in the day. 2. Trump's pivotal role in racist birther conspiracy theories about former President Obama. 3. Trump's racist language about Mexicans / Latinos, U.S. judges who happen to be Latino, his coded racist dog-whistle language about cities like Baltimore, Chicago, etc. 4. "Very fine people." 5. Every single thing he's done since the murder of George Floyd. And I'm sure there's more.
BurningFrog 6y ago
> can a country where the government lies to its citizens, and withholds information from the press, and actively seeks to discredit news sources critical of it be considered a democracy? Doesn't this describe every country?
quotemstr 6y ago
What about a country in which the press, as a bloc, systematically lies to the populace even without government coercion?
- kergonath 6y ago
  That is an oligarchy. Ultimately, it does not matter much if coercion is based on political or economic power, or the media. That being said, in these cases media and politicians tend to align over time, either because media help compatible politicians, or because politicians created the media landscape themselves. Oligarchies tend to be symbiotic. For those close to power, anyway; for the rest of the country it’s more like parasitism.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    To add on to what you're saying, it doesn't necessarily have to be an oligarchy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent IIRC Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman make the argument in "Manufacturing Consent" that basically consent can be manufactured in the U.S. because of the role that business and corporations play. Which is sort of a critique of capitalism, but I also recall Chomsky talking about how it's hard to really call the U.S. capitalist considering how much of the military industrial complex and academia (especially defense-related) is government funded, and how central those things are to the U.S. econonmy. I'm not sure of the details but my takeaway is media consent can be manufactured in a corporatist/capitalist-like system, which may also be but is not necessarily an oligarchical one.
    - kergonath 6y ago
      I think the thought that it’s not dangerous because it’s not the government is itself dangerous. As you say, private interests and multinationals have a lot of power to ensure compliance. Economic power is as powerful as political power. I think that concentration of wealth in the hands of an ever-shrinking elite is a form of oligarchy.
dencodev 6y ago
I think those all pale in comparison to the freedoms lost from the Patriot Act. Complete and total government surveillance. Gag orders that make it illegal for you to disclose that your business is being forced to comply with surveillance. Government bullying when you try to build systems that are surveillance proof (Apple said to reverse course on end to end encrypted iCloud earlier this year due to government pressure). Not to mention extrajudicial killings of American citizens.
- adamsea 6y ago
  I agree that the Patriot Act was a sad day for America. Whether it meant to or not the Bush Administration kicked off a lot of terrible stuff for America and for the world. I remember obsessively watching the news after 9/11 and just having a terrible sinking feeling about the road we were preparing for ourselves. To be a bit fair to them, it's easy to imagine many other administrations, of both parties, behaving similarly, though not in such an extreme way, after 9/11. I'd like to think that Al Gore specifically, if he was President then, would not have invaded Iraq, and, would not have passed something like the Patriot Act, but the truth is we don't know. Plus Gore might have paid more attention the the CIA warnings about Al Qaeda. But again - who knows. And America itself has a lot to work on, on both sides of the political aisle.
  - Terretta 6y ago
    And Obama kept these going or even doubled down. Regardless of your own political lean that particular area of bipartisanship is interesting.
    - adamsea 6y ago
      He did, with the drone wars and such. Yeah - presidential power tends to accrue.

rocqua 6y ago

Such a country can be considered a democracy, as long as the government isn't too successful in suppressing information and the press. Especially if, in the end, the citizens vote that government out of power.

phkahler 6y ago

The press needs to behave too. They need to report, not sensationalize. They need to be objective, not politically active. And when given the opportunity to sit before a president addressing a global crisis, and then granted the opportunity to ask questions they should not inject their bias and call him a racist. When subsequently shut down "you're a terrible reporter" the rest of the press should not claim they are being attacked. It all boils down to defining the roles (on all sides) and then doing that job. It's when government, press, companies, or individuals make light of their responsibility that things fall appart.

shuntress 6y ago
"The press needs to behave too. They need to report, not sensationalize. They need to be objective, not politically active." This is not accurate. The free press has the freedom to report however they want. That is the whole point of the free press.
- regularfry 6y ago
  How a free press operate and what the people need are not necessarily aligned. The populace needs the sum total of the free press to result in something approximating objectivity. If that's not happening, the people aren't being served by the concept of a free press. If all you've got is two sensationalising ends and nothing in the middle, it's very difficult to tell what's going on. Worse, if you've got one broadly accurate and reliable wing opposed by a group who will intentionally exaggerate, lie, and demonise, and the public think the truth is actually somewhere in the middle, the latter group win. What's not clear or easy is how you might go about cleaning up such a situation.
  - growse 6y ago
    If the people's needs aren't being served by the existing media, part of the 'free' bit of 'free press' is the fact that anyone can be a journalist. They can research, write and publish stories to fill any gap. The internet enables this even more than has historically been possible.
    - regularfry 6y ago
      The problem in the latter case isn't solved by adding more journalists.
voganmother42 6y ago
Calling someone a terrible reporter didn’t shut anything down, and it is an attack (on a person not even an action). Don’t answer the question, or call it out as a poor question. There are many sources of news and media. Name calling and attacks are not coming from just one side, but this doesn’t seem like an honest appraisal of how roles are being filled so much as just tribal finger pointing. Where is the alternative or proposed solution? The person who possesses one of the biggest platforms and with the most reach in the world cannot articulate anything more substantive than complaining of persecution?
- phkahler 6y ago
  The initial attack came from the reporter. Even if true it was totally off topic. He also asked a relevant question which was answered. I found the exchange petty on both sides, but the media made much more of it.
adamsea 6y ago
> ... when given the opportunity to sit before a president addressing a global crisis, and then granted the opportunity to ask questions they should not inject their bias and call him a racist. Look - I know it's hard to say this and remove the judgement from the statement, and I certainly do have my own judgement in play here, but, empirically speaking, President Donald Trump is racist. Or at the very least someone who consistently makes racist statements over time. And at that point what's the difference? So w/regards to that I think reporters should have been saying that more, tbh. Let's review the facts: 1. Trump's comments about The Central Park 5, back in the day. 2. Trump's pivotal role in racist birther conspiracy theories about former President Obama. 3. Trump's racist language about Mexicans / Latinos, U.S. judges who happen to be Latino, his coded racist dog-whistle language about cities like Baltimore, Chicago, etc. 4. "Very fine people." 5. Every single thing he's done since the murder of George Floyd. And I'm sure there's more.

BurningFrog 6y ago

> can a country where the government lies to its citizens, and withholds information from the press, and actively seeks to discredit news sources critical of it be considered a democracy? Doesn't this describe every country?

quotemstr 6y ago

What about a country in which the press, as a bloc, systematically lies to the populace even without government coercion?

kergonath 6y ago
That is an oligarchy. Ultimately, it does not matter much if coercion is based on political or economic power, or the media. That being said, in these cases media and politicians tend to align over time, either because media help compatible politicians, or because politicians created the media landscape themselves. Oligarchies tend to be symbiotic. For those close to power, anyway; for the rest of the country it’s more like parasitism.
- adamsea 6y ago
  To add on to what you're saying, it doesn't necessarily have to be an oligarchy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent IIRC Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman make the argument in "Manufacturing Consent" that basically consent can be manufactured in the U.S. because of the role that business and corporations play. Which is sort of a critique of capitalism, but I also recall Chomsky talking about how it's hard to really call the U.S. capitalist considering how much of the military industrial complex and academia (especially defense-related) is government funded, and how central those things are to the U.S. econonmy. I'm not sure of the details but my takeaway is media consent can be manufactured in a corporatist/capitalist-like system, which may also be but is not necessarily an oligarchical one.
  - kergonath 6y ago
    I think the thought that it’s not dangerous because it’s not the government is itself dangerous. As you say, private interests and multinationals have a lot of power to ensure compliance. Economic power is as powerful as political power. I think that concentration of wealth in the hands of an ever-shrinking elite is a form of oligarchy.

dencodev 6y ago

I think those all pale in comparison to the freedoms lost from the Patriot Act. Complete and total government surveillance. Gag orders that make it illegal for you to disclose that your business is being forced to comply with surveillance. Government bullying when you try to build systems that are surveillance proof (Apple said to reverse course on end to end encrypted iCloud earlier this year due to government pressure). Not to mention extrajudicial killings of American citizens.

adamsea 6y ago
I agree that the Patriot Act was a sad day for America. Whether it meant to or not the Bush Administration kicked off a lot of terrible stuff for America and for the world. I remember obsessively watching the news after 9/11 and just having a terrible sinking feeling about the road we were preparing for ourselves. To be a bit fair to them, it's easy to imagine many other administrations, of both parties, behaving similarly, though not in such an extreme way, after 9/11. I'd like to think that Al Gore specifically, if he was President then, would not have invaded Iraq, and, would not have passed something like the Patriot Act, but the truth is we don't know. Plus Gore might have paid more attention the the CIA warnings about Al Qaeda. But again - who knows. And America itself has a lot to work on, on both sides of the political aisle.
- Terretta 6y ago
  And Obama kept these going or even doubled down. Regardless of your own political lean that particular area of bipartisanship is interesting.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    He did, with the drone wars and such. Yeah - presidential power tends to accrue.