News Save Journalism: A Call to Action for American Democracy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Dan Rather highlighted the existential threats facing journalism, linking them to the survival of American democracy and suggesting presidential intervention. Concerns were raised about the quality of news in a profit-driven media landscape, where sensationalism often trumps factual reporting. Critics pointed out the irony of Rather's call for government oversight, arguing that media independence is crucial for democracy and that his own past contributed to the current media environment. The discussion also emphasized the evolving nature of independent media, suggesting that the rise of platforms like Fox News and blogs reflects adaptation rather than decline. Ultimately, the debate centers on the need for a balance between media integrity and independence in a rapidly changing information landscape.
  • #31
humanino said:
When ? What mheslep quoted has nothing to do with what I propose here. Which principle is this violating ? Take the extreme simple example which I presented with two candidates, one wants to raise the taxes, the other wants to lower them. Right before voting, the citizen must identify which one wants which option. What is wrong with that ? It should be simple to explain to me why it is not a valid requirement to know what one votes for.

It comes down to the fact that people can vote for anyone they want to whether they have a reason or not. It's the candidates responsibility to give the voters reasons to vote for them. Candidates aren't required to do anything. But it's a good idea if you want to win and election. It looks like we are trying to fix something that isn't broken.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
humanino said:
When ? What mheslep quoted has nothing to do with what I propose here. Which principle is this violating ? Take the extreme simple example which I presented with two candidates, one wants to raise the taxes, the other wants to lower them. Right before voting, the citizen must identify which one wants which option. What is wrong with that ? It should be simple to explain to me why it is not a valid requirement to know what one votes for.

Who writes the questions? Who determines what is a fair question and what isn't? What about subtleties that make the question debatable? Consider for example the current situation. The Republicans are using tactics entirely consistent with your suggestion. Is Obama increasing the national debt? Well, maybe, maybe not. The superficial answer is yes. That would be the correct answer to a test question. The more sophisticated answer is that he is trying to reduce the debt in the long term by using a highly engineered strategy. Very few questions could be asked that would not have multiple levels of complexity. I can see every election resulting in years or even decades of law suits. We have enough trouble now when elections are very close. Add the ability to challenge the test questions and imo the system would probably fail completely.

Not to mention that voting tests are probably as good of a way to start a class war that I can imagine.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Ivan Seeking said:
Who writes the questions?
The candidates write questions which, in their own opinion, summarize fairly their own positions and proposals.
Ivan Seeking said:
Who deteremines what is a fair question and what isn't?
The system itself. If the questions are too difficult or too technical and too many people fail the exam (the detail of which I have not provided, but I believe this is not central), then the candidates whose questions were innapropriate should either provide a new set of questions and pay for the new exam, or resign.

Ivan Seeking said:
Is Obama increasing the national debt?
I said already, the questions bear on the candidates own program and candidates are not allowed to attack other candidates

Ivan Seeking said:
Very few questions could be asked that would not have multiple levels of complexity.
Factual, simple question with a given choice of multiple answers as I said already.

Why on Earth are you evading my question ? You can come up with numerous counter examples of misuses of a given system. I can do the same with the one we are living in now. If I am being told that there is something wrong in principle, then any example should clarify to me why. So : is there anything wrong which I am missing in the above scenario : two candidates, one wants to raise the taxes, the other wants to lower them. In order to be able to vote, citizens must identify which candidate supports which option. It is a simple situation. Please explain to me what is wrong with that. If there is nothing wrong with this example, then how could there be something wrong in principle ?
 
  • #34
I'm trying to figure out why we should require the candidates to do this at all?
 
  • #35
drankin said:
I'm trying to figure out why we should require the candidates to do this at all?
Because it short-cuts the problem of mis-informed voters watching Fox.

Just a few more messages and I'll really give up to misunderstanding.
 
  • #36
humanino said:
Because it short-cuts the problem of mis-informed voters watching Fox.

Just a few more messages and I'll really give up to misunderstanding.

Ah, legislatioin to counter the where people chose to get their info. Doesn't sound like a good idea. The intent is flawed is directed towards people getting information in a manner that YOU think they should. Fox viewers are plenty satisfied as to where they get their info.
 
  • #37
This is merely a proposal to clarify what candidate themselves define as their politics and make sure that voters read it. Why anybody would oppose the idea while having democratic intentions is beyond my understanding. I would think this would ensure campaign money well spent, possibly even save money.
 
  • #38
humanino said:
This is merely a proposal to clarify what candidate themselves define as their politics and make sure that voters read it. Why anybody would oppose the idea while having democratic intentions is beyond my understanding. I would think this would ensure campaign money well spent, possibly even save money.

It's been the way it is for more than 200yrs. I don't see fixing something that isn't broken. It's the candidates responsibility to define their politics. It's not the governments place to tell them how to do that.
 
  • #39
drankin said:
It's been the way it is for more than 200yrs. I don't see fixing something that isn't broken.
Sure, the system can not be improved.
 
  • #40
humanino said:
Sure, the system can not be improved.

Improved how? And at what expense? Free speech? I think what you are suggesting would require an Amendment to the Constitution.
 
  • #41
drankin said:
I think what you are suggesting would require an Amendment to the Constitution.
Certainly yes.
 
  • #42
humanino said:
Certainly yes.

Good luck with that. :-p
 
  • #43
drankin said:
Good luck with that. :-p
Thank you :smile:
 
  • #44
humanino said:
This is merely a proposal to clarify what candidate themselves define as their politics and make sure that voters read it. Why anybody would oppose the idea while having democratic intentions is beyond my understanding. I would think this would ensure campaign money well spent, possibly even save money.

And if they define their politics in a manner that whom ever is judging believes is inaccurate? Yet they believe it is?

Who wants to lower taxes? Candidate A or candidate B?
Well apparently they both say they want to lower taxes and they both say that the other wants to raise them.
 
  • #45
TheStatutoryApe said:
Well apparently they both say they want to lower taxes and they both say that the other wants to raise them.
It would be interesting if within a good dozen of the most important question according to them, none would allow us to distinguish two main candidates.
 
  • #46
I do not ever expect voters to completely and fully understand all aspects of political science. I only expect candidates and politicians to try all their best to inform voters and reason honestly on how the system can be improved.

To say the least, this is not a very positive quote.
 
  • #47
humanino said:
Sure, the system can not be improved.
It can not be improved by beginning with a dismissal of the hard earned knowledge of how and why we came to have a representative democracy. The right to vote is essential to liberty; liberty is 'inalienable' - a right that can not be surrendered.
 
  • #48
mheslep said:
The right to vote is essential to liberty; liberty is 'inalienable' - a right that can not be surrendered.
Living in illusion is also a liberty I guess.
 
  • #49
humanino said:
If I were the supreme court, people should pass a qualifying exam to vote.

I'm sure that's never been tried before.
 
  • #50
  • #51
humanino said:
Read the thread.

Done that already. How about you read the Voting Act of 1964?
 
  • #52
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
I hope you realize I quoted it in #25. Otherwise, no wonder you do not understand what I say. Thanks for paying attention.
 
  • #54
humanino said:
I hope you realize I quoted it in #25. Otherwise, no wonder you do not understand what I say. Thanks for paying attention.

Interesting and inspiring to see so many people quick to step up and defend our Constitution. Liberals and conservatives alike. It's been a good thread.
 
  • #55
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
drankin said:
Interesting and inspiring to see so many people quick to step up and defend our Constitution. Liberals and conservatives alike. It's been a good thread.
How often do russ and Ivan agree ? I must really be a freak.
 
  • #57
humanino said:
How often do russ and Ivan agree ? I must really be a freak.

Apparently the french even like to take their bosses hostage to resolve labour disputes. Admittedly though I find the idea somewhat appealing myself.
 
  • #58
humanino said:
How often do russ and Ivan agree ? I must really be a freak.

Not at all. You just don't understand this aspect of our value system. It's not like the idea is ludicrous on the face of things, but it does threaten some of our core values. We take the right to vote without qualifications very seriously here.

Now if I and I alone could say who could vote, and who couldn't, that would be another matter. :biggrin:
 
  • #59
humanino said:
How often do russ and Ivan agree ? I must really be a freak.

Nah, honey...you're just French. And we all love you :smile:.
 
  • #60
Thanks for your support :smile:

I need to rethink, since
Ivan Seeking said:
We take the right to vote without qualifications very seriously here.
might appeal to me too after all. Note that, I want everybody to vote, I just want to everybody to know too.

I did not mean to kill the conversation either. To "how to save journalism" I answered "dismiss it". Maybe there are better ideas !
 

Similar threads

News Why Do Americans Support Right Wing Media Outlets Like Fox News?
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
8K
Three new books to read about expertise vs. democracy
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
News Rebuild GOP: Reclaim and Comeback Strategies for Winning Again
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
8K
News Is Democracy Worth the Risk of Electing Terrorists?
  • · Replies 325 ·
11
Replies
325
Views
34K
News Media Bias - Is the media becoming more conservative?
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
13K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
What is the true impact of free trade agreements on the American economy?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
10K
News What Role Does Fox News Play in the Spread of Misinformation?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
News Why Did Americans Re-Elect Bush?
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
9K
News An integrated North-American super-state
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K