Democracy without an independent free press?

[carniflex]

Democracy without an independent free press?

To my mind,
Democracy surely relies on the freedom of opinion/speech.
However, the mass media, owned by capitalist corporations and consequently unanimously biaised on the right, and wrongfully described as an "inependant free press", are a threat towards freedom of opinion/speech and democracy.

What's your opinion ?

 

[Xanikk999]

Well what would you rather have? An independent press or a government owned press.

Obviously the government owned press will be more biased.

 

[Padma]

... consequently unanimously biaised on the right, ...

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

 

[Xanikk999]

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

To people from heavily leftist countries all of the press in this country is on the right if it doesnt conform to all the leftist views.

God i cant understand how anyone can conform their views to only liberal or conservitive standards. People should be somewhat in the middle.

 

[carniflex]

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

I call right_winged anything prefering capitalism than socialism.
Is it unlegitime ?

 

[Xanikk999]

I call right_winged anything prefering capitalism than socialism.
Is it unlegitime ?

Socialism has its own set of problems. In a free market society with some government regulations, Capitalism works very well. Small socialistic economies are not big players in the world economy.

 

[carniflex]

To people from heavily leftist countries all of the press in this country is on the right if it doesnt conform to all the leftist views.

Dont be mistaken.
The "independant free press" is equally rightwinged in every capitalist country, even mine.

 

[Padma]

I call right_winged anything prefering capitalism than socialism.
Is it unlegitime ?

Not illegitimate, no.

But *most* of the mass media in this country is left of where most of the people are. Which, I admit, is still probably to the right of much of the world . The corporations that own the newspapers and other media outlets may be very capitalist/right-wing, but the media themselves often espouse socialism, even if they won't call it that.

 

[carniflex]

Well what would you rather have? An independent press or a government owned press.

Obviously the government owned press will be more biased.

No.
In a democratic country, a press owned by a governement chosen by the people will certainly be less biaised than a press owned by a capitalist aristocracy.

BTW, I would rather have neither of your two alternatives of so called "independant free press"

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Credit for original post to DBear.

 

[Dr. Yoshi]

We are certainly on our way to a truly independant press owned by neither the government nor the media corporations through weblogging. It amuses me that a lot of the press use blogs as their source for political news.

 

[carniflex]

But *most* of the mass media in this country is left of where most of the people are.

I would not be so sure.
Such statement was usual in my country (France) till there was a national referendum on a political issue: the approval of the capitalist bias of the european construction. The no vote got 55%, which were mainly left_wingers, though the so called "independant left_winged press" unanimously favored the yes vote.

the media themselves often espouse socialism, even if they won't call it that.

It's hard to believe.
In my country the so called "independant left_winged press" so unanimously favored the denationalization of means of production that there has not been any debate, and few knows it has happened.
An anti-prerequesite for socialism, to my mind.
Do we have the same definition for socialism ?

 

[carniflex]

In a free market society with some government regulations, Capitalism works very well.

Undoubtly.
But in whose interest ?

edit: quote given complete, after a legitime critic from its author

 

[Xanikk999]

Undoubtly.
But in whose interest ?

Maybe you should include the whole sentence to make it look better in context.

And it really is not only in the CEO executive type big wigs interest. I could go on a whole tirade about capalistic economies advantages but im going to list a few that appeal to everyone.

Under capatalism everyone that has a legitimate or even outrageous idea has the right to start a business on it and get rich or lose the business and your assets or lose no personal assets if you form a corperation.

Capatalism breeds new ideas because of the incentives and potentiel rewards for entrepeneurs. You cannot say the same for communism or socialistic governments with heavy regulations that will tax you alot more then in the United states.

Thats all i can think of right now but il add more later.

 

[North King]

Not illegitimate, no.

But *most* of the mass media in this country is left of where most of the people are. Which, I admit, is still probably to the right of much of the world . The corporations that own the newspapers and other media outlets may be very capitalist/right-wing, but the media themselves often espouse socialism, even if they won't call it that.

Wrong. Most of the media in this country is right where the audience it caters to is. Therefore, it is middling in America; to most of the rest of the world, it looks very much to the right.

 

[carniflex]

[capitalism] really is not only in the CEO executive type big wigs interest.

True.
It is mainly in the shareholders interest.
BTW: OT

Thats all i can think of right now but il add more later.

... in an appropriate new thread, please.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

'The Media' (with independent free press) doesn't exist as people like to quote it.

In a freedom of speech society there is no united media with one monolithic political viewpoint and agenda that it merely exists to promote as is sometimes portrayed. To say 'the media' is anything specific is just silly. There is right-based media, left-based media and every type in-between. Do a google search on any idea or political view and you will likely get results of media both for and against the position.

If you don't like 'the media' you currently use then search for more as there is a wide variety of news sources available if you are willing look for them.

 

[Richard Cribb]

To my mind,
Democracy surely relies on the freedom of opinion/speech.
However, the mass media, owned by capitalist corporations and consequently unanimously biaised on the right, and wrongfully described as an "inependant free press", are a threat towards freedom of opinion/speech and democracy.

What's your opinion ?

I totally agree. It is a very serious issue.

[---] The corporations that own the newspapers and other media outlets may be very capitalist/right-wing, but the media themselves often espouse socialism, even if they won't call it that.

Define socialism, please.

'The Media' (with independent free press) doesn't exist as people like to quote it.

In a freedom of speech society there is no united media with one monolithic political viewpoint and agenda that it merely exists to promote as is sometimes portrayed. To say 'the media' is anything specific is just silly. There is right-based media, left-based media and every type in-between. Do a google search on any idea or political view and you will likely get results of media both for and against the position.

If you don't like 'the media' you currently use then search for more as there is a wide variety of news sources available if you are willing look for them.

Nobody denies that there exists alternative media outlets, but due to limited ressources, they have difficulties in making too much of an impact.
The point is whether the concept of democracy is in accordance with a dominance of privatedly media serving the class interests of a corporate elite, or whether media should be owned by and serving the public.

 

[CaptainF]

In hispanic countries, there is this concept:

There are two similar, yet contrasting governments: "Dictablanda" (trans. "soft dictatorship") and "Democradura" ("hard democracy")

In dictablanda, you have an authoritarian leader who rules justly and unrepressively, often serving the interests of the populous. Civil Liberties are often preserved.

In democradura, you have an illiberal democracy. This is a situation where citizens are allowed to vote for their leaders, but they have limited civil/individual rights, and the leaders tend to be corrupt. The restriction of these rights can also extend to the press.

So yes, a democracy can exclude freedom of the press. Democracy at its core need only mean that you vote for you who want.

 

[Irish Caesar]

To my mind,
Democracy surely relies on the freedom of opinion/speech.
However, the mass media, owned by capitalist corporations and consequently unanimously biaised on the right, and wrongfully described as an "inependant free press", are a threat towards freedom of opinion/speech and democracy.

What's your opinion ?

Since it was a post of mine that sparked this lovely thread, I'd better show my face!

Firstly, shutting off the media simply because you do not agree with their views, however biased, is extremely un-democratic of you. However, I doubt that's really what you meant at all. (Or at least I hope I doubt it...)

Secondly, in the current system, anyone who chooses may report on the news, hence our "independent free press." Some media outlets have more money or equipment and have set up newspapers and television networks devoted to showing the news as they like to report it. Some do not and can only report to a small market, or on an internet site. I am not sure if you would do away with all of these media sources, only the ones owned by corporations, or only the ones you disagree with. I assume, though, that you refer to (1) and (2).

Let me address (1), then. To do away with all media sources and keep people in the dark would be horrid and incompatible with democracy, but as you have already mentioned, the media would then be run by the government. You assert that with a democratically elected government, the government news source would be unbiased and fair. There are a couple of problems with this assertion:
* Although the news should report only what is fact, even facts can be spun. Matters of semantics can change the public perception of matters. Therefore, a news source can never be perfectly neutral, but it can be close.
* Democracy in its purest form is tyranny. However, the majority of the public is in the ruling class. A news source run by this tyranny could not possibly be fair to the few, no matter who they are.
* The Government, much like any Corporation, is run by Human Beings. However perfect the system may be, the people running it are still corruptable. Better to allow news sources outside of the government-sanctioned source. This way, many views of the same story are guaranteed.

And now for (2), to do away with all news sources run by corporations. This, I think, is what you're going for. At first glance, it sounds like a good idea...to keep the news media as a group of small, independent presses or reporters as opposed to FOX, CNN, and the New York Times. However, the views expressed on FOX or written in the New York Times are perfectly valid and essential to democracy. The problem, I gather, is just that those sources have the ability to amplify their message many thousands of times louder than the Hometown Journal or Joe Blogger. However, in shutting off the satellites and closing the presses, the media is then less accessible to the masses. The corporate newspaper is also a convenient venue for letters from citizens: letters to the editor of a major paper reach thousands. When you shut the corporate voice, you are also shutting the voices of those who have nothing to do with the corporation: the citizens who use the high circulation as a medium for their own ideas.

I think I've said enough for one post...