Democracy - A failure?

[Cat-astrophic]

Most Western countries already spend billions of dollars protecting vital information on the internet; if they are nervous abouit it, they are a decade too late.

I suppose a tax could be applied but we still have the lack of education/apathy issue. People can vote without informing themselves just because they have to vote.

Then reduce the scale. Have the counties or districts or the states be the largest bodies. I think 10,000-10,000,000 is adequate.

I think it's not practical because people would have to spend a considerable amount of their time deciding how to run their countries and they have other issues (job, leisure) or simply don't worry about politics. And more: the outcome of such decisions would not always produce the best results for the country (example: when deciding to declare war or not). The political parties are already a good method of representing one's views.

In the US and other places referendums are already used in state and sub-state level decisions for several purposes.

 

[Ancient Aliens]

I suppose a tax could be applied but we still have the lack of education/apathy issue. People can vote without informing themselves just because they have to vote.

Believe it or not, you just illustrated one of the main arguments for direct democracy. Voter apathy and intelligence is already an issue in representative governments. The thought is that through direct involvement in their government and the presentation of actual legislation (rather than pundits or politicians breaking it down), voters would be forced to have a greater political understanding and would acclimate to politics rather quickly, as would subsequent generations. This would, in my opinion, also have a positive impact on general intelligence.

 

[Primo]

Everyone has their own opinons about something. Everyone is influenced by a degree by something. It could be the government, a book, your family, your friends, or even your religion. All those can influence your opinons on something. Does that not make them your own opinions? No.


Prove the majority of the population in democracies is like that.


So now your saying people don't even have their own opinions? if you want i can cite many times in democracies where the "common man" changed something in his/her country.

It is kinda funny how you just want to disprove everything I say.
1) I made a very good example in the OP - It is your turn to prove me wrong, preferably with arguments, logic and sources instead of simply saying no.
2) You are right with your statement about opinions, but fail to adress what I said. I said if someone is influenced to the extent he can´t decide otherwise, he has no choice thus no power.
3) And I never said the common people don´t have their own opinions. I just said that those are opinions which were made by someone else. And all the examples you said you could provide me happened that way: There was a clash of opinions and a lone, well-known man voiced his opinion against the current propaganda machine - Again the common people don´t make their own opinion, they just follow someone else; someone they like, someone they trust, not someone who has the same political view as them.

See, thats the difference between us two: I can argument against sources you did never provide, while you can´t even argument against what I already stated.

 

[Vanoi]

It is kinda funny how you just want to disprove everything I say.
1) I made a very good example in the OP - It is your turn to prove me wrong, preferably with arguments, logic and sources instead of simply saying no.

You made a godo exmaple of the media scaring people into changign their opinions. it sobvious though that the German peopel must have already had anti-nuclear opinions. The US got the saem media Germany did about the nuclear disaster yet there were no massive calls to shut down nuclear planst in the US. Why? The American people never had much anti-nuclear opinions in the first place so the media did not have as much as an effect on them as it did to the people in Germany.

2) You are right with your statement about opinions, but fail to adress what I said. I said if someone is influenced to the extent he can´t decide otherwise, he has no choice thus no power.

Yet they could very well decide if they wanted to. Like i said though it is obviosu the German peopel already held anti-nuclear opinions. The media just made it worse.

3) And I never said the common people don´t have their own opinions. I just said that those are opinions which were made by someone else.

No, everyone has their own opinions. Whenever or not they can be influenced by different things is another story.

and all the examples you said you could provide me happened that way: There was a clash of opinions.

Yep. People clashing with their own opinions.

and a lone, well-known man voiced his opinion against the current propaganda machine.

And thats where your wrong. again.

- Again the common people don´t make their own opinion, they just follow someone else; someone they like, someone they trust, not someone who has the same political view as them.

No, everyoen has their own opinions. Whenever its influenced by the government is a different stroy.

See, thats the difference between us two: I can argument against sources you did never provide, while you can´t even argument against what I already stated.

I read your posts around different threads on TWC. most of the time your really just talking out of your ass.

 

[eisenkopf]

(...)
1) Press uses its power for their own purposes and spreads propaganda to misinform the public, if its free prase or managed by the state.
2) The majority of the voters don´t even care about being properly informed, and just take everything after the media and the current feeling. After all, it is possible for someone to be at least, lets say, 90% informed.
3) The inability to properly inform the public on the real big decisions - if informed, everyone knows the "secret" thus endangering the public, if not informed no one can expect the people to make a true judgement.

What are the ulterior motives of the free press, and why do they require misinformation?

Through which channels can one inform oneself to the level of 90% if the free press misinforms?

The inability or the lack of intention to "properly" inform the public? What is "proper" information? How does it differ from what the free press offers now? What is the hidden truth everyone lacks to make proper judgments?

 

[Primo]

What are the ulterior motives of the free press, and why do they require misinformation?

Through which channels can one inform oneself to the level of 90% if the free press misinforms?

The inability or the lack of intention to "properly" inform the public? What is "proper" information? How does it differ from what the free press offers now? What is the hidden truth everyone lacks to make proper judgments?

There is no super-channel where you can inform yourself almost completely. You have to reserach a lot, including extremistic sources, so that you can make yourself a picture. That would be being properly informed. Not many have so much time, relying on the daily diary instead - a fact the producers do know very well.

You made a godo exmaple of the media scaring people into changign their opinions. it sobvious though that the German peopel must have already had anti-nuclear opinions. The US got the saem media Germany did about the nuclear disaster yet there were no massive calls to shut down nuclear planst in the US. Why? The American people never had much anti-nuclear opinions in the first place so the media did not have as much as an effect on them as it did to the people in Germany.


Yet they could very well decide if they wanted to. Like i said though it is obviosu the German peopel already held anti-nuclear opinions. The media just made it worse.


No, everyone has their own opinions. Whenever or not they can be influenced by different things is another story.



Yep. People clashing with their own opinions.


And thats where your wrong. again.


No, everyoen has their own opinions. Whenever its influenced by the government is a different stroy.




I read your posts around different threads on TWC. most of the time your really just talking out of your ass.

Uh. People like you always ressort to saying something like "talking out of your ass". Probably you say that if you are at a loss of words.

Also, being a german, I can tell you nuclear power wasn´t loved, but the majority of the people supported it.

And please try to argument for your statements, because what you do is just say I´m wrong and even people who would agree with you if you would logically explain your opinion can´t take you seriously.

Also, I yet have to see the sources you promised.

As long as you can´t debatte logically and with sources, you can´t be taken seriously and I don´t bother to argument with you.

 

[hellheaven1987]

I think it's not practical because people would have to spend a considerable amount of their time deciding how to run their countries and they have other issues (job, leisure) or simply don't worry about politics. And more: the outcome of such decisions would not always produce the best results for the country (example: when deciding to declare war or not). The political parties are already a good method of representing one's views.

A citizen's first duty is to lead your state; not fulfill that duty also means your citizenship should be stripped. If you think you cannot fulfill that duty because you have to work then please give up your citizenship.

 

[eisenkopf]

There is no super-channel where you can inform yourself almost completely. You have to reserach a lot, including extremistic sources, so that you can make yourself a picture. That would be being properly informed. Not many have so much time, relying on the daily diary instead - a fact the producers do know very well.

(...)

As you seem to know the men behind "the" press well, I am sure you can answer my original question: "What are the ulterior motives of the free press, and why do they require misinformation?"

 

[Astaroth]

Also, being a german, I can tell you nuclear power wasn´t loved, but the majority of the people supported it.

Err no. It was more like, the majority of people was against it, but it simply wasn't a big topic until Fukushima happened. That means the CDU and FDP could push their agenda because most people didn't care enough to oppose it strongly. But this doesn't mean that the majority supported nuclear power.

 

[Cat-astrophic]

A citizen's first duty is to lead your state; not fulfill that duty also means your citizenship should be stripped. If you think you cannot fulfill that duty because you have to work then please give up your citizenship.

lol the right to vote is inside citizenship so we are not givin' up citizenship just because we elect representatives.

 

[Vanoi]

Also, being a german, I can tell you nuclear power wasn´t loved, but the majority of the people supported it.

I don't like stealing someone else's reponse, but Astaroth hit the nail on the head.

Err no. It was more like, the majority of people was against it, but it simply wasn't a big topic until Fukushima happened. That means the CDU and FDP could push their agenda because most people didn't care enough to oppose it strongly. But this doesn't mean that the majority supported nuclear power.

And please try to argument for your statements, because what you do is just say I´m wrong and even people who would agree with you if you would logically explain your opinion can´t take you seriously.

I did logiocally explain my opinion. You said that people are so influenced that its not their opinion anymore, i said no they have always had their own deep opinion, it is just whatever is influencing them that has changed or altered it.

Also, I yet have to see the sources you promised.

Start quoting me what you think needs to be sourced then. Thats what people do in a debate.

As long as you can´t debatte logically and with sources, you can´t be taken seriously and I don´t bother to argument with you.

You are not reading my posts are you? i'll explain it again for you. Your. First. Source. Does. Not. Work.

Start either reading my posts, or stop debating with me. I have better stuff to do then to debate with you.

 

[Primo]

I don't like stealign someone else's reponse, but Astaroth hit the nail on the head.





I did logiocally explain my opinion. You said that people are so influenced that its not their opinion anymore, i said no they have always had their own deep opinion, it is just whatever is influencing them that has changed or altered it.


Start quoting me what you think needs to be sourced then. Thats what people do in a debate.



You are not reading my posts are you? i'll explain it again for you. Your. First. Source. Does. Not. Work.

Start either reading my posts, or stop debating with me. I have better stuff to do then to debate with you.

My whole point was that you just say that my. First. Source. Does. Not. Work. but don´t provide arguments. And basically everything you ever said needs to be sourced. Stop spamming, here are a few people who like to discuss this for real.

Err no. It was more like, the majority of people was against it, but it simply wasn't a big topic until Fukushima happened. That means the CDU and FDP could push their agenda because most people didn't care enough to oppose it strongly. But this doesn't mean that the majority supported nuclear power.

I didn´t knew anybody who was really against nuclear power before Fukushima. There also was a statistic somewhere showing that germans indeed supported nuclear power. Dunno if I find them - read it in a newspaper like 2 years ago.

As you seem to know the men behind "the" press well, I am sure you can answer my original question: "What are the ulterior motives of the free press, and why do they require misinformation?"

Sorry that I have overlooked that. But the ulterior motives of the men pulling the strings are the same ones that anybody else with power has, too - Using the power for its own purpose, i.e. in that case influence the political and ethical opinions of the majority.

 

[Vanoi]

My whole point was that you just say that my. First. Source. Does. Not. Work. but don´t provide arguments. And basically everything you ever said needs to be sourced. Stop spamming, here are a few people who like to discuss this for real.

And again you ignore my post. how am i supposed to argue against your sources if one of them doesn't work? I presenetd my arguemnts a few posts back. Either quote what needs to be sourced or do not reply back.

 

[Primo]

And again you ignore my post. how am i supposed to argue against your sources if one of them doesn't work? I presenetd my arguemnts a few posts back. Either quote what needs to be sourced or do not reply back.

I am not aware of you providing any arguments. Please, enlighten me!

 

[Astaroth]

I didn´t knew anybody who was really against nuclear power before Fukushima. There also was a statistic somewhere showing that germans indeed supported nuclear power. Dunno if I find them - read it in a newspaper like 2 years ago.

Right, so you have no evidence. Too bad for you, because I do:

There was a marked increase in opposition from before the accident in four countries: from 56 percent to 81 percent in Germany,

source: http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/analysis/AJ201105264627

Therefore, the majority of people clearly opposed nuclear power. At most, 44% supported it, though that number is probably lower due to some being indifferent.

 

[Vanoi]

I am not aware of you providing any arguments. Please, enlighten me!

Read my previous posts. I made good ones you ignored.

 

[Condottiere 40K]

I think that most of us just tolerate nuclear power, in lieu of other options, until some better alternative appears. Fukushima just lowered the threshold.

 

[Primo]

Right, so you have no evidence. Too bad for you, because I do:

source: http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/analysis/AJ201105264627

Therefore, the majority of people clearly opposed nuclear power. At most, 44% supported it, though that number is probably lower due to some being indifferent.

In germany we have the saying "Don´t trust a statistic you don´t have faked yourself". Nevertheless, I can´t really argue against it.

I just provided one example, which I seemingly didn´t portray entirely correct. But then, there are dozens of other examples. I don´t have the time to write a long post like the OP, but another example would be former Minister of defense Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg - The media blamed him for everthing what happened in Afghanistan, and at some point the pressure was to big and he had to resign his post. The "Crimes" in Afghanistan are still happening, in the same extent, but the media doesn´t blame them on his successor - in fact, they rarely even mention them.

 

[Astaroth]

I just provided one example, which I seemingly didn´t portray entirely correct. But then, there are dozens of other examples. I don´t have the time to write a long post like the OP, but another example would be former Minister of defense Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg - The media blamed him for everthing what happened in Afghanistan, and at some point the pressure was to big and he had to resign his post. The "Crimes" in Afghanistan are still happening, in the same extent, but the media doesn´t blame them on his successor - in fact, they rarely even mention them.

Unfortunately, that example is also incorrect.

The media didn't blame Guttenberg for "everything" that happened in Afghanistan. What they did blame him for was that he kept flip-flopping on the Kunduz affair and changing his publicly stated views very quickly. Especially since he apparently knew more than he initially claimed. Furthermore, he used others (such as Schneiderhan) as scapegoats and fired them.

Also, Guttenberg didn't resign because of Afghanistan at all, that's simply nonsense. He stepped down because he had clearly plagiarized most of his dissertation which lead to a lot of rightful criticism. Someone who was always very quick to call others to account for their mistakes (for example: immediately suspending the captain of the Gorch Fock when that wasn't even necessary) can't just pretend that nothing happened. A leading German politician and member of the government plagiarizing an important scientific document (thereby illegally acquiring a title which he used to further his career and prestige) and proceeding to lie about that fact in public multiple times is simply unacceptable.

And by the way, I'm German as well.

 

[eisenkopf]

(...)

I just provided one example, which I seemingly didn´t portray entirely correct. But then, there are dozens of other examples. I don´t have the time to write a long post like the OP, but another example would be former Minister of defense Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg - The media blamed him for everthing what happened in Afghanistan, and at some point the pressure was to big and he had to resign his post. The "Crimes" in Afghanistan are still happening, in the same extent, but the media doesn´t blame them on his successor - in fact, they rarely even mention them.

I am not sure on which information channels you rely on, but they clearly do not give you the full picture. Guttenberg resigned not because of Afghanistan, but because of his plagiarism.

In both cases, the free press revealed more and more incriminating evidence, at which Gutenberg responded in both cases with inconsistent accounts of his involvement/behaviour.

I am still awaiting an answer to my question, what the ulterior motives of the masters of the free press are. Influencing the public to their own benefit, okay. But I would suggest their most obvious own benefit would be high sales, correct? In which case, the concentrate on what they think the public would like to read about. Which is contrary to your assertion, that they manipulate what the public wants to know and can know.

So: In which direction do they want to influence the public?

 

[Primo]

Unfortunately, that example is also incorrect.

The media didn't blame Guttenberg for "everything" that happened in Afghanistan. What they did blame him for was that he kept flip-flopping on the Kunduz affair and changing his publicly stated views very quickly. Especially since he apparently knew more than he initially claimed. Furthermore, he used others (such as Schneiderhan) as scapegoats and fired them.

Also, Guttenberg didn't resign because of Afghanistan at all, that's simply nonsense. He stepped down because he had clearly plagiarized most of his dissertation which lead to a lot of rightful criticism. Someone who was always very quick to call others to account for their mistakes (for example: immediately suspending the captain of the Gorch Fock when that wasn't even necessary) can't just pretend that nothing happened. A leading German politician and member of the government plagiarizing an important scientific document (thereby illegally acquiring a title which he used to further his career and prestige) and proceeding to lie about that fact in public multiple times is simply unacceptable.

And by the way, I'm German as well.

I am not sure on which information channels you rely on, but they clearly do not give you the full picture. Guttenberg resigned not because of Afghanistan, but because of his plagiarism.

In both cases, the free press revealed more and more incriminating evidence, at which Gutenberg responded in both cases with inconsistent accounts of his involvement/behaviour.

I am still awaiting an answer to my question, what the ulterior motives of the masters of the free press are. Influencing the public to their own benefit, okay. But I would suggest their most obvious own benefit would be high sales, correct? In which case, the concentrate on what they think the public would like to read about. Which is contrary to your assertion, that they manipulate what the public wants to know and can know.

So: In which direction do they want to influence the public?

Maybe I should have written a long post. Of course, in Politics there are always several reasons, but lets concentrate on the main ones: Several other politicans are long proved to have plagiated, but nothing happebs. Same for the professors who allowed those dissertations. And with that as a single reason, Guttenberg would have never needed to step back.
Guttenberg also suspended the captain of the gorch fock because the pressure of the media (and thus the public) was too big. And yes, the media blamed him for everything what happened in afghanistan, not only his flipp-flooping. In the end Guttenberg could do X, and the media would accuse him of it, and he could refrain from doing X, for which the media would blame him again.

 

[Astaroth]

Except that's simply false. I read lots of newspapers - the FAS every Sunday, a daily local newspaper, the weekly newspaper Die Zeit and occasionally others during the week, such as the FAZ, Süddeutsche or magazines like the Spiegel. And honestly - they didn't hate him. "Important" people like Helmut Schmidt, former chancellor of Germany, even considered him to be a good candidate for chancellor in the near future. Of course there was some criticism even before the plagiarism affair, but every politician gets that. If anything, Guttenberg was treated very, very well by the media, in comparison to others. Even the BILD (calling it a newspaper is laughable to be honest) loved Guttenberg.

Only when the plagiarism became known did people really start criticizing him a lot. And that's exactly when he resigned. The media didn't destroy his career, he did it himself when he plagiarized most of his dissertation. If he hadn't done that he'd still be in office.

 

[Primo]

Except that's simply false. I read lots of newspapers - the FAS every Sunday, a daily local newspaper, the weekly newspaper Die Zeit and occasionally others during the week, such as the FAZ, Süddeutsche or magazines like the Spiegel. And honestly - they didn't hate him. "Important" people like Helmut Schmidt, former chancellor of Germany, even considered him to be a good candidate for chancellor in the near future. Of course there was some criticism even before the plagiarism affair, but every politician gets that. If anything, Guttenberg was treated very, very well by the media, in comparison to others. Even the BILD (calling it a newspaper is laughable to be honest) loved Guttenberg.

Only when the plagiarism became known did people really start criticizing him a lot. And that's exactly when he resigned. The media didn't destroy his career, he did it himself when he plagiarized most of his dissertation. If he hadn't done that he'd still be in office.

Yet again I have to state: There are several other Politicans for whom it is known that they have plagiated their dissertation. And why don´t they blame all the afghanistan things on his successor, as they are happening in the exact same way as under Guttenberg? I mean, If you really read that much newspaper you should have noticed that, too.

Btw.: I would have liked it very much if Guttenberg would have been chancellor, even if I am normally against the CDU.
And on another, non-topic note: I actually enjoy that here are a few willing for a debatte on a friendly base with good arguments - Doesn´t happen that often to me.

 

[Astaroth]

Yet again I have to state: There are several other Politicans for whom it is known that they have plagiated their dissertation.

Yes, which is why they were criticized as well. Guttenberg wasn't singled out by any means. For example, Koch-Mehrin (FDP) lost her PhD and resigned from most of her political positions.

Now you might ask: why was there less media attention? Simple.

• She didn't have an important political position. Guttenberg was the secretary of defense, she was... the prettiest person in the FDP? This is obviously a joke, no offense intended.
  
• Nobody really cares about her.
• The case only became public after Guttenberg's, which was a coincidence because some professor noticed inconsistencies in G's dissertation. The first big case always gets the most attention.

Guttenberg was a lot more popular than other German politicians at the time. Due to his popularity, there were lots and lots of articles and TV shows about him. But this actually helped him and made him the people's favorite German politician in a short time. So if anything, the media greatly contributed to his initial success. Therefore, it's obvious that

And why don´t they blame all the afghanistan things on his successor, as they are happening in the exact same way as under Guttenberg? I mean, If you really read that much newspaper you should have noticed that, too.

Again, as I said before, Guttenberg wasn't criticized for "everything". The main issues were the Kunduz affair (which I explained earlier) and the fact that he went to Afghanistan and took a TV moderator with him. Honestly, that was just stupid of him.

But to answer your question: why doesn't de Maizière and his Afghanistan policies get as much attention by the media?

• People don't really care about him. Honestly, he's simply a fairly unremarkable person. The media talk about politicians that most people find interesting, such as Guttenberg. Which makes sense, otherwise nobody would read what they write.
• de Maizière hasn't done much in terms of foreign policy. Also, there weren't any major disasters like Kunduz, so there simply isn't much to talk about.
• The economy is the main topic right now. Greece, the debt problems, America and so on. Afghanistan is simply not a priority for most Germans right now.

In the end, the media didn't force Guttenberg to step down. In the end, the media cannot manipulate people that much. Sure, they add some spin to stories and do influence their readers or viewers. But the thing is: a newspaper or TV channel only gets big and stays big when many people read or watch it. Everybody is going to consume media that are interesting to him and that agree with his views, at least to a certain degree. As a result, if some newspaper kept publishing articles about things people didn't agree with or care about, said newspaper would quickly go bankrupt. There is a reason why the BILD sells so well in Germany. The sad thing is that plenty of people are interested in simple, short and easy articles with huge pictures, half-naked women and sports. The BILD isn't really manipulating its readership that much, in the end it is simply feeding them what they want to hear. And same goes for most media outlets, though obviously not to the same degree.

The fact that the media reported a lot about Guttenberg and criticized him was simply based on a huge public interest in him and a massive outcry about his plagiarism.

But to get back on topic: to put it into a more general context, newspapers and TV channels can usually only amplify beliefs and feelings that already exist. Therefore, I don't consider them detrimental to the democratic system at all. If anything, they are an important counterpart of the political system. They hold politicians accountable and give everybody the chance to become informed.

 

[Primo]

Yes, which is why they were criticized as well. Guttenberg wasn't singled out by any means. For example, Koch-Mehrin (FDP) lost her PhD and resigned from most of her political positions.

Now you might ask: why was there less media attention? Simple.

• She didn't have an important political position. Guttenberg was the secretary of defense, she was... the prettiest person in the FDP? This is obviously a joke, no offense intended.
  
• Nobody really cares about her.
• The case only became public after Guttenberg's, which was a coincidence because some professor noticed inconsistencies in G's dissertation. The first big case always gets the most attention.

Guttenberg was a lot more popular than other German politicians at the time. Due to his popularity, there were lots and lots of articles and TV shows about him. But this actually helped him and made him the people's favorite German politician in a short time. So if anything, the media greatly contributed to his initial success. Therefore, it's obvious that

Again, as I said before, Guttenberg wasn't criticized for "everything". The main issues were the Kunduz affair (which I explained earlier) and the fact that he went to Afghanistan and took a TV moderator with him. Honestly, that was just stupid of him.

But to answer your question: why doesn't de Maizière and his Afghanistan policies get as much attention by the media?

• People don't really care about him. Honestly, he's simply a fairly unremarkable person. The media talk about politicians that most people find interesting, such as Guttenberg. Which makes sense, otherwise nobody would read what they write.
• de Maizière hasn't done much in terms of foreign policy. Also, there weren't any major disasters like Kunduz, so there simply isn't much to talk about.
• The economy is the main topic right now. Greece, the debt problems, America and so on. Afghanistan is simply not a priority for most Germans right now.

While I don´t agree with you on everything, you sure shot my example down. But it was a bad example to begin with, made in a hurry.

In the end, the media didn't force Guttenberg to step down. In the end, the media cannot manipulate people that much. Sure, they add some spin to stories and do influence their readers or viewers. But the thing is: a newspaper or TV channel only gets big and stays big when many people read or watch it. Everybody is going to consume media that are interesting to him and that agree with his views, at least to a certain degree. As a result, if some newspaper kept publishing articles about things people didn't agree with or care about, said newspaper would quickly go bankrupt. There is a reason why the BILD sells so well in Germany. The sad thing is that plenty of people are interested in simple, short and easy articles with huge pictures, half-naked women and sports. The BILD isn't really manipulating its readership that much, in the end it is simply feeding them what they want to hear. And same goes for most media outlets, though obviously not to the same degree.

The fact that the media reported a lot about Guttenberg and criticized him was simply based on a huge public interest in him and a massive outcry about his plagiarism.

But to get back on topic: to put it into a more general context, newspapers and TV channels can usually only amplify beliefs and feelings that already exist. Therefore, I don't consider them detrimental to the democratic system at all. If anything, they are an important counterpart of the political system. They hold politicians accountable and give everybody the chance to become informed.

This is the utopian version of how it should work. But it isn´t true. Maybe the Media has to work itself up by writing what the people want to know, but if they are "up" they just make the opinions.

If I am invited somewhere - to more elderly people - I watch the Daily Diary the Evening before and know exactly what they will say, always beginning with the words "I have tought over ..." and then come the topics of the daily diary from yesterday.

Media in its essence is pure power. Language brought to millions evening after evening is the greatest power one peacefully gets. There are thousands of possibilites to manipulate the language to get your meaning across while still stating only facts. They don´t even need to fake facts, they can do it without it aswell. If you really think so much power is not used for someones personal interests or at least the interests of a small circle of powerfull, you have not tought it over entirelly.

Also, I think you know various cases of how the media sought for catastrophes in illegal methods - the latest case was this big telephone one, wasn´t it?

I mean, even in an James Bond one of the evil gangsters was a Media Concern leader. It is more like the political system is a (weak) counterpart to those in power - The media.

Slightly overworked example:

In the last time I had to think alot about democracy, and any form of goverment. While in theory democracy is the best form of goverment, including the opinions of "normal" people, it fails in practice.
For example, Germany:
Starting with the nuclear disaster in Japan, and the constant media message "Very short before meltdown, but none happened till now" the completely policy of the whole country changed in a 180° degree.

After hearing those news, various experts where asked in the media how they judge the danger of nuclear electricity, and - surprisingly - every single one of them stated german nuclear power stations are very unsecure both to earthquakes and other disasters or terrorism.

This is my first point: I do agree with it that the people should be informed - but if the people are informed, this knowledge is public knowledge, accessable for everyone. I would bet everything that various terroristic organisations asked themselves if they should go for it - and maybe there were even attempts to do it, that we never heard of them does not mean they don´t exist.

Publicating knowledge is that long ok as it won´t danger the country, after my opinion.

The criticism of nuclear power stations became something almost religious, and it would be a save bet to say that more than 75% of the entire population would have directly turned off all power stations. While the population was before already against nuclear power, they saw it as a neccessary evil and didn´t do anything against it (with exeptions)

In Baden-Württemberg were at that time elections for the "Landtag" and the "Grünen", having an anti-nuclear party policy (even tough they can´t change anything of that in this landtag), almost trippled their votes, and do now govern this Bundesland instead of the CDU, which governed it the last 50 years alone and unchallenged.

The aftermath shows that the greens were not ready for governing the Bundesland, and this election, shadowed by the nuclear disaster, was a disaster itself, for the population aswell as for the party.

Elections should never be made on the base of recent events - politics have to considered on a long-term base, not out of the weekly opinion.

But it even went more extreme: Merkel, not being able to hold against the current public pressure, gave in and turned off the first nuclear power stations. An Interesting article about it is here, and I just want to quote a specific thing:

In contrast to her excessive caution in the step-by-step rescue of the euro zone, she showed no hesitation in reversing her original decision of just last autumn to prolong the life of Germany’s nuclear plants. Now, she has committed Europe’s largest economy, a leading exporter dependent on keeping industry competitive, to shutting down the source of nearly a quarter of its electric power.
In the view of supporters like R. Andreas Krämer, director of the Ecologic Institute, an independent research organization in Berlin, this decision “will be seen as historic.”

An even more extreme desicion, crippling the countrys economy, based on an event which couldn´t even be felt in germany, apart from the constant pressure of the media.


A few weeks later, the media finally confirmed the nuclear meltdowns - and no one cared. The 10 minutes "Brennpunkt" became a 1-Minute message, no experts were interviewed anymore about how dangerous the current situation is, and it became a historic event.


Estimated damage to the country: 1 Billion €.


And now, let me tell you: At the end of the next year germany will have all nuclear power plants turned on, with just single, lonely voices calling for turning it off. It already begun - we had since turning off the nuclear power plants to times already no electricity, just for a minute, but it will happen more often and longer, and when a Company like ENBW then states "We are sorry, but without nuclear plants we are unable to garantuee electricity supply" it is over and they are turned back on.


This is just my guess, but I am pretty sure it will happen that way.


Now, this is one example of many, where media and brief events influence the people to the extent that the system of democracy (the people decide) is rendered useless as in fact the media decides.

And as long as there is free press this will never change. Yet a media controlled by the state is the exact same thing, just used for other propaganda.

So the question is: If a people needs to be informed - even if this public knowledge could endanger the country - and the only way to inform it is media, which always uses its power for propaganda, if free or not - Can democracy in its full essence ever be achieved? Or is it bound to remain a mere theory, an Illusion, to be used by the ones who are really in charge?

 

[Astaroth]

This is the utopian version of how it should work. But it isn´t true. Maybe the Media has to work itself up by writing what the people want to know, but if they are "up" they just make the opinions.

It's not that easy. Sure, many people don't reflect a lot about what they read or watch. But the thing is, they still have their feelings and deeply rooted beliefs. So if the BILD suddenly started publishing articles praising communism, most people would not accept that. The media can influence people a bit of course, but they can't completely change their minds.

If something like Fukushima hadn't happened, there's no way the nuclear policy of the government would've changed so drastically. And that's because of the event, not because of the media. The media just reported it. Without the event the media couldn't have done anything.

If I am invited somewhere - to more elderly people - I watch the Daily Diary the Evening before and know exactly what they will say, always beginning with the words "I have tought over ..." and then come the topics of the daily diary from yesterday.

Media in its essence is pure power. Language brought to millions evening after evening is the greatest power one peacefully gets. There are thousands of possibilites to manipulate the language to get your meaning across while still stating only facts. They don´t even need to fake facts, they can do it without it aswell. If you really think so much power is not used for someones personal interests or at least the interests of a small circle of powerfull, you have not tought it over entirelly.

It's actually good if they do watch the Tagesschau. Why? Because it's a news show produced by a public broadcasting company, the ARD. The thing is, public broadcasting in Germany is controlled by the government. But the great thing is that the federal government can't just impose its views on the TV channels because all (major) parties have seats in the board of directors/management. Furthermore, public broadcasting is supposed to be neutral. If it wasn't almost completely neutral, all the other media outlets would immediately notice that and bring it up.

The media aren't just a massive block, all owned by a single person. They are competing entities which means that they cannot afford to do crazy stuff.

Also, I think you know various cases of how the media sought for catastrophes in illegal methods - the latest case was this big telephone one, wasn´t it?

Yes, in Britain. And you know what happened? The newspaper in question was shut down. The media aren't all-powerful or anything. That's the beautiful thing about our democracy -- everything is kept in check by other powers. Checks and balances are great. If the politicians mess up (see Guttenberg) the media will not keep quiet about it. But if one media outlet clearly violates the law (see Britain), other media outlets will spread the story quickly and the legal authorities will also get involved.

That's exactly what I love about our democracy. Nobody can just go and dictate others what to do. If the legislative messes with my constitutional rights, the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsricht) will make sure to intervene and stop it. If politicians are corrupt, the media will pick it up, other parties will bring it up. If a media outlet spies on me, other newspapers or TV channels will report about it and the authorities will punish them. If the police arrests me unlawfully, a fair and just trial will ensure that I'm freed. If the trial isn't fair I can go to a higher authority and get the first verdict overturned. Of course there are exceptions. The system doesn't always work that well, I'm aware of that. But on the whole there are no major structural problems and most people can live a free and happy life.

I don't believe in democracy because it's perfect. Or because I think most people are smart and independent thinkers. I'm actually quite disillusioned about that. The reason for why I believe in democracy is simply that nobody can take away my constitutional civic liberties. That there is no single authority (such as a dictator or absolute monarch) that is somehow able to do whatever it wants, without any consequences.

I mean, even in an James Bond one of the evil gangsters was a Media Concern leader.

I mean, really?

 

[Primo]

It's not that easy. Sure, many people don't reflect a lot about what they read or watch. But the thing is, they still have their feelings and deeply rooted beliefs. So if the BILD suddenly started publishing articles praising communism, most people would not accept that. The media can influence people a bit of course, but they can't completely change their minds.

The influence media makes doesn´t work that way, and is only limited useable for newspapers.

If something like Fukushima hadn't happened, there's no way the nuclear policy of the government would've changed so drastically. And that's because of the event, not because of the media. The media just reported it. Without the event the media couldn't have done anything.

Absolutely there is. If they would have made a bigger campaign, about how German Nuclear Power Stations are very insecure and what could happen ... - Those campaigns existed, but were never puplished in a big way, because the media chose not to. If they actually had, it would have made the same Impact.

It's actually good if they do watch the Tagesschau. Why? Because it's a news show produced by a public broadcasting company, the ARD. The thing is, public broadcasting in Germany is controlled by the government. But the great thing is that the federal government can't just impose its views on the TV channels because all (major) parties have seats in the board of directors/management. Furthermore, public broadcasting is supposed to be neutral. If it wasn't almost completely neutral, all the other media outlets would immediately notice that and bring it up.

The media aren't just a massive block, all owned by a single person. They are competing entities which means that they cannot afford to do crazy stuff.

Is it something completely new that big concerns cooperate with each other? Don´t think so.
They are competing, thats true, but they stick together, too. No single person is in charge, but then there may be up to 100 people who have the power - Power the whole people should have.

Yes, in Britain. And you know what happened? The newspaper in question was shut down. The media aren't all-powerful or anything. That's the beautiful thing about our democracy -- everything is kept in check by other powers. Checks and balances are great. If the politicians mess up (see Guttenberg) the media will not keep quiet about it. But if one media outlet clearly violates the law (see Britain), other media outlets will spread the story quickly and the legal authorities will also get involved.

It is safe to assume that there are many things which we aren´t told.

That's exactly what I love about our democracy. Nobody can just go and dictate others what to do. If the legislative messes with my constitutional rights, the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsricht) will make sure to intervene and stop it. If politicians are corrupt, the media will pick it up, other parties will bring it up. If a media outlet spies on me, other newspapers or TV channels will report about it and the authorities will punish them. If the police arrests me unlawfully, a fair and just trial will ensure that I'm freed. If the trial isn't fair I can go to a higher authority and get the first verdict overturned. Of course there are exceptions. The system doesn't always work that well, I'm aware of that. But on the whole there are no major structural problems and most people can live a free and happy life.

And again, this form of watching each other leads to plots and that the Nation itself is weakened. The sense of any form of goverment is that the Nation is strong and rich, something every democracy fails to achieve. And that the system you named is an utopian one you stated yourself.

I don't believe in democracy because it's perfect. Or because I think most people are smart and independent thinkers. I'm actually quite disillusioned about that. The reason for why I believe in democracy is simply that nobody can take away my constitutional civic liberties. That there is no single authority (such as a dictator or absolute monarch) that is somehow able to do whatever it wants, without any consequences.

Oh. There are. It is just not allowed in public anymore. An example for that is the american way to interrogate and torture prisoners in foreign lands, because in America itself it is forbidden.

I mean, really?

Yes.

See, you provide good arguments, but there is one thing: The difference between cause and reason. I can´t find any event which doesn´t have at least two different reasons. Politics are a complex thing in itself, and what I have written is inaccurat, to say at least. Yet it is as close to accurat I could get without writting whole books. The cause can be influenced by the media to a great extent, and are mostly daily matters for the important matters (like with the nuclear power plants) which are overrated a great deal. This is why I came to the conclusion media has too much power because it can freely manipulate the public.

As to how it can manipulate it:
For example Afghanistan: They can show pics of dead/wounded german soldiers, and set priority on the german losses - Now it is very likely that the public rejects the whole thing. Show pics of frightened and starving afghan women and children, and how the german soldiers provide them security and supply, and set priority on what the germans achieved - Now it is likely that the public accepts the whole thing to be good.

In both examples they are perfectly neutral. Yet they are very different, and influence the people to a great deal.
Of course, this is just a very small part of how the media can influence the people. Watch a few Tagesschaus under this aspect and I am sure you notice it, too.

 

[Haidar]

No one has a democracy, people have Republics. The people don't decide policy, they only decide (to some degree) who decides policy. Even there, a Republic is only as successful as its people are educated. People today being educated by much propaganda and material culture, it drags down Republican values to the point that Republics themselves suffer. Without the people, the system is nothing.

 

[Himster]

True democracies are undesirable. Mob rule is rather counter-productive.
Republics are the only way.

 

[Condottiere 40K]

The viability of any political system depends on the electorate - direct democracy does work if the political culture and the individuals involved are invested in making it work.