I would like to see journalism with a partisan mission to enhance our institutions and make them actually democratic (small d intentional.) As they exist now the news sections hope for big stories exist in finding corruption in government institutions or campaign minutia.
Let's make space for the big things: discussing the veto points in …
I would like to see journalism with a partisan mission to enhance our institutions and make them actually democratic (small d intentional.) As they exist now the news sections hope for big stories exist in finding corruption in government institutions or campaign minutia.
Let's make space for the big things: discussing the veto points in the constitution fulfilling the framers' fear of too drastic of changes preventing necessary action from government until it is done at the last moment with less effectiveness and greater costs; that the rise of parties (factions in the language of the founding) creates alliances between the branches that mediate the checks the can exercise on each other (can you picture any president getting removed from office with the 2/3 majority required?); the way that a small percentage of the population can have a Senate majority, etc.
Let's lift the stigma on positive portrayal of government programs. Talk up IRA funded projects and if there is a need for balance probe why some programs are taking so long to come online (rural broadband would be a good start.)
Asking for these things will get you accusations of desiring Pravda however. I don't know to get across to journalists that defending the institutions that make a free press possible has to be part of real freedom of the press.
I get very animated and sometimes write faster than I can think. What hasn't clicked for most people is that the mission of objectivity was only possible because market forces made it so (this is obviously way too big of a topic for a comment) in newspapers and that broadcast news was accepted as necessary public service that may even lose money for the networks. Now the market is vastly different and journalists' ethic are not inline with the incentive for publishers...
YES! This. help us, Margaret, to make this vital point. Asking for these things will get you accusations of desiring Pravda however. I don't know to get across to journalists that defending the institutions that make a free press possible has to be part of real freedom of the press.
I would like to see journalism with a partisan mission to enhance our institutions and make them actually democratic (small d intentional.) As they exist now the news sections hope for big stories exist in finding corruption in government institutions or campaign minutia.
Let's make space for the big things: discussing the veto points in the constitution fulfilling the framers' fear of too drastic of changes preventing necessary action from government until it is done at the last moment with less effectiveness and greater costs; that the rise of parties (factions in the language of the founding) creates alliances between the branches that mediate the checks the can exercise on each other (can you picture any president getting removed from office with the 2/3 majority required?); the way that a small percentage of the population can have a Senate majority, etc.
Let's lift the stigma on positive portrayal of government programs. Talk up IRA funded projects and if there is a need for balance probe why some programs are taking so long to come online (rural broadband would be a good start.)
Asking for these things will get you accusations of desiring Pravda however. I don't know to get across to journalists that defending the institutions that make a free press possible has to be part of real freedom of the press.
Ugh, this is most of what I want to say but I am too tired and angry to write coherently.
It is coherent, be assured.
I get very animated and sometimes write faster than I can think. What hasn't clicked for most people is that the mission of objectivity was only possible because market forces made it so (this is obviously way too big of a topic for a comment) in newspapers and that broadcast news was accepted as necessary public service that may even lose money for the networks. Now the market is vastly different and journalists' ethic are not inline with the incentive for publishers...
Yes, Let’s create a forum for the ‘big things’.
Veto points, Constitutional literacy as a requirement for candidates, ethics codes, violations equal dismissal, etc.
Imagine if there was a cap on campaign spending? What would we then put our money toward..?
Substack !
Let’s support; wise words, valid research with links, human journalists, with wit & banter.
YES! This. help us, Margaret, to make this vital point. Asking for these things will get you accusations of desiring Pravda however. I don't know to get across to journalists that defending the institutions that make a free press possible has to be part of real freedom of the press.