A democracy generally will have a plurality of views. But when it comes to voting on what will receive public funding, that's based on having a majority.
it's important for the fourth estate to be an independent watchdog over other institutions.
That's not democratic. That's giving a single profession the power to check a government elected by the majority.
But when it comes to voting on what will receive public funding, that's based on having a majority.
Why? That's the reasoning Orban used to purge the media and strengthen his corrupt regime. Private journalism already is beholden to private employers, e. g. Oligarchs like Bezos buying the post. There needs to be an independent counterweight, not what you're asking for - which would be state propaganda.
That's giving a single profession the power to check a government elected by the majority.
Yes, that is the purpose of the fourth estate in a democracy, just like the third branch of government, which is also supposed to be impartial in their judgements and not be swayed by electoral concerns.
> But when it comes to voting on what will receive public funding, that's based on having a majority.
Why?
Because the public getting to decide how to spend their own tax dollars is the bare minimum standard for calling something a democracy. Dictating that the public must spend tax dollars on things they do not support is completely unlike constitutional protections on minorities.
Yes, that is the purpose of the fourth estate in a democracy
What country has a "fourth estate" in its constitution? And who decided that journalists are it?
Because the public getting to decide how to spend their own tax dollars is the bare minimum standard for calling something a democracy. Dictating that the public must spend tax dollars on things they do not support is completely unlike constitutional protections on minorities
This is a strong assertion that serves more as a declaration of ideology than an argument.
What country has a "fourth estate" in its constitution? And who decided that journalists are it?
I'm not really interested in the particular, as mentioned above. The point is how systems behave in the real world, with real world actors, with real world feedback loops and incentive structures, not counter-productive excursions into legalisms.
The failure modes I describe are real and actually happened. I'm not terribly interested in litigating the ideological framework that produced them - ye shall know them by their fruits and all that.
Comments
A democracy generally will have a plurality of views. But when it comes to voting on what will receive public funding, that's based on having a majority.
That's not democratic. That's giving a single profession the power to check a government elected by the majority.
Why? That's the reasoning Orban used to purge the media and strengthen his corrupt regime. Private journalism already is beholden to private employers, e. g. Oligarchs like Bezos buying the post. There needs to be an independent counterweight, not what you're asking for - which would be state propaganda.
Yes, that is the purpose of the fourth estate in a democracy, just like the third branch of government, which is also supposed to be impartial in their judgements and not be swayed by electoral concerns.
Because the public getting to decide how to spend their own tax dollars is the bare minimum standard for calling something a democracy. Dictating that the public must spend tax dollars on things they do not support is completely unlike constitutional protections on minorities.
What country has a "fourth estate" in its constitution? And who decided that journalists are it?
This is a strong assertion that serves more as a declaration of ideology than an argument.
I'm not really interested in the particular, as mentioned above. The point is how systems behave in the real world, with real world actors, with real world feedback loops and incentive structures, not counter-productive excursions into legalisms.
The failure modes I describe are real and actually happened. I'm not terribly interested in litigating the ideological framework that produced them - ye shall know them by their fruits and all that.
I'd invite you to read my longer comment above if you'd like to learn more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49563762