To be fair I learned that at 7 in civic education class in Normandy...
The media is a counter power but a power nonetheless. Just like you cant trust the president to judge a criminal, you shouldn't trust the media to judge the president. Just let everyone speak, make your soup yourself and split responsibilities: the executive lead the police and military, the judiciary protects criminals as much as society , the media warns of big and small events and they each compete and drag the carpet to themselves.
This is healthy. The alternative is hanging liars and people with difficult truths rather than letting them both speak. Or: detecting lies from truth is only possible by opposing several (and not just two or the border is skewed towards the most sensational) views.
CNN will say there a radioactive event south of China, China will say there s absolutely nothing wrong, the minority owner of the plant will say it s worrying but the problems lies in China moving the red line regulation, experienced people will say this probably warrant waiting, panicked people will say it must shut down now, ecologists will say any nuclear plant is too risky for the cost, and the truth is somewhere in the merging of all these but you can only have a gradually improving view of the event as pawns position themselves over time.
Is it? Is it not the main power? What politician could rise whose profile wasn’t vetted by the media? Can any politician decide something different than what is broadcasted by the media, for example if all media say we should lock down for Covid, despite population disapproval, can any politician resist?
Media is probably the power, and the 3 other heads (executive, legislative, judiciary) are basically following, at our current point, in 2021. At least, if they want to stay relevant.
Corollary: The definition of democracy should include the 4 powers. Media should be free, and due to Loi Avia in France, and due to the state of emergency, media is not currently free to say what it deems correct.
Lots of politicians and wealthy people control some media. Also, "what politician could rise whose profile wasn’t vetted by the media?" -> isn't Trump a strong countexample?
Putting aside that the election wasn’t forged, didn’t the media make him fall too?
It is true that there was a breach in the fabric, which allowed someone billionaire to become president (albeit with little control over other key institutions), and that was probably because they hadn’t harnessed control over internet when it took off, circa 2012-2016, but that gaping hole is now closed: Someone reasonable is back as the head of state, media now agree with the president, social networks put a cap on network effect for viral news, people can be arrested in UK and Canada for mistweeting, and the accusations of rape/pedophilia will do the rest for the remaining figureheads - In France for the last 3 elections, accusations/investigations on tax evasion hit 4 figureheads (excluding the DSK story, not talking about Assange accused of rape intermittently). Everything is back on track, “Oops, you saw through the matrix, move on”.
The media is a counter power but a power nonetheless. Just like you cant trust the president to judge a criminal, you shouldn't trust the media to judge the president. Just let everyone speak, make your soup yourself and split responsibilities: the executive lead the police and military, the judiciary protects criminals as much as society , the media warns of big and small events and they each compete and drag the carpet to themselves.
This is healthy. The alternative is hanging liars and people with difficult truths rather than letting them both speak. Or: detecting lies from truth is only possible by opposing several (and not just two or the border is skewed towards the most sensational) views.
CNN will say there a radioactive event south of China, China will say there s absolutely nothing wrong, the minority owner of the plant will say it s worrying but the problems lies in China moving the red line regulation, experienced people will say this probably warrant waiting, panicked people will say it must shut down now, ecologists will say any nuclear plant is too risky for the cost, and the truth is somewhere in the merging of all these but you can only have a gradually improving view of the event as pawns position themselves over time.