Is democracy dependent on a free and open press ?

Does the press have to oppose those in power? Can they not walk hand in hand? If the press refuses to show photos of death and destruction in foreign lands, is that censorship? Unless the press tells the people the facts, the truth, is it possible for our democracy to survive? Just how important is a free press?

------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

and that cannot be limited without being lost.
Thomas Jefferson

and you'll have your answer....

that it was fundamental and necessary to have a democracy (or democratic republic as some like to call it)

then we cannot be a true democracy. It was important enough to be included in the first amendment. And the media has become a tool of the government, instead of a truth-teller about the government.

It is not inherent in a democracy that the press oppose those in power. It is only imperative that they tell the truth, whatever that truth may be. It is impossible for our democracy to survive without the press doing its utmost to present us with the truth, no matter how ugly. Unfortunately, the media consolidation by businesses has made them bought and paid for.

it's role, in my opinion, is to keep the government honest and accountable - not necessarity oppose them, just keep them in check and point out when they do wrong.

free and open minds.

administrations. My mind is like a sieve today but I read of the way they were manipulated (or willing participants) during elections and administrations as far back as the 1800's. Clinton didn't help by allowing media outlets to consolidate and now that the media is more interested in the bottom line, our opportunities for unbiased and even oppositional coverage has been more curtailed.

Just how damage did he do???

it didn't start with him and was probably inevitable anyway.

Edit to add this link: http://www.ruminatethis.com/archives/001390.html

extremely partisan -- but there was always an opposition. If the Times was stridently republican, the News was virulently democrat. That also made for a free press, prior to the consolidation of newspaper empires, like Hearst. Even as late at the seventies most towns of any decent size, even as small as 20 - 30,000, had at least two oppositional papers. That's where the free press movement began, in reaction to the secondary papers folding, or being bought out by the major paper.

I believe that the 70s and Watergate were the last gasp of the free press in America. Look at the difference between the way Watergate was covered and the way Iran/Contra was covered just ten years later. The right learned the dangers of a free press in '74, and have been doing everything they can to eliminate it ever since.

Results show lack of a free and open press result in vote suppression and failure to accurately count. Results also show without a free and open press, the public can be overcome with lack of critical thought and righteous anger.

Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down.
-Speech, Boston, 1860

have a free and open press. So, do we have democracy? I say no, but many deluded feel we do.

People seem to throw around the word democracy without specifically explaining what it is, and what makes it so important. It allows people to hold the government accountable for their failures and lies.

Yet, democracy is really no different that tyranny, without the active participation of an informed electorate. If people do not vote, or they vote based on distorted information or false pretenses, the entire point of the democratic system is shattered. People must be made aware of those failures and lies, or the votes are worthless and arbitrary.

Hello fascism.

"Is democracy dependent on a free and open press ?"

Yes, definately - an uninformed electorate is not much better than no electorate.


"Does the press have to oppose those in power?"

Not on every issue, but it needs to *challenge* them on everything and nearly every decision should be opposed by at least some of the press.

*Can they not walk hand in hand?*

Yes, but only coincidentally, and if it ever happens for a long period of time it's a sure sign of something sickening.


"If the press refuses to show photos of death and destruction in foreign lands, is that censorship?"

No, it's only censorship when you do it to someone else. It *is* a very serious failure of objectivity, though.


"Unless the press tells the people the facts, the truth, is it possible for our democracy to survive?"

No.


"Just how important is a free press?"

Very.