> You are treating democracy as a kind of populist authoritarianism where unwelcome viewpoints are suppressed.

Let’s not play word games. It’s not “populist authoritarianism” to say that, in a democratic society, taxpayers shouldn’t have to bankroll journalists who don’t share their world views.

▲

ionioagnio 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The American version of democracy has a great many protections for minorities, whether they be intellectual, religious, or ethnic. The notion that the majority should pummel the minority into submission is perhaps a version of democracy, but not one compatible with American tradition.

This is why Obama, Biden, and other politicians who support democracy had no problem funding a free and fair press while populist authoritarians have sought to dismantle it.

	▲	rayiner 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's not "democracy," that's constitutionalism, which is inherently anti-majoritarian. But constitutionalism means protection for minority viewpoints, not an obligation for taxpayers to publicly fund media they disagree with.

▲

vrganj 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Part of democracy is plurality of views.

Shutting down journalists just because they're not ideologically aligned seems a bit antidemocratic to me - it's important for the fourth estate to be an independent watchdog over other institutions.

What you're suggesting is something close to Orbanism or Putinism, where the media apparatus is completely captured by the ruling party. That is not an appealing proposition to me.

	▲	rayiner 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Part of democracy is plurality of views. 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.