Therefore, democracy in most of the western countries takes place through a system of regular and competitive elections, universal suffrage and political equality. Classical liberals defended democracy on the basis that it was found on consent. John LOCKE developed a limited theory of protective democracy which argues that voting rights should be extended to the well educated, who could then defend their natural rights against government. According to Locke, if government can possess power through taxation, then citizen are fully entitled to protect themselves by controlling the tax-making body. The idea that franchise should be expanded to the illiterate and those who pay taxes was supported by James Mill.
Wood also analyzes Obama’s use of references in his election night speech. He discusses how “Behind his speech were the ghosts of Lincoln’s First Inaugural” (610) as well as “the explicit reference to King’s famous phrase about how ‘the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice’” (611). Both discussions of Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. are included to show how Obama believed his election to be a turning point in history as Lincoln and King’s speeches were a turning point in their time period as well. It was imperative for Safire and Wood to discuss the allusions to others’ speeches in both of their analysis as without the references to others’ speeches both Lincoln and Obama’s speeches would not have had the impact and power that they did. Through the course
The continued power grab will destroy the capitalist system shackling the limbs of the free market. The regulation imposed creates factions limiting the ease of market entry. The environment that our American business calls home must remain competitive assuring quality goods to consumers while encouraging technological advancements. The path our federal government is currently on is a path of non-democratic regulation that is a threat to the growth and prosperity of our country. It is simply a matter of the true meaning of the Constitution, specifically the commerce clause that must be addressed.
He stands his ground when giving his opinions; he tries not to offend the audience so he gives his reasons and uses them wisely. But, when Terrell used the phrase “that is utter nonsense” that could easily make his readers turn away and look at the article from a different perspective. When writing there needs to be grabbers throughout the whole article and he is more than fair. There is enough flexibility in the article to understand ones reasoning about the gun control. At first, it might come off that his reasons may have not been very strong but he surely does state a point.
Reflecting his politics, Chafe's strongest essays illuminate the modern Democratic pantheon -- the Roosevelts, both Kennedys, Johnson and King. The essays on Reagan and Nixon are less original, as Chafe echoes the Reagan-as-actor analysis, while arguing that Nixon "embodied the theme of paradox," thus cataloging contradictions without explaining them. Most disturbing is his Clinton chapter where Chafe proclaims that "every official report on Whitewater exonerated the Clintons from wrongdoing" and "there was no evidence of wrongdoing in that matter." That is a partisan political judgment, not an accurate legal or historical analysis. Independent Counsel Robert Ray found circumstantial evidence of perjury, tax evasion and obstruction of justice.
Tragedy & Fare Based on James Madison’s quote, “A popular Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both,” authors John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney follow this principle throughout their book, Tragedy & Farce. Published in 2005, Tragedy & Farce is about the changing culture of journalism resulting in war, unfair elections, and the destruction of democracy. The author’s point of view is first person as he narrates the entire book. He uses quotes from interview segments from multiple sources including controversial congressmen and television anchors. The author’s thesis is the revival of democracy-sustaining journalism made up of three components.
In addition, it is a measure of responsibility and accountability for the freedom of press that is able to give counterarguments and provide a space for counterarguments regarding issues that are controversial and require a public debate so that the viewing and listening public can get a full knowledge of the issues being presented on both sides. It has always been a key rule of journalism (1), but the success is less clear, and the Fairness Doctrine has many pros and cons to this rule, and that is something that should be touched on. Another issue that will be talked about is if the Fairness Doctrine should be reintroduced or if it’s a good thing that this law doesn’t exists to the United States anymore. When the question came about to discuss the pros and con of the fairness doctrine I feel as though there was plenty of answers for this issue since I can oppose to both. I want to start off with discussing some pro arguments about the Fairness Doctrine.
Newton Minow, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, in his famous “Vast Wasteland” address to the Nation Association of Broadcasters in May 1961, spoke about the power of television to influence the taste, knowledge and opinions of its viewers around the world. He warns that it has limitless capabilities for good and for evil and he places the responsibility to regulate television’s awesome power upon the NAB and the government. Minow has a valid argument that television has the power for good and evil, and the same could be said about the internet today. However, his validity sways when he suggests where responsibility should be placed. Television is simple to regulate, however the internet is more difficult, almost impossible to regulate.
A journalist's credibility is one of the most important things they have to keep their career alive and people listening to the news that they release. And if other news organizations were to have someone constantly watching other news outlets, the likeliness of an organization trying to release a false or bias story would plummet down. The public already sort of does this. They have deduced that Fox News rolls a little bit the the right in comparison to other news organizations that have a more objective standpoint. But if journalists knew that other news stations were watching them, they would be less likely to do it anyway.
Although the FCC was cautioned to “exercise [its] authority with the utmost restraint, lest we inhibit constitutional rights” (Winter, 2007); that is not always upheld. Tension and controversy between the media and the public have been present long before television ever existed, but the increase in modern technology has also increased controversy regarding censorship. Finding a way to make broadcasting regulations compatible with peoples fundamental right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression has become increasingly difficult. Regulations imposed on television by the government are not supposed to be contrary to the principles laid down in the First Amendment, but that does not always hold true. The First Amendment from the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights is as follows: “Congress shall