How a responsible media helps find public direction
After the attack on September 11, 2001, much of the world asked itself: “What do we do next?”
The Americans were contemplating an invasion of Afghanistan. Would we Canadians join the coalition? We were led through a wide-open debate in the Canadian media.
I was watching a lot of TV news at that time. Both Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and Canadian Television (CTV) were bringing analysts from both sides of the question. The major newspapers were doing the same. Many Canadians were taking this debate seriously. Both sides certainly had their say, and many Canadians became more knowledgeable about geopolitics.
My recollection was that Prime Minister Jean Chretien did not display a strong opinion. He and the governing Liberal Party seemed to keep their option open — and let the debate come to a natural conclusion. And, after sufficient talking, a certain public opinion emerged and the Canadian Parliament sided with it. Canada joined the coalition.
The American news networks, on the other hand, were strongly supporting the invasion. There was no debate, almost forcing the “no” side to hide under a rock.
Soon after, we Canadians did it all over again with the invasion of Iraq. The Canadian media gave us an open debate on joining the new coalition. This time, we Canadians did not join, much to the disappointment of American decision makers.
Looking back, I think Canada made the right decisions. We gave Afghanistan a serious, rightful try. Had international resources not been split between Afghanistan and Iraq, Afghanistan might have been a better geopolitical outcome today.
Inside Olympia
For about a year, I was an avid watcher of the PBS news show Inside Olympia. This program discusses various social and political issues facing the state of Washington.
I live in Alberta, so things happening in Washington don’t have a big effect on me. My attraction to Inside Olympia was that it had a similar analysis as the Canadian media of the Afghanistan & Iraq debates. Except Inside Olympia is doing this every week, not when the public seems to be in the mood for such discussion. I have written about this news show.
Inside Olympia is a media model for other media outlets to emulate. It will efficiently inform citizens who want to be informed. It will help the public find its unity in various societal directions.
But Dave, most citizens do not watch shows like Inside Olympia
My brief research into PBS TV ratings suggested that this PBS regional news show is not well watched. Many more Americans prefer the more popular media outlets.
While many Canadians were engaged with the Afghanistan and Iraq debates, they too reverted back to simpler explanations of how the world works. The Canadian broadcasters had to dumb things down to retain ratings — and advertising revenue.
Let’s admit it. Those of us who want this level of information are in a minority, most likely a small minority. Our voting power is much smaller than the majority who want to get their understanding from sources that are more likely to resort to bias and sensationalism. The majority is not likely to see through the clouds and vote wisely.
Unfortunately, we cannot force our standard of political education on other people. In fact, it is rather naïve and futile to assume that we can do so. Yet we berate the “less informed” because it is their fault for why we are where we are today.
And, in contrast, our other side usually believes we are the ones in error of not having the correct understanding. In their minds, we are not getting the right information from the right sources.
So what is the solution to “less informed” having more voting power to the “more informed”?
If, indeed, this is what is happening?
Basics of Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG)
Well, my alternative democracy certainly has a solution for this paradox of which side is right. I will start explaining that solution with some TDG basics.
Neighborhoods are the foundations of TDG elections. Neigborhoods are geographical areas where neighbors have the opportunity to get to know each other, on a personal level. Most TDG neighborhoods will be about 200 residents. Neighbors will be voting for one of their neighbors into the TDG.
Prior to the election, there will be reminders to vote for good character and capacity for governance. The TDG does not define these criteria for its voters. Rather it asks them to define character and capacity for themselves, then cast a vote for a neighbor with these traits.
Nearly all neighbors likely won’t know all 200 neighbors. But most neighbors will know 10 to 20. Then each neighbor casts a vote toward a known neighbor that best exemplifies these traits.
The top contenders in these neighborhood elections will likely be capable people for TDG governance. If the TDG election selects one of them, then the TDG election has accomplished its mission.
Well, that is the voting basics, which I have written about more than a few times in my TDG writing. So what does this have to do with the media?
The answer: Nothing! And that is a good thing.
You see, the TDG has taken the media out of most voting decisions. Instead of basing voting on rhetoric of an election campaign, the TDG asks its voters to look for good character and capacity for governance — in their own neighborhood. When most citizens vote in this way, we will be putting society’s more capable people into governance.
In other words, a turkey cannot get elected into the TDG just by hiding behind the banner of a political party. All the rhetoric in the world will not convince the neighbors, who know the turkey is a turkey, to vote for that turkey.
In more other words, the TDG trusts the collective judgement of the voters to make a good voting decision.
So it doesn’t matter if voters are watching news shows like Inside Olympia.
It doesn’t matter if voters can understand TV shows like Inside Olympia.
It doesn’t matter if voters are well educated.
It doesn’t matter if voters are watching politics.
It doesn’t matter if voters are watching the “correct” politics.
It doesn’t matter if voters understand the issues.
It doesn’t matter if voters understand how connected they are to each other.
It doesn’t matter if voters understand how the TDG works.
But nearly all voters will be reasonably good judges of good character and capacity for governance — when the TDG shepherds them to vote in this way. Most Ph.D’s, most blue-collar workers, most retirees, and most everyone else have a reasonable ability to seek good character and capacity for governance and vote in this way. In fact, I have even suggested the TDG can lower the voting age to 14. Even teenagers have this ability!
Most neighborhoods will be electing TDG representatives who are of good character and capacity for governance. The few turkeys who are elected into the first tier will not rise to a higher tier.
Conclusion
In essence, the TDG will shift the voting decision from what voters see in the media to what they see in their neighborhood.
So the media will have little effect on who gets elected. In this sense, the media cannot interfere with the elections. Or, perhaps better said, the media cannot be influenced to interfere in the elections. The TDG is just too granulated for nefarious forces to control the outcome of many TDG neighborhood elections.
Yet the media still has an important TDG role to play in helping citizens better understand the world they live. Both sides of an issue should be presented. Uncredible sides should be properly debunked. With such understanding, we will be finding more unity to make better societal decisions. Watch Inside Olympia and similar news shows to gain an insight into the new media emerging.
So when will you start building this new democracy? For sure, the current power brokers will not build it for us. That should be enough reason to start building.
Published on Medium & Substack 2025
A Glimpse of Our Future Democracy
