Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON, D.C. On the heels of a recent shakeup in its senior leadership, the Republican National Committee (RNC) today filed a federal lawsuit in Michigan seeking to purge allegedly ineligible registrants from the states voter rolls.

Following a swift overhaul in the past week, the RNCs former leadership has now been replaced primarily with close allies of former President Donald Trump. With former North Carolina GOP chair Michael Whatley and Trumps daughter-in-law Lara Trump at the helm as co-chairs, the RNC has assumed an avowedly more offensive election integrity strategy.

In an interview with the Washington Post on Tuesday, Trumps campaign advisor, Chris LaCivita stated that [t]he RNCs new posture as it relates to litigation is much more offensive and much less defensive. Lara Trump, who appeared on Fox News the same day, told Sean Hannity that the RNC is devoting massive resources to the organizations first ever election integrity division.

The new Michigan case is the third anti-voting lawsuit filed by the RNC just this year and many more are expected to be filed ahead of the 2024 elections. The complaint, which was filed on behalf of both the RNC and two Republican voters, alleges that Michigans top election officials are failing to properly maintain clean and accurate voter registration records in violation of a federal law known as the National Voter Registration Act.

The complaint claims that at least 53 counties across the state have more active registered voters than adults over the age of 18 and an additional 23 counties have active voter registration rates that exceed 90% of adults over 18. Based on these statistics, the RNC maintains that Michigans number of registered voters is impossibly high and inflated.

The lawsuit goes on to raise concerns how the states purported failure to maintain accurate voter lists undermines the integrity of elections by increasing the opportunity for ineligible voters or voters intent on fraud to cast ballots. Citing scant evidence, the complaint adds that [v]oter fraud is very real in Michigan. Several recent elections have suffered from voter fraud.

Just two weeks ago, a federal judge tossed out a very similar lawsuit brought by the right-wing Public Interest Legal Foundation that mounted claims against Michigans voter list maintenance program. In its rejection of that lawsuit, the court held that [t]he record demonstrates that deceased voters are removed from Michigans voter rolls on a regular and ongoing basis, adding that [f]rom 2019 to March 2023, Michigan cancelled between 400,000 and 450,000 registrations because the voters were deceased.

Against the backdrop of the RNCs new lawsuit, Republicans and right-wing activists are engaging in a nationwide, conspiracy-ridden effort both in and out of the courtroom to purge eligible voters from the rolls. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) is currently working to reinstate the voter registrations of over 1,000 individuals residing in Detroit-area suburbs, whose registrations were improperly canceled as a result of a right-wing voter purge scheme.

As of today, the RNC is involved in 23 anti-voting lawsuits across 14 states, many of which seek to restrict the voting process in key swing states including Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin ahead of the 2024 elections.

Read the complaint.

Learn more about the case here.

Continue reading here:
On the Heels of Recent Shakeup, RNC Files Lawsuit in Michigan Seeking to Purge Voters - Democracy Docket

Unhappy with large protests against the increasingly dire situation in Gaza, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is seeking to update the UKs definition of extremism. This, he has argued, is needed because our democracy itself is a target of antisemitic and Islamophobic extremists.

However, the reality is that no measures do more damage to democracy than policy proposals like the one Sunak is promoting.

The UK already has a definition for extremism, which is used in efforts to tackle terrorism. We may think of the police as leading those efforts, but the UKs Prevent strategy now also places a duty on certain other authorities to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.

These authorities include local government, education institutions and the NHS. In reality, the UK has placed teachers and NHS staff on the frontline in the fight against terrorism, on top of all their other duties that they were actually trained to do.

To help those with a duty under Prevent to identify people at risk of being drawn into terrorism, the government currently defines extremism as vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. Also included are calls for the death of members of our armed forces.

This definition is not contained in any law, however. Instead, it features in the governments Prevent guidance. A key reason why this definition is not contained in legislation is because it is so vague and unclear. It would be difficult to legally oblige anyone with a duty under Prevent to apply the definition and even more difficult for a court to determine what it means.

Even as guidance, there are still problems with the definition. It offers enormous discretion to the people deciding who is at risk of being drawn into terrorism. Discretion can lead to inconsistent application. That, in turn, can lead to discrimination.

It has been suggested that the new definition of extremism will include the promotion or advancement of ideology based on hatred, intolerance or violence or undermining or overturning the rights or freedoms of others, or of undermining democracy itself.

What does it mean to undermine or overturn the rights or freedoms of others? Would arguing for the UK to leave the European convention on human rights count meet the bar?

Likewise, what does it mean to undermine democracy? Does excessive corporate lobbying do so? What about calling for restrictions on the right to free speech or the right to protest? These are fundamental rights that are absolutely necessary for a democracy to flourish. Would they be extremist?

Sunak is presenting the new definition of extremism as a response to protests he depicts as being out of control. But the UK already has numerous laws in place to tackle what it considers to be unacceptable behaviour at protests. The Terrorism Act (which is also incredibly broad) can be used to prosecute people who damage property or create a serious risk to public safety during protests.

Counter-terrorism laws can also capture forms of expression at public demonstrations or online. It is already a crime to express support for a proscribed (unlawful) organisation, or to wear clothing, symbols or publish images in a way which can raise suspicion that you support an unlawful organisation. So, for example, if you express support for Hamas a proscribed organisation you are already committing a crime and can be prosecuted for it.

Meanwhile, the Public Order Act contains offences dealing with hate speech. These include using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displaying written material which is intended to or likely to stir up racial or religious hatred.

In 2022, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act expanded the criminal offence of causing a public nuisance to include serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity. This can now be applied by he police to criminalise protests that are considered to be making too much noise.

It is hard, therefore, to see which bases are not already covered for a government looking to prosecute people for extremism. These mechanisms have already been used to clamp down on all kinds of activism. In reality, there is no gap in the law that needs fixing. Rather, this proposal looks like a classic example of a government talking tough on crime and terrorism in order to boost its poll ratings in an election year.

Adding new definitions for extremism only creates problems. The vaguer a definition gets, the easier it is to misuse. It can also have a pervasive chilling effect on free speech. People may self-censor out of fear of being identified as extremist, not least when their employer has a duty under Prevent.

The fact of the matter is that human rights law allows for protests to be disruptive. Otherwise, they could be simply ignored. Human rights law also allows people to shock, offend, and disturb through speech.

The government may not be happy with large public protests against its foreign policy but it should not be viewed as extremist to march for a ceasefire in Gaza. Likewise, it should not be viewed as extremist to vocalise opposition to the potential genocide being committed by the Israeli Defence Forces. If this were so, then the International Court of Justice is extremist.

There is a deep danger of conflating protest with extremism and terrorism, undermining the legitimacy of these protests. To stretch the concept of extremism to cover these views is what is actually undermining democracy and the rights and freedoms of others.

The rest is here:
Rishi Sunak's plan to redefine extremism is disingenuous and a threat to democracy - The Conversation Indonesia

More than forty years ago and shortly before he entered the Catholic faith, the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre wrote an essay worth revisiting today. MacIntyre is a brilliant scholar but a sometimes-tedious writer. As a result, his essay Social Science Methodology as the Ideology of Bureaucratic Authority has all the eloquence of an air-conditioning repair manual. But as background to our current political environment, its value is very real. Ill explain.

For MacIntyre:

Modern liberal politics is dominated by a conception of the political process as one of bargaining between interests. Political morality consists in the observance of certain legally enforceable restrictions upon conduct; morality in general is relegated to private life. There is largely lacking any conception of political life as being the pursuit of the common good. . .[nor can there] be, for our dominant effective notion of the common good is merely that of an artifact compounded out of individual and partial interests as a result of the bargaining process.

Such a feeble sense of the common good has consequences. As MacIntyre argues, in the modern worlds understanding, for example, the notion of a just price makes no sense; justice belongs in one realm and the price mechanism in another. Plus, the relationship of the good citizen to a good man is an essentially Aristotelian question. . .about the distribution of certain dispositions (virtues) in a systematic way within the entire community.

Put simply: In todays world dominated by technology and the social sciences, the common good and a virtuous citizenry have only a marginal connection. The common good is a statistical abstraction amounting to the sum of similar appetites. Aristotle and his concern for a civic life anchored in the cultivation of personal virtue have about as much relevance to political reality as a blacksmith and the needs of his craft.

This implies an equally feeble anthropology. In other words, it suggests a degraded understanding of who and what a human being is, and what if anything our unique dignity as creatures might be. This in turn affects our politics which becomes unmoored from any stable, Biblical grounding.

In practice, the social sciences tend to treat the human person as a data point and an object of study, not a subject with conscience, free will, and a transcendent destiny demanding reverence. Religious belief is typically assumed to be a self-imposed, irrational mystification; an effort to create higher meaning where otherwise none exists.

The irony, as MacIntyre notes, is that the social sciences themselves very easily become an exercise in technical sophistication [that ends] in mystification. For MacIntyre, social science can be seen as essentially a histrionic subject: how to act the part of a natural scientist on the stage of the social sciences with the more technical parts of the discipline functioning as do greasepaint, false beards and costumes in the theater.

The difference is that actors in the theater always know that they are actors, and so do their audience. The methodologists of social science and their audiences too often dont.

This is why Christian Smith, himself a distinguished social scientist, described American sociology as, not merely the science of society nor merely a politically liberal-leaning discipline, but a particular sacred project, a movement to venerate, protect, and advance certain ideological goals and assumptions with the zeal of new religious converts.

Its why a thoroughly secular scholar like Neil Postman reclassified social science as a branch of moral philosophy rather than genuine science, and why the historian Christopher Lasch never a religious believer and always a man of the old working-class left showed such skepticism toward the social sciences in his own writing on matters of society, family, mature citizenship, and culture.

The problem with social science isnt the collection of statistical data. On the contrary, the value of such data is often very important. The problem, as MacIntyre notes, lies in the logical gap between all statistical statements and all causal statements, with many social scientists interpreting their data through the lens of presuppositions shaped by a highly particular and partial view of the social world.

As it happens, this is good news for political leaders seeking to extend bureaucratic authority and thereby to reshape social life according to their own problematic agendas. In the process, social scientists serve as a kind of clergy in a new liturgy of authority and power that may have very little to do with the beliefs of the ordinary citizen whom government (theoretically) serves.

So why ramble on about any of this? Heres why.

In an election year, concerns about our democracy and its future become predictably urgent. Our democracy is on the brink of a theocratic coup. Our democracy is being hijacked by racists, fascists, homophobes, and misogynists. And so on.

Its worth noting that the word our in the expression our democracy has very different meanings for what Christopher Lasch describedas a self-flattering leadership class dressed in the vestments of social science, and for ordinary citizens raising families, struggling to survive, and operating off common sense and the remains of this nations biblical morality.

Graham Greene once wrote that behind the complicated details of the world stand the simplicities. The good news about reversing the worst and renewing the best ideals of our democracy, is that its actually pretty simple. The bad news is that its hard and takes a long time.

The reason its hard is because it involves changing ourselves from comfortable religious fellow travelers and pew sitters to committed witnesses of Jesus Christ not just in our private lives but in our public actions, including our civic engagement. Most of us dont really want to do that. It cuts us out of the herd and invites the derision of todays mainstream, enlightened bigots.

The reason it takes so long is that individuals and communities, and their habits, are much harder to rewire than structures.

But if we dont start now, change will never happen. And the responsibility for whatever comes next will be on us.

*Whoever refuses to obey the general will, will be forced to do so by the entire body; this means merely that he will be forced to be free. Rousseau in The Social Contract (1762)

Here is the original post:
The Our in Our Democracy - The Catholic Thing

* "Whole-process people's democracy is the defining feature of socialist democracy," said Chinese President Xi Jinping. "It is democracy in its broadest, most genuine, and most effective form."

* The thoughts and aspirations of over 1.4 billion people have been incorporated into the top-level design of national development through China's unique and distinctive whole-process people's democracy.

* The "two sessions" offer the world an important window to observe China's democracy.

BEIJING, March 11 (Xinhua) -- Seated in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, Chinese national lawmaker Wang Yongcheng ran his fingers along raised dots of the Braille government work report as he listened to the document delivered by the premier.

Wang, who is visually impaired, was reviewing the report during the annual session of China's people's congress, which together with the political advisory body meeting is known as "two sessions." For this year's session, he submitted suggestions regarding retirement services for the disabled people.

The "two sessions" offer the world an important window to observe China's democracy. Thousands of deputies to the National People's Congress (NPC) and members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) gathered in Beijing to discuss and plan for future development.

In a country with about one-fifth of the world's population, people are actively participating in democratic practices, ranging from state legislation to local matters.

Scenarios of democracy manifest in diverse ways. In tea lounges in east China's Fujian Province, people engage with lawmakers, expressing their opinions and contributing to decision-making processes. In another instance, thanks to a political advisor's diligent investigation, more than 230,000 ancient trees in central China's Hunan Province were granted legal protection.

"Whole-process people's democracy is the defining feature of socialist democracy," said Chinese President Xi Jinping. "It is democracy in its broadest, most genuine, and most effective form."

The thoughts and aspirations of over 1.4 billion people have been incorporated into the top-level design of national development through China's unique and distinctive whole-process people's democracy.

BROADEST REPRESENTATION

Wang Yongcheng, 57, is the first visually impaired deputy to the NPC since the establishment of the People's Republic of China 75 years ago. Fulfilling his duties as a national lawmaker since last year, Wang has been approached by many visually impaired people requesting him to voice their concerns.

Last year, Wang submitted four suggestions, one of which suggested publishing textbooks with large font sizes for low-vision students attending regular classes. He received Braille responses to the suggestions from the relevant government departments. "The blind community is 'seen' by more people," Wang said.

Mandated with state power by the Constitution, NPC deputies include Chinese leaders, entrepreneurs, scientists and university presidents as well as couriers, farmers and welders, etc.

As the fundamental political system in China, the people's congress system entails that individuals can be elected as NPC deputies regardless of ethnic group, occupation, gender, or financial status. At no point has the "democracy for the few," as seen in some countries -- "democracy of the 1 percent, by the 1 percent, for the 1 percent" -- been seen in China.

In 1954, the people's congress system was officially established in China. Over the past 70 years, democracy in China has become even more vigorous.

By last year, China had over 2.77 million deputies to people's congresses at all levels nationwide. Every ethnic group in the country has its own deputies to the NPC and members of the CPPCC National Committee.

Liu Lei, a 40-year-old NPC deputy, has been championing the cause of the Hezhe ethnic group, which boasts a population of over 5,000 in China and mostly resides in the northernmost province of Heilongjiang.

This ethnic group previously relied on fishing and hunting but has now transitioned to selling traditional Hezhe fish-skin paintings on e-commerce platforms. During this year's "two sessions," Liu called for increasing support for industries in remote regions to provide better development opportunities for the group.

In Western countries such as the United States, it is rare to see a high representation of rural people, blue-collar workers and ethnic minority individuals at the highest level of state power, said columnist Iara Vidal of the Brazilian magazine Revista Forum, adding that diverse voices are heard and respected in China's annual "two sessions."

CHINESE DEMOCRACY NOT A SHOW

In the ancient town of Wufu, Liu Jizhang, a deputy to the municipal people's congress of Nanping in Fujian, regularly gathers suggestions from neighborhood residents. Following suggestions to improve the local landscape, flowers were promptly planted along footpaths.

"I push for immediate action on matters I can address. For those requiring further coordination, I direct them to relevant authorities and follow through," Liu said.

The town is well-acquainted with China's ancient people-centered philosophy. Confucian scholar Zhu Xi from the Southern Song Dynasty (1127-1279) lived and studied in Wufu for many years. He championed the philosophy that a nation is based on its people, and society is established for the benefit of its people.

The Communist Party of China (CPC) has elevated the people-oriented philosophy to the core principle of "putting the people at the center" in national governance.

Liu Ting, an NPC deputy, has been focusing on issues related to an aging society over the past years. He has traveled to over 20 cities in China to explore how to use intelligent services to serve the aged population.

The environment and resource sector of the CPPCC National Committee, established last year, put forth over 160 proposals in 2023. Huang Miansong, a political advisor of this sector, surveyed multiple places focusing on rural development, and suggested orderly construction of rural environmental facilities during this year's session.

China has fostered a democratic framework that ensures the orderly and effective participation of its people in political affairs.

Venues and channels for consultation and discussion are available in various forms within neighborhoods. Online platforms ranging from forums to polls and surveys empower the people to contribute to policy discussions and the decision-making process.

At a legislation outreach in Shanghai's Hongqiao Subdistrict, boards are used to display the number of legislative discussions, but numbers are marked with magnets so they can be replaced easily, said Sheng Hong, an NPC deputy and a local community Party official. Over the past six months, nearly 100 suggestions submitted from the outreach have been adopted in national legislation including China's charity law and law on barrier-free environment creation.

Across the nation, the Legislative Affairs Commission of the NPC Standing Committee has established 45 such grassroots outreaches. Provincial and municipal legislative commissions have also set up over 6,500 grassroots outreaches across China, ensuring that the voices of the people are heard.

Simon Lichtenberg, a Danish entrepreneur who has lived in Shanghai for over three decades, has participated in multiple legislative consultations. He said that improving the laws by making suggestions gives people a sense of fulfillment and achievement.

Chinese democracy is not a formality, nor a "one-time" show. Deputies to various levels of people's congresses are accountable to the public.

When taking a barrage of questions from voters several months ago, Wang Lihong, a deputy to a district congress in Chengdu, capital of Sichuan Province, was sweating in the palms of his hands even in winter chill.

In response to the problem of chaotic parking in the community, he promised to run it over with the property management and seek solutions. That day, among the 100 voters who participated in the evaluation, 99 expressed satisfaction with his performance.

Carlos Martinez, a British author and political commentator, believes that in the Chinese system, the people always enjoy democratic rights in all stages, not just during elections.

DRIVING MODERNIZATION

During a trip to the countryside in Hunan Province, Lai Mingyong, a member of the CPPCC National Committee, found an ancient tree pummeled with iron nails serving as hangers for various items. Feeling the need to protect ages-old trees, Lai promptly submitted a proposal through the CPPCC Hunan Provincial Committee online platform.

Not long after, relevant trial schemes followed by regulations for ancient and renowned tree protection were implemented. Damaging such trees could now incur fines of up to 5,000 yuan (about 705 U.S. dollars).

"Chinese democracy has never been an ornament," Lai said.

Chinese people believe that the efficacy of democracy holds greater significance than its form. In China, democracy aims at pooling of wisdom to promote growth and prosperity.

At the "two sessions" in 2019, Dong Caiyun, an NPC deputy from the rural area of Jishishan County, highlighted the need for a local highway linking surrounding areas. Her voice was well heard.

Construction of a highway began later that year after the discussions. When a 6.2-magnitude earthquake struck Jishishan last December, the road that had just opened to traffic emerged as a lifeline linking the affected regions, facilitating the transportation of rescue forces and supplies.

During the "two sessions" last year, all proposals and suggestions submitted by NPC deputies were later reviewed, processed and given replies.

Every year, the government work report undergoes thorough deliberation by deputies before approval at the NPC annual session. Subsequently, the State Council will specify key tasks based on the report, assign responsibilities and establish deadlines for implementation.

Jose Luis Centella, president of the Communist Party of Spain, said that China has always fostered a democracy that sees wide participation from the people, involving them in national governance.

Democracy serves as a solid foundation for China's governance. A survey report released last year by the Academy of Contemporary China and World Studies revealed that respondents from 23 countries expressed an average approval rating of nearly 90 percent for China's governance capabilities.

The report to the 20th CPC National Congress emphasized that developing a whole-process people's democracy is one of the essential requirements of Chinese modernization.

"When Chinese modernization offers a new option for human modernization, its unique perspective on democracy also becomes a new form of democracy," said Zhou Hanmin, a member of the Standing Committee of the National Committee of the CPPCC and president of the Shanghai Public Diplomacy Association. "This is a significant contribution of China to the political civilization of humanity."

(Video reporters: Wu Yao, Feng Guorui, Xie Han, Hong Ling, Zhou Yang, Deng Min, James Asande, Duncan, Sun Nan and Ji Ben; Video editors: Zhang Li, Hui Peipei, Li Qin and Liu Yutian)

View post:
China: Democracy that works - Xinhua

As the leader of a news organization and a student of politics for nearly four decades, I have been thinking a lot about democracy being on the ballot and how to cover 2024 up and down the ticket.

We are about to be awash in a tsunami of false equivalence, truth distortion and partisan spin, and it is our job at The Indy to help you pierce all of this to understand the stakes and the reality. Nevada is not just a critical state in the presidential race, one of a half-dozen or so that will determine the next president, but we could decide control of the Senate and House and we will determine if Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo is rendered irrelevant by a Democratic supermajority in Carson City.

I have covered every election since 1986, but this one is different, and I could not be happier to have this team of smart, aggressive reporters and experienced, savvy editors to oversee them. Before I go any further, I want to address the elephant in the room named Donald Trump. Democracy is on the ballot because of Trump but not just because of him. Yes, he made a raft of claims and filed a gaggle of lawsuits, none of which went anywhere, and he fomented a coup on Jan. 6, 2021. These are facts.

But the most distressing phenomenon, in my view, is how many elected officials and candidates have given sustenance to Trumps false claims of fraud by either echoing them or ignoring them, a form of cancerous neglect that must be illuminated by journalists.

This is the epitome of cowardice, where fear trumps integrity, ambition trumps honesty. Spines disappear as character is revealed.

If Adam Laxalt had not sullied his family name by crying fraud in 2020 and then the state GOP, led by the ethically bereft Michael McDonald, amplified these phony claims (and still do), the crisis would not be as acute. That is, if Trump had been denounced and elected leaders had informed the public of the truth otherwise known as honoring their oath democracy might not be on the ballot, the threat would have been suffocated long ago.

It is our duty and it is imperative for us to fact-check these sub-Trumpian lackeys and try to revivify trust in the electorate that they have helped erode. Nothing could be more important for us and all journalists, everywhere.

There are plenty of conservatives real ones, not the MAGA poseurs who dont know William Buckley from William Shatner who know all of this to be true and are inconsolable about the degradation of their ideology, maybe even usurpation of it by Trump and his fawning acolytes.

Once too many people have lost faith in the system, it collapses and despite some optimism from very smart people that we will endure no matter who wins, I am not so sure.

Some will say this is partisan, but it is instead patriotism. It is not patriotic to try to undermine democracy with manufactured claims of fraud; it is, in fact, the opposite of patriotism. What is patriotic is to reinvigorate faith in a system whose foundations are crumbling because of Trump and his enablers and to call out the mendacity wherever and whenever it surfaces. Many national and local outlets, including The Indy and the Las Vegas Review-Journal, debunked Trumps claims and those of his state minions in 2020. We must do the same in 2024, and we must do it before the election, not afterwards.

I ignore or mute the nattering nabobs with the fake Twitter handles and hyperpartisans who cant see or refuse to tell the truth by blinding voters with a blizzard of lies. Because journalists call out election deniers does not mean we support President Joe Biden or Democrats; its our job to do so, and never has it been more important.

You can call out Bidens rhetoric and his misrepresentations and report the truth that Americans are understandably worried about his age without putting any of that on par with Trumps pathological lying and delusional effusions. That doesnt mean we are rooting for Biden to win and we will point out Democratic depredations when they occur. But we will also be sensitive to proportionality and, yes, fairness.

We will not be deterred by the reflexive and calculated cries of liberal media bias. I dont worry about The Indys record.

Just as we reported on the fake electors and GOP Senate candidate Sam Browns multiple abortion positions, we also helped expose Ruben Kihuen, who might still be in Congress if not for us, highlighted Mark Manendos harassment in Carson City and we have covered Democrats funneling money to nonprofits linked to them and Democrats traveling all over the world on special interest dimes.

We follow the news where it takes us. We are guided by accountability journalism, not political party.

I should also note that the states highest Republican elected official, Gov. Joe Lombardo, whom I predicted would win, has sat for not one, not two but three lengthy interviews with me since he was elected. Q.E.D.

Partisans gonna partisan, hacks gonna hack. We are undeterred, and the proof will be in our work, as it always is.

If you think we have gone too far, call us out. But my lodestar and the team's is to give voters a chance to evaluate candidates from president to local office for where they stand on issues, including the most important one facing the country, which is whether democracy endures.

I would be remiss not to mention that this is difficult for me, as I have written before, being a pundit and nonprofit leader. I have a long paper and digital trail, and I dont try to hide that. I have been lambasted by both sides, the price of doing what I do. I try to balance both roles, and sometimes my staff winces. But they also will tell you I have never told them not to pursue a story, never had a heavy editing hand to slant a piece.

Im a registered nonpartisan, but my opinions on certain issues and people are well-known I dont, I cant run away from that. But that doesnt mean we wont be fair. Let me know if you think we are not.

We will cover the presidential race and every other race fairly. We will make mistakes, but we know our role as the go-to outlet for politics and government in Nevada is critical and we take that responsibility seriously.

This impressive team will use all of the resources at our disposal to show where candidates stand, where they are getting their funding and where their facts need to be checked. We will do it without fear or favor, as we always have.

I hope you will let me know how we are doing the good, bad and ugly. Unless you trust us to be trying our best, even our best will go for naught.

Jon Ralston is the CEO and editor of The Indy.

Read the original:
OPINION: Democracy at stake and the reality of our coverage - The Nevada Independent