Who should fund news about elections?
Abhinandan Sekhri is the co-founder and CEO of Newslaundry, a reader-supported media critique, news and current affairs website. He regularly delivers lectures and hosts panel discussions on journalism and the importance of the independence of the media.
Watch Abhinandan’s video to hear him explain how he thinks news about elections should be funded.
Video not working? Follow this link: https://vimeo.com/918295766/c67c4c7c5c
Abhinandan believes that news consumers should fund news about elections - rather than political parties or big corporations.
- What might happen if political parties pay to make news about elections?
- What might happen if big corporations pay to make news about elections?
- What might happen if citizens of a country pay to make news about elections?
- Do you agree with the system that Abhinandan uses at Newslaundry? Why or why not?
Comments (35)
I think that if political parties pay to make news about elections, then the party with the most money and funding will have the ability to sway the people's votes. This is quite a negative thing as it then means that the smaller parties will find it even more difficult than before to gain power because of how difficult it is for people to hear their ideas and plans when surrounding them entering parliament.
However, if the big corporations pay for the news about elections it will lead to them predominantly posting articles about the party that they want to win. So if corporations were the ones who fund the news surrounding elections there would have to be extensive rules put in place.
If it was down to the citizens to pay for this then they would most likely not pay for much leading to little to no advertising on the current election.
So as a result of all of this, I think that there is no simple yes or no answer to these questions except for the answer of all of them. The funding should come from a bit of everyone, as it helps keep it as fair as possible for the parties running for the government.
I disagree with your first point Nowadays, most people are civilized, and the amount you pay to the news does not guarantee you'll get the most votes. People vote for candidates who they believe can address their needs and improve their lives, not just based on how much money you spend on advertising your promises to the masses.
I agree with second point that if the big cooperation fund the news about election there would have to be extensive rules put in place because the party will not have a say.
As humanity advances, people start looking more on their political history, and less on their current promises about what they are going to do. Basically they vote based on that candidates previous successes.
👋 Hello everyone!
🤔 In my opinion, if political parties provide 💰funding💰 to the news, the news might become biased towards that political party due to the large sums of money involved. Similarly, if big corporations pay to have news coverage of elections, their sponsors (who may belong to a political party) might influence the media to be biased towards their party.
💭 I believe that if citizens pay to create news, it could have a negative impact on the economy due to the substantial amount of money required.
I agree with you because if a candidate who is already wealthy funds their own campaign on the news the particular news station might add in extra stuff when talking about the said candidate that is not true just to earn more money.
I'm not sure about this............. But for the candidate. Will he help address the problems of his country? if no. then, there is no need of inspiring for a political position, because leader are meant to be as servants to their people. however, I also agree because if a candidate is wealthy and visionary , he can even help tackle societal ills with all that his got.
I also agree with you that if for political party or a corporation funds the news, it could lead to nepotism. This will lead to only one side of the campaign is presented to the public and people only get witness what's the political party of corporations wants them to hear or see. This can result in making a bad choice when it comes to choosing a leader.
I also agree with you that political election news should be founded by the people. This is because it will eliminate any bias and the media would be able to accurately report on what is happening . I believe without being funded by political parties or corporations, Media outlets will be free to advertise different campaigns from all political parties. They would have the freedom to report without hiding anything so that people can make informed decision and vote for the right candidate.
I also agree with you reliable lobster. I also think that politicians should be able to offer the funding to the news, because after all it is the news who take their time to gather information and advise the listeners who watch or are interested in the news program on who or who not to vote for. I think without the news the word of the election will not be able to spread out in a fast way therefore not very many people will know if they can vote at any polling unit or at a particular polling unit.
I would agree with you reliable_lobster, this is because if voting makes people have to pay for their votes it will mostly make the voting unfair. Then people may have more money and sway the votes if it has more money, so some people may have a bigger affect on the votes when it should all be fair.
I think the government should not fund the news because it might end up looking like bribery and I think that the people should fund the news because there is a diverse part in a soicety and on these news it is based on what the people are going to vote, therefore there would fair distribution in the candidates in on the news.
I agree because democracy involves fair elections and is defined as government of, for and by the people, right? Since the people practically control the democratic system, they are to fund news about elections. This is because they are physical or first-hand witnesses to elections. They organized it and agreed to the system so therefore, they should be able to express their feelings about the system.
The mass media or free press is a major pillar of democracy and platform set for the people to properly express their opinions. The mass is to be completely independent and free from the grip and influence of the government, to prevent bribery and corruption and spread of fake news. The government can only use the mass to tell the people their plans and election results. The mass is a part of the people and is serving them; therefore, the people should be the ones funding news about elections.
Thank you.
I agree with you because election should be fair to the citizens but not dictated. However, Citizens can fund the news to show the people what is going on in election in Countries.
I agree with your first point that if the government were to fund election news, it would look like bribery. In my country, there is a particular news company that is owned by one of the past candidates in the previous election but when the news channel endorsed its owner, it looked like partiality to me. But I disagree with your second point because I think that the candidates for the election should fund the election news. it is perfectly legal for news outlets to endorse a particular candidate or party even if they were paid to but I think that it is wrong if the party or candidate that is funding the news uses the power of the press to villainize the name of another party or candidate. I think that if a candidate or party were to fund the election news, it could help to boost their chances of winning the election.
I agree with you because if the government should be the one to fund the news it would not seem fair as a lot of people would think because they are the government that is why they are given to do such. Everyone is not the same and they all have different perspectives about things. It could be that the government was bribed and so that is why they were doing that. I think the people should be the one to fund the news as it would seem much fair as their own perspectives are also being seen.
I agree because, Government are the people that should fund the broadcasting of news because, they have the money, they have the resources. The Government has all the things that they need to have to broadcast the news.
Many of the people do not have the resources to use for the funding of these places.
THANK YOU.
I agree with you because if a government is to fund a political party, they will almost make sure that the particular candidate they fielded emerged as the winner and that could be termed as rigging because the government will virtually dictate on the outcome . and that is why I support that the people should fund a political party, so that there will be an equal ground for everybody to express how satisfy they would be at the end of election process.
I agree with you that the government should not fund election news, if they do that, the government in power also belongs to a political party, and this will not be in the favour of opposition parties. I don't expect media houses funded by a political party to criticise the party, you can't bite the finger that feeds you.
This is particularly not good for Africa where freedom of speech is still largely backward. Funding of election news should be left to parties to fund their election. Funds from corporate business communities must not be traceable to any political parties as their interest may not represent the interest that is in favour of the masses.
Yes, I agree with you because if the government should should be the one to fund the news, it will look so much like bribery and corruption just for the leaders to remain there in their political power. The people should do it because it will be more better as they know what they want for themselves.
Hi faithful nation,
I strongly agree with you because if the government funds the news like you said it will end up like bribery.
I feel the government has made efforts to minimize corruption through the endorsement of laws and the enforcement of integrity systems but with little success. Greed, pretentious lifestyle, customs, and people's attitudes are believed to have led to corruption. Also, another root cause could be tribalism.
Not only do I believe that the government shouldn't support the news, but I also believe that big businesses and political parties shouldn't support the news because, when they do, they frequently promote individuals from their communities, influence, and regions without conducting adequate background checks on them. A man does not always have the ability to address all of a country's problems just because he helped with one. A man's power and completeness are revealed through time and chance.
I concur with Abhinandan's approach at Newslaundry; consumers of news should cover it, and if the public needs to be served, they should pay for it. However, I think funding will be slow because there aren't many resources coming from these everyday people, so the drive may be a little slower and may not reach many citizens, particularly those at the grassroots level.
THANK YOU!!!
I agree because not only may it look like so, at times it actually is bribery and is very dangerous for the future of that country.
I think that the candidates should be responsible for funding election news election news greatly affects the out come of elections as most news consumers eligible to vote. I think that if the candidates want to win, they should find news channels that could provide them with endorse
Hey, guy! I think candidates should be responsible for funding election news. 🗳️ It's super important cause most voters get their info from the news. If candidates want to win, they should get endorsements from news channels they support. It's and helps us make better choices when we vote. Plus, it's like giving us a thumbs-up for being informed citizens! 📣 Let's make sure our voices are heard loud and clear! 🗣.
Thank you 😎.
However, this raises one concern, can they be able to pay? I think a big news network that is viewed by many can sustain a system were viewers have to pay because there is a wider spread of supporters but if it is a small news network that has few consumers, payment might be out of reach for the viewers because of the concentration of viewership. In all I think such a system is sustainable when there is a larger audience for this news.
Hey there, creative personality!
I appreciate your perspective, but I respectfully disagree about citizens paying the bill for news creation. It's a friendly debate, but I believe asking people to pay could put a strain on the economy. The hefty costs involved might lead to chaos and inefficiency in how news is funded.
This might also cause bias due to favouritism of wealthy citizens causing bias towards candidates.
Hi openhearted music,
I strongly agree with you because candidates should be responsible for funding their election campaign. I personally do not see anything wrong with winning the endorsement of media houses and they come to support him/her. Truth be said, election requires tones of money which largely goes into the media houses who of course need huge sum of money operate. Candidates must pay media houses to get to give or her visibility.
THANK YOU!!
I agree because a candidate funding a media outlet such as the news could be a huge factor for the election and if the candidate was to fund a news channel even before the election, it could still boost their odds of winning the election because it could increase publicity. But a candidate can not just fund any random news channel because if they do not fund the right one, they could lose the election. But if a candidate really wants to win, making change is what matters.
Hi openhearted music.
I agree with you on the case of candidates giving news channels fund so that they can be voted in election but on the other hand, it is a very bad thing to do because if the news channels get very angered with the candidate it might lead to disagreements and instead of the person who is meant to be voted will not be elected because the news outlet would villainize his/her name. Also, the news channels who have been given funds would have to pay back all the money they were paid for endorsement.
THANK YOU.
Hello,
I believe that if political parties pay to make news about election, then it undermines the democratic process, spreads misinformation, creates unfair advantages and contributes to polarization which harms the integrity of the electoral system and the well-being of society.
If big corporation pay to make news about election, then news coverage may prioritize corporate interest over the public interest, leading to biased reporting that serves the agenda of that corporation. This can distrot the information available to voters and influence electoral outcomes in flavor of corporate interest.
If citizens pay to make news about election then, I think that there will be more positive effects than negative because it can bring diverse perspective.
Thank you!
You are absolutely right. Political parties should not pay to make news as this could lead voters to misconceptions . They can shape fake news so as to attract voters. Media should remain neutral to all this, but they should have the role of informing people who are the leaders, what opinions and values they represent. Media shouldn't express preferences and and influence people according to their political stances.
Society is consisted of so many different voices that need to be heard. They express diversity and through this, people learn to listen and respect each other.
I don't think it matters too much who funds election news (as long as the funding is legal!) but what is important is that all the political parties involved get the same amount of time / access to the electorate. If one party gets 5 minutes on a Saturday night (prime time) then all parties deserve to be seen at the same time on following weeks so people get to see all the available options to vote for. As accurate Outcome said, there is not simple answer to who should fund election news, which is why I feel where it comes from is les important than who actually has access to the news itself.
If political parties or big corporations pay to make news about elections the news might subtly or explicitly favour that specific political party or corporation. This is because the news is a powerful tool used to persuade consumers on what to think, or how to do things. Political parties and corporations can show their good side regularly, the candidates from that party can speak frequently and the news would only be able to focus on them. Also the political party or corporations can take advantage of the news to spread legitimate of illegitimate bad news about other competing parties or corporations. Advertisements on the goods and services of these corporations would be frequent. Neither political parties nor big corporations should be allowed to monopolize the news.
However, if citizens are able to pay for the news, it’s possible to achieve equal and neutral view points about subjective matters like elections. There will be no sole corporation or party monopolizing the system instead multiple people with diverse perspective get to see their interests represented on screen. It’s nurtures inclusivity. Unlike when a corporation or party makes the news, in such cases they might be a lack of diverse representation. This is why I agree with the system that Abhinandan uses at Newslaundry.
I can agree there will be a bias if political parties fund the news about the there might be social biases but I don't agree to that of big corporation because if a corporation decides to fund news about election it might just be them thinking business wise because they want to speak in favour of a candidate who is likely to raise their business.g if a candidate's manifesto says I would contribute to energy conservation and my corporation is into solar energy or selling solar panel, knowing fully well if I support that person and they win the election my company would be a big hit so therefore I decided to fund the election it a business investment . Big corporations should fund elections
If political parties pay to make news about elections, there's a risk of bias and manipulation in the reporting. The news may favour the paying party, leading to misinformation and a lack of impartiality. This might weaken the democratic process by unfairly affecting public opinion. Corporations may have their own interests and agendas, which could lead to news coverage that serves their interests rather than providing accurate and true information to the public. If citizens of a country pay to make news about elections, there's potential for a better democracy. When news organizations are funded by their audience, they are more likely to prioritize serving the public interest rather than catering to the interests of political parties or corporations. This can lead to more reliable news reports. Regarding Abhinandan Sekhri's approach at Newslaundry, where news consumers fund news about elections, i agree with it because it aligns with the principles of independent journalism and the importance of media freedom. By relying on citizen consumers rather than funding from political parties or corporations, Newslaundry can maintain editorial independence and provide unbiased coverage of elections.
I believe that candidates must be responsible for defining their electoral programs in order to obtain the electoral vote of supporters so that they can win the elections. All voters are waiting to know the candidates’ plans, and if parties, companies, or even individuals spend on this news, they may side with one candidate over the other. Therefore, it is the responsibility of each candidate to find a way to communicate his electoral program to everyone
I think that it is the job of the candidates to fund the election. I say this because to become something great it comes with great responsibilities and I think that one of these responsibilities is to be able to fund the elections. Wanting to be voted for by the people is a totally normal thing to do but not funding the elections of very inhumane because if you want to have control you have to know what the people want from you and I say that one of that will be a test from the voters to see if the candidate that they are supporting is worthy enough to lead them.
So, I just think that the candidates should be the ones funding the elections so that the voters will know that they are ready to take charge over the country or state.
THANK YOU.
Hello, there.
Personally, I think that if political parties pay for election news then that news will be biased and discriminatory. The news will always highlight the good sides of political parties. As a result, people will not get correct information about a political party. On the other hand, the political party that cannot pay, the news about the political party will not be published or the wrong information will be published. I also think, if corporations pay to make election news, it will not be neutral. The news will be broadcast on behalf of the corporation. As a result, people will not get accurate information about the elections, which will affect the people negatively. Rival teams can also take advantage of this. I believe,if citizens pay to make election news, it will provide unbiased information about the election because the news will not be broadcast for any political party or corporation. The news will be broadcast with various positive and negative views of the election. There will be much more trust and reliable news reporting for the public. Besides, journalists can also freely present correct and accurate information to the public. Considering this aspects,I agree with the system that Abhinondon uses at Newslaundry.
Thanks a lot.
Hello triumphant_context;
I think your comment is quite logical. Media can play a role in both development and degradation of a country. Because, media is a main and easy means of news collection. The people of the country believe more in the information that is directly carried by the media. In this case, if the media publishes the correct information about the election, then the people can easily choose the leader. Moreover the media should also be honest otherwise the leader who has more money and power will win. Several organizations can be created to solve this problem. If the organization is created, will it be good or bad? What is your opinion about it? Hope you understand my opinion and question. Please answer my question as soon as possible.
THANKS.
I think candidates, political parties and cooperate bodies should not fund elections because you can not be an umpire in your own game. If this is allowed to happen, it will lead to biased reporting of electoral news. Media houses will report only positive things about their candidates and will on the other report negative or even fake news about their perceived opponents.
I have read about where the mainline media houses in a particular country were quiet over an obvious irregularities and qualification of a particular candidate because it was said they were paid to be 'silence'. This is not good for democracy. I think countries even enact laws banning political cooperate bodies from funding media organisations and if perceived that they even remotely funded them, such bodies should be taken to court. This will help unbiased reporting of electoral news thereby helping democracy.
I think if political parties pay to make news about elections, some people may change who their voting for. That action can make certain political party have higher chances of wining an election, while other parties have a lower chance of wining. This may make the other parties think bad.
If big corporation pay . They may favor a certain political party and send them to the news first to promote their chances , because they think that they are better than or can help them more during a time of trouble. Most corporations do it out of selfishness. But not all corporations do that some are fair and equal.
If citizens pay for it, they will probably not pay enough to fund for everything that will happen in that election. In the first place, citizens should not pay for it. If we had someone that would allow every party to have a chance to win the election would be more fair.
There is always a fear of reports being biased - this could be negative for people voting and might sway their opinions.
If public had to pay it would be limited as people would not have the money to do this.
Newspapers need to advertising so they would be the best place to do this
HI!
I agree with you, there is a big concern with knowing if reports are biased or not and if the people can trust the sources. because if someone finds a misleading or untrustful report this could lead to the believing something that is not true and will end up voting for that political party, and this can make things unbalanced.
You make a strong point, only a certain amount of people would be able to pay to make news about elections and so even then this could makes things unfair because if that person has a following or any sort of influence on a group of people then they could cause those people to vote unfairly.
correct me if i'm mistaken but you are saying that Newspapers are the best place to do advertising for elections and i do agree with you on that but i have a question, Do you think that online news sources like CNN could work just as good as newspapers?
Thank you.
I must say that i understand where he is coming from. News consumers should be the ones responsible for funding the news about politics, elections or happenings in the country. This can be done through payment of taxes. If a political party or any big cooperation is put in charge of funding the news, they can use it as an advantage to distort or manipulate the news and pass out information that they want and not what is needed. They could turn everything to be in their favor because they are the ones controlling all the processes and providing the funding. I think that if possible, news should be handled by private individuals. Some good examples of privately owned papers in my country are The Nigerian Tribune, The Vanguard and The Punch. When the news is free from interference from the government, information will be able to flow freely and without any restriction to what the citizens can read or hear about.
We believe that it is highly important that the news is not biased towards a particular party. The news should be an avenue for the voters to gather as much true information as possible about each party in order to make a well informed decision on who to vote for. They should be allowed to vote for a party that best based represents their views on how the country should be run. If parties, companies or the public were allowed to fund the media that report on politics then there will be a bias towards a particular group of people and it may not be what is best for the public, the economy or the country. Therefore, we believe that, although parties should be able to promote their own ideologies, they shouldn't be allowed to cause an unfair bias towards a particular group by funding the news.
If political parties pay for news coverage of elections, it may lead to a lack of transparency and unfair influence on the public's understanding of the truth. This could also result in biased coverage that does not accurately reflect the candidates' election programs. As for companies funding elections, this could unfairly impact the news presented, as these companies may prioritize their economic interests over the public's welfare. On the other hand, if citizens are the ones creating news about the elections, it is likely to be more transparent and accurately reflect the candidates' election programs, leading to a better understanding of the electoral process and candidates' platforms.
Hi, the thing that may happen if political parties pay to make news about elections is that they will make the news about only the candidates that are representing their party and this can be bad and good at the same time, it can be bad because sometimes political parties make fake news to boost their ratings and improve the chance of them winning the election and it can be good because they will show why people should vote for their candidates and if they vote for them they will promise a greener and better future for the country. So if we consider all these factors we can all agree that Political parties shouldn’t pay for the news during elections because the risk of them publishing bad and fake news is higher than them publishing good and authentic news.
Nowadays I think that media has the power to influence perceptions for leaders more than anyone else. I don't think that news can be bribed easily from political parties on what to show.
Even if this happens I think citizens can understand what is fake or not.
Moreover citizens, I don't think have the amount of money needed to Pay for news for elections.
And for me they shouldn't feel obliged to
Democracy doesn't mean to pay for news.
Democracy means to listen carefully to others opinions and judge what best represents you.
If money is mixed with elections then we are talking about business and not Democracy.
If political parties pay to make news about elections, elections would simply become unfair, because media is a way through which people apprehend different perspectives and so it is required to remain balanced, not in favor of someone. Here, parties with lots of money will have an advantage over smaller parties or candidates.
If big corporations pay to make news about elections, the news will again become biased, as the party liked by corporations will be at the top, they would be highly supported.
In both the cases, smaller parties or candidates will have to face criticism by big corporations and large political parties.
Hi,
Personally, I feel that the citizens should fund news about elections, this it because it ensures no wrong doing or turn would be taking in the process of broadcasting news. During my research I found out that if political parties should end up funding news about elections a lot of implications could follow, This is because the news outlets may feel compelled and obliged to promote the party supporting or financing them rather than equal statements, They may have to say things in favour of that party because of trying too secure their source of finance and this generally is unfair to other parties and even the people, because the news may end up deceiving them to think that that party is the best option and instead of voting for the right and most suitable party , they may end up giving power to the wrong party. It is not different when it comes to big corporations either, instead this one just concerns commercial influence. The corporations may give more importance or prioritize their business interest rather that equal reporting, and this may lead to the destruction of many other businesses as they may not gain the recognition and foundation they need to continue to stand.
So generally, the most suitable source of finance for news is the citizens, as this encourages and showcases independency, accountability and equality. I would like to know if you agree with me too.
Thank you!
I think....
If Political Parties Pay for News about Elections:
Bias and Manipulation
Limited Diversity
If Big Corporations Pay for News about Elections:
Corporate Interests
Commercial Bias
If Citizens Pay for News about Elections:
Diverse Perspectives
Independence
On Abhinandan's System at Newslaundry: Abhinandan's approach of having news consumers fund news about elections aligns with the idea of promoting independence and reducing potential biases associated with party or corporate funding. This model emphasizes the importance of news serving the public interest rather than being influenced by specific entities. It can contribute to a more impartial and citizen-focused journalism, promoting the idea that news should primarily serve the informed citizenry rather than vested interests. Whether one agrees with this system depends on the values one prioritizes in news reporting: independence, diversity, and serving the public interest.
Thank you.
I would agree with Abhinandan,
because he has a point with how large industrial corporations and political parties funding advertisements can make those group serve themselves rather than the people. To basically simplify this, you can say the large corporations and parties often affiliate themselves with each other forming a bond that can cause a majority of the advertisement to be skewed to that party. While if they are served by the people or funded by the people who are watching the elections ads and viewings, then this would be directly serving the people thus having an unbiased funding source.
I totally agree with the system that Abhinandan uses at Newslaundry because it is the best way to make sure that no one is given any kind of special coverage during the elections. If the news is funded by any political party then the channel will of course be forced to promote that party and if the coverage is funded by any cooperation then the cooperation's choice of party will be promoted more. However if it is funded by public just like it is done in Newslaundry then the public will wish for transparent and truthful news about the complete issue and later if it will be found out that even after getting the fund from the public, the channel has not provided the truth it will decline their reputation among the people leading to losses. Hence funding by public is the best solution for getting bias free news and it should be done by every news channel not only by Newslaudry.
Hello guys,
well, I would like to start by tell us about fake news. To my understanding fake new is the act of going online to tell people something that is not true and for the first thought about what might happen if political parties pay to make news about the election, I feel that those political parties are most likely paying for them to announce a fake news so people will vote them for the election, but if other people pay the news agents to make a news about the elections I feel that they are in support of that political parties in the use of fake news.
THANK YOU
Left to me I think that news on election should be funded by the campaigners, this can prove to the people that the campaigners are financially stable and can accomplish some tasks in the country that may require payments and money, in my opinion campaigners are the representatives of the different electoral parties and so should be ready to expect such financial problems, if they can sponsor their own elections when they become leaders it will be easier for them to prove their financial stability.
I also believe that news consumers should fund news about elections- rather than political parties or big corporations. Media has a great influence over elections. If the political parties or big corporations pay for making news, then it will influence people whom they want to vote. It is the right of the people whom they want to give their vote and no organization can influence his right. In this case, the wealthy and influential party will frequently make news and will be in the hot news. As a result, ordinary people will only see their good sides and will take the decision of voting without judging rationally which will result in the drawbacks of many good but not wealthy leaders.
When the media will make news about the elections then it will make people conscious to choose and give vote to the right candidate. It will help to conduct the elections fairly. No cheating and partiality will be happen if the media got access to make news in the election center and about any bad conduct done by the candidate.
When the citizen of a country will pay to make news about elections then it will be like a VIP treatment. It will work to collect the latest news about the elections. They will make news about all the candidates good and bad behavior and let the citizen choose whom they want to vote. The total rights will be given to the people. But I don't like the idea of citizen's paying to make news about elections. Because it is the duty of a news company to make good and effective news about different topic be it elections or any other. They shouldn't be paid extra for making news about elections. This shows the negligence of the news company if they charged additional pay for making news about elections.
Hello,
I believe that if political parties are to pay to make news about elections it could make things unfair and unbalanced. the reason i say this is because if one political parties makes news they are most likely to in some way try and encourage people to vote for them and not other candidates by saying things that could be negative about other parties or say things to make people want to vote them more by saying they'll do better than them.
If big corporations pay to make news i think it could be good or bad, this is because if the corporation only makes news about elections while staying unbiased and in general promoting voting, then i think that's good and allows promotion of the election while still keeping things fair. But, it could go wrong if a corporation that famous or has a large following publicly shares their opinions over the elections through news, it could guarantee that more than half of those followers will vote for whatever side the corporation is on because they like the certain corporation.
If during an election, political parties pay to make news about elections it can skew the resulting coverage and benefit those who pay the most. This can lead to an inaccurate representation of candidates and issues, ultimately causing the election of the wrong party. It's important for news consumers to receive unbiased and truthful coverage to make informed decisions.
In my opinion, if big corporations pay to make news about elections, it might lead to the promotion of that specific party, which may favor the corporation, and might even help in hiding wrong or illegal acts by the specific corporations, such as exploitation of fundamental rights of workers or illegal funds.
If citizens of a country pay for the news coverage of elections, it will ensure that the news they receive is correct, unbiased, and, most importantly, highlights the actual principles and ideologies of each individual party. This will lead to the people of the nation having a clear view and opinion on who they want to vote for, why they want to vote for them, and supporting what they believe is right for the nation.
Yes, I agree with the system used by Abhinandan sir at Newslaundry. The citizens of a country pay taxes for public facilities, which are the responsibility of the government. Similarly, news should be unbiased and reported by an independent body, free from the influence of political parties or corporations. Thus, I believe that it is entirely fair for individuals to pay for news coverage. It is the basic principle of democracy.
I think that if Political parties pay to make news about elections there will be an overload of news in general and parties may place biased opinion on their platforms which can cause misinformation and misunderstanding. But at the same time if news is look over and fact checked by whoever is in charge of a news company.
Political parties may be demanding of what they want their news to be and could press unnecessary pressure on the broadcasting team. Some parties have a small budget that they need to promote their candidate as best as they can cheaply and fastly.
If parties had to pay for news to be distributed, bad news would not be presented to the public about the party, if a member of a party has made a suspicious or sketchy action, I believe if this would be introduced into the system, that the news should presented this news to the public without the parties' permission and money put in place. The political system is made so the public have control who gets selected to run the country, they need to know who they are voting for.
If big corporations could pay to make news about elections it would be madness. Business and politics are not a good mixture, loyal customers of big brands would follow whatever the companies say, some people for may have an obsession on a company's product and may feel it would be betrayal not supporting the company, but the consumer would just actually be tricked into voting by popularity and not what their country could gain by choosing a specific party as the Politian part and a big corporation would go hand in hand, it would just be to powerful.
Thankyou :)
Hello,
I think that the people who pay for news about elections should be chosen very precisely. If the wrong person is chosen then they might pay the reporter to be bias towards a certain side. For example, if political parties are paying than they might bribe the reporter into convincing the listeners into voting for who the party wants. Or if a big corporation is paying then they might bribe the speaker into convincing the listener into vote for the choice that will benefit their company and so on.
Good Day Everyone
I believe if Political parties pay for the news about elections it might be a bit biased and the news will most likely be in favour of the political party who sponsored it. To avoid these biases news should not be sponsored by any political party.
Even news sponsored by Big corporations can be biased and the news may focus more on issues regarding the compony and less on public issues.
If citizens of a country pay to make news about elections, there will be unbiased reporting and views of the citizens. Citizens funding news could lead to a focus on issues that matter to the public, rather than the interests of political parties or corporations.
Therefore, I believe it is best for news to be sponsored by the citizens.
What might happen if big corporations pay to make news about elections?
We believe this would have a negative impact as it can result in Bias. It would be unfair for companies such as coca cola to pay for election news as not only would it be free advertising for them but it also a way to promote their own views which can have a negative impact. They promote for a party that benefits the business in terms of taxes which can have a consequence for the business.
If political parties pay to make news about elections voters may not choose the person that they were originally going to vote for. Most of the time, a candidate will promote bad news about another candidate so that the person who made the bad news will get more votes. If big corporations pay to make news about elections, they will promote who they will want to win. They might not care if the person is bad or not. People will end up voting for that person.
Hello 🤗
First of all, before I say my opinion, we must understand the meaning of the word election. Therefore, what is the meaning of the word election?
Elections are giving you the freedom to express your opinion in choosing from a list of candidates, for example: presidential elections and People’s Assembly elections, so any reason affects the citizen’s opinion about the choice (democracy)
It makes the elections unfair .
But what often happens in many countries is that some parties or companies support a specific person, and in order for his chance to win to be greater than his counterpart, they pay money to citizens or distribute to them, for example, some necessary things that help them live, such as food and other things, and this is not true at all. Because the basis of the election is to choose the right person in the right place and to be worthy of it, but unfortunately what some supporting companies or parties do affects the choice of the candidate, so he chooses a person who is not worthy of the position, or at least he is not satisfied with it, so he chooses him only because he wants to take money or something else from the supporters.
But from my point of view, the citizen must look to the future and whether the person he chooses will achieve the principle of justice or not, and not just look at money or food that will only last with him for a short time and regret it after that. Political parties and companies must not manipulate people’s needs to force them to choose people. Or things they do not want, so the principle of democracy must be achieved.
Thanks