Mass Media and Politics

For some reason, my body has decided 4 AM is a perfect time to be awake, so I suppose it's as good a time as any to get started on my blog.
The first thing I will say, because I know I wonder this about everyone I meet, is that my political affiliation, in terms of parties, is libertarian (not to be confused with "liberal" -- I have had that happen a lot). However I prefer the term minarchist. Basically, less government is better government.
Well, this class is called "Mass Media and Politics", so I suppose that's a good place to start. During our last class meeting, we had a debate on the mass media doing an effective job serving the needs of the American political democratic system. What I found the most interesting is what took place in my own head. I originally was not sure where I stood on the issue, though I leaned more towards the negative. I joined the "affirmative" side, hoping to form more of an opinion and also because I rarely join the side I disagree with (I find that professors are always encouraging us to join the side we disagree the most with). By the end of the class, after hearing all of the arguments, I was definitely leaning more towards the affirmative, not because I think the media are praiseworthy or perfect, but because I think there's only so much that it can do, and that people really just like to complain too much. However, I was not crazy about the topic or the wording of it to begin with.
The first thing I have a problem with is "democratic". A democracy, to me, means mob rule. I do not believe that mob rule is an effective way to govern, nor do I think the United States was ever intended as a democracy. I believe, at the heart, America is a republic. The difference between a democracy and a republic, as I said, is the way the majority is controlled. In a democracy, the majority have the power. In a republic, power lies within the individual.
I also hear a lot of people complain that the media is biased. Well, which media are you referring to? News is news. The president made a speech today. That's news. It is a fact, and there is no way to slant or bias that fact. What an individual thinks of that speech, however, is up to the individual. One particular reporter may elaborate his thoughts on the speech, but that is not a bias in the news or leaving out facts. It is up to the viewer to decide what he thinks for himself. Biases stay in business because that's what people want; I listen to Neal Boortz so I can talk to the radio and say things like, "Yes! Exactly!" On the other hand, I watch Rachel Maddow so I can shake my head and also, so I can know what I'm arguing against. If you only listen to one side, how are you to know what you're even disagreeing with? So while some sources have bias, I believe that is a good thing. I like people with opinions. I like to hear others opinions, so I don't stay closed up in my own little box thinking my opinions are the only ones.
So in short, you can't bias the facts. What you can do is think for yourself. A little slant is good here and there.
If this wasn't coherent, I apologize; it's almost 5 AM. My body hates me.

About the flag in the background: you will see it with me everywhere. It's called the Gadsden flag. Look it up ;)