Conspiracy Theories, Functioning Democracies, and the Press

I don't really like to align myself with those who place great faith in conspiracy theories, but former U.S. President Jimmy Carter made a comment in a recent interview that he doesn't believe we have an actual functioning democracy in our nation at the present. Carter said that he has reason to believe that his electronic communications are monitored, and if he doesn't want those in the U.S. government to know the content of his communication to anyone,  he sends the communication in an actual letter as opposed to an email. While I've not necesssarily agreed with everything President Carter has said or done, I've never seen evidence that the man is paranoid or delusional.

I have mixed feelings about former President Carter. I admire that he has spent his retirement in service to his fellow man. On the other hand, things I've read from what I would consider to be reliable sources have lead me to believe he was never the "common man" he pretended to be while he was president. He did things, for example, such as carrying his own suitcase for as long as cameras were on him, then dropping them as soon as the cameras were off, usually expecting secret service agents to carry the bags for him. Such was not their job, and, in fact, compromised the job they were hired to do, which was to protect the president. If he needed aides to carry his luggage, he should have had his aides carry his luggage, and he shouldn't have pretended to be something or someone that he was not. Yet still  I suspect he is a good man at heart, and I believe there is something to his allegations concerning the state of our current government.

My feelings in this regard were bolstered a bit by a recent tweet  from People magazine regarding a luncheon to be held between Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama at the White House. The tweet was posted, then taken down almost immediately. Since the backlash over the removal of the tweet, it has been reposted.

I'm not terribly concerned about President Obama and Hillary Clinton having lunch together at the White House or anywhere else, nor am I concerned about whether or not the press is aware of it and chooses to publicize it. What does give me pause is the decision of People magazine to report it and then to immediately take it down. Precisely who applied pressure to the publication to delete the post  is a cause of perplexity to me, as is the decision to re-post the item.  

Do we have excessive governmental interference with our press, or do we have individuals in high positions of power in administrating our news agencies who are too biased to do their jobs effectively? Do we have a functioning democracy?

For the record, I'm a registered Democrat.

Phil Robertson, A & E, The First Amendment, and Liberal Bias of the Media

I'm a bit puzzled as to the uproar as well as the confusion on both sides of the issue concerning Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson. Mr. Robertson gave  inflammatory comments about his perceptions concerning homosexuality in an interview with someone from Vanity Fair. His comments wre publicized. His employing network,  A & E,  chose  at least temporarily to suspend his employment. Supporters of gay rights are hailing the network's decision, while conservative voices are decrying the network's actions as a violation of Robertson's first amendment rights.

Perhaps the logic in my understanding of the issue is faulty or oversimplified, but I don't see the issue as being in any way related to the first amendment, and the issue doesn't appear to benearly so complicated or convoluted as some appear to be trying to make it seem.  Phil Robertson is free to express his opinion on any subject he wishes. He is employed by a non-govenment entity -- A & E network.   The people at A & E have every right to terminate Robertson's employment if  they feel that his words or actions reflect poorly on  A & E or in any way negatively impact its bottom line.

While I cannot know this for certain, I doubt that this issue is personal to whomever made the decision to suspend Phil Robertson's association with the network. My assumption is that the leadership at  A & E believes that their financial stability has best been preserved by at least temporarily discontinuing the employment of  Robertson.  For those who disagree with  the actions of  A & E,  either because they like Phil Robertson in spite of his somewhat inflammatory words or because they happen to share his ideology, it would be wisest for them to let their feelings be known to  A & E and to indicate that the network and its sponsors will feel a negative impact for any action taken against Robertson.

If such happens, it will then be up to the people  at  A & E to decide whether this is an issue of  right or wrong or an issue of economic impact.  If the issue is one of right and wrong to A & E, it seems the thinking has already been done and the decision has been made. If it is determined to be an economic issue, however, management will determine which side has greater power to negatively impact A & E, and will act accordingly.

It is silly for conservatives to use this incident as just one more illustration of  the liberal bias of  the media. Robertson may say what he chooses to say. A & E may employ whom they choose to employ. Those who support Robertson and oppose the actions of A & E should vote with their dollars in the form of avoiding A & E and its sponsors.  To invoke the first amendment in relation to this issue is to advertise one's ignorance as to our nation's constitution and its amendments..

.