What kind of balance are you speaking of? For the sake of argument, I'll assume that you mean spending somewhat equal time and effort on different sides of an argument.

That kind of balance can be expected from a news outlet. Many of them, especially American ones, overcook is massively by refusing to make judgements on the validity of opposing arguments. If argument A is backed by empirical evidence and argument B is smoke and mirrors, argument B should receive ridicule, not the same kind of respect that A receives.

Now, applying this kind of balance to individuals strikes me as wierd. They are not obliged to give a balanced view: they are obliged, as journalists, to present facts, and offer interpretations. The issues we're talking about here are not disputes between neighbours. We are talking about the war on terror, macroeconomics, propaganda, things of the utmost importance. And the media is doing a woeful job at presenting any dissenting view.

Thing is, you can get the major consensus narrative from countless news outlets out there. Want to here about the supposed benefits of multinational trade agreements? The NYT and the WaPo have dozens upon dozens of articles with praise of TTIP and TPP. If, however, you would like to hear about the consequences of previous trade agreements, or just some hard math on the numbers they like to throw in there, you won't find any. You'll have to go to Dean Baker at the CEPR, to Yves Smith at NakedCapitalism, you'll read Rick Wolff's take on it.

These people do everything in their power to restore the balance that the media drowned in buckets of party-line puff pieces. People recognise RT for propaganda, but somehow think propaganda stops when ownership is private.

Try to find proper articles about the global assassination program (drone warfare) and its effect on sovereign people abroad -- won't find anything in the media, you'll have to go to Jeremy Scahill.

Try to find proper articles about the desolation brought to communities in the developed world by (the current form of) capitalism, the epidemic of loniliness, the breaking apart of the social fabric, the monetarisation of every aspect of life -- silence. What about the slavery-like conditions it creates through indebtedness? The absurd inequality? Nothing.

What about the massive atrocities in Jemen? There was plenty about the atrocities committed by Russia in Syria, but when Saudis use US weapons to destroy an entire country, mum's word.

There is no balance in the media. They are the gatekeepers of knowledge, and anything outside the establishment's agreed upon consensus is ignored, marginalised, ridiculed, or straight up demonized.

CJ Hopkins had a great piece at Counterpunch the other day, titled Why Ridiculous Official Propaganda Still Works. He puts it more succinctly than I ever could. Reality doesn't matter, not for the mainstream media. The narrative matters.

And that's why I listen to dissenting voices like Chris Hedges, Abby Martin or Thom Hartmann, even when they are employed by a state propaganda outlet.

No media is worse than MSNBC and CNN. King of the lie.
Dont forget Dan Rather of CBS -- FAKE news right before the Bush election -- and he got caught and "let" go. Shameful..

Try as you might you can not deny truth. The media is in the tank for Democrats.

Trump will handle them like a BOSS.

Fake Clinton news?? what?? what child slavery.. how about how she screwed Bernie ???
How she was such a poor candidate that she had no trust with the American people??

But the Media and all the leftest was darn sure she would win.. Even up to 10pm election night.. Then the real results pored in and wiped their smug smiles right off their face.

They are not me me team. I'm not a democrat.
Faux is so far beyond biased that, for over a decade, it's repeatedly been proven that watching Faux makes you LESS informed.
CNN is far from perfect, but Fox is the grand champion of fake scandals....birth certificate, Vince Foster, WMDs, Benghazi, .....nothing else need be said.
If he ran as a democrat, he would probably have been screwed just as hard or harder than Sanders, he would absolutely not have won, democrats don't believe any insane thing their leader tells them like republicans will, because democrats are more likely to be college educated (22% more) so they know better.

I lost before the election started when Sanders was cheated out of the nomination.

Trump bashing will go on for his lifetime, he has ensured it with his bat shit crazy rhetoric. You might note that Faux was leading the charge against him, calling him an idiot, a liar, and completely unqualified to hold office until it started looking like he would win, then they changed their tune.

Fake news and biased media are FAR worse from the republicans, just look at the myriad of fake stories about Clinton in the last 6 months, then compare with the fake Trump stories, and there's no comparison, no one has accused him of running child slavery rings, or of murdering numerous close allies over some made up secrets, or of intentionally abandoning diplomats and military personell in hostile foreign countries, but Clinton has dealt with fake news since the 90's (dealt with it poorly, granted).

I am adult, Bob. Ask your president elect to grow up, he won the electoral college (not the electorate by 3 million votes though) but he's still acting like a spoiled 2 year old.

Edit: You might notice that the story that set Trump, and therefore you, off was NOT a fake story, it was a piece about a real report on what MAY or may not be a fake accusation about a foreign government having blackmailed the president elect (that they helped get elected), a report produced by the intelligence community for, and given to Trump (who may well be the one that leaked it, in order to distract from it with his outrage, knowing it would come out eventually). Maybe that's a good reason a president elect might want to not throw a tantrum at the intelligence community, they can destroy him with no effort if they choose just by reporting claims they've heard....like he does. Not good....sad.

Maybe Amazon Go will be the final nail in Capitalism's coffin. All of a sudden we'll see all companies trying to "automate" with the cash funneling to the top 1% as always until the money runs dry and they begin to freefall from their floating castles in the cloud - because they forgot one thing: robots don't shop, silly! I certainly do love to fantasize about capitalism grinding itself into a bloody pulp.

Or else we can fight for a socialist utopia, let the robots make us our carvel ice cream cakes and create the finest brews, while we all sit in our cozy castle in the clouds, taking shrooms and enlightening ourselves about the nature of the Universe - while hoping the robots do not become conscious of their slavery and we know it's coming because after all everyone saw the likes of Black Mirror, Terminator & West World

Well, when you outrageously publicly invite our enemies to interfere in the election by illegally hacking your opponent and releasing the stolen documents, our enemies do it, and you publicly thank them for it (as I recall he actually said 'the Russians have just handed us the election' when the emails were released) and reward them with placating policy and Putin friendly appointments...that's treason is it not?

It is surprising that some patriot hasn't shot the person who did that....yet. Right wing nutbags are shooting up pizza places over ridiculous child slavery stories....where are the armed, outraged, ex-military, anti-Russian patriots with nothing to loose? They don't even have to be total nutjobs, this outrage is real, clear, and dangerous.
(To be perfectly clear, I'm not advocating shooting anyone, I'm just surprised it hasn't happened.)

Offensive jokes are hilarious. I mean, if it offends bitches, niggers or fags, who gives a fuck?

I mean, people joke about white dudes all the time and you don't hear them complaining, unless they're Jews or some shit.

It almost like the most powerful demographic in history is less easily offended because they haven't endured centuries of oppression! Nah, that's ridiculous...

Here's the thing, you want to make a joke about rape or slavery or whatever, provided you are not explicitly advocating violence, I will defend your right to make that joke.

And I will defend my right to say you're a fucking asshole for making it.

Yeah...the word "pizza" is a code for a child slavery orgy room in the back, huh?
.....
Don't fool yourself into thinking this is the last time we'll see this series of events, expect planned parenthood clinics and mosques to be hit repeatedly in the next 4 years based on conspiracy theories.

@Mordhaus, you're not understanding the point I'm making here. I didn't say mankind in general isn't shitty to each other, it is very much. What I'm talking about is how as soon as Europe reached a technological tipping point (gaining an advantage), we started to fuck with every continent on the map. Our culuture shaped how we treated the rest of the world, which meant wiping out every other culture we could dominate.
Look at the Mongols, sure, extremely violent assholes. But what happened to those that didn't oppose them? Did they try to eradicate conquered cultures? Here's the funny part, the Mongols we're known for their religious tolerance. They didn't give a shit about your culture, as long as you surrendered and accepted their rule, you had a chance to be ok. Basically, the Mongols are Negan.
Say, what happened to those cultures that came into contact with the spanish Empire or the british? Oh right, we pretty much destroyed them as well as we could. We did this in the Americas, Africa and tried it in Australia. Europeans aren't Negan, they're the Wolves.
That's why I mention Zheng He. He shows up in Africa with a giant fleet and says "Gimme some of your shit!" and fucks off right home. Comes back a couple off times and the new chinese Emperor goes "Eh, it ain't worth it!"
I'm sure ol' Zheng could be quite the bastard but he didn't set up shop in Africa and he didn't start slaughtering people because they refused to embrace Buddha.
You're absolutely right, there are mad men to be found everywhere, there's genocide and slavery all around the globe all through human history. However, there's only one group of people that made all of it an export article. Our ancestors left their neighbourhood to mess up everybody else's. We're special in that regard.
With the exception of the Mongols of course. But they've always been exceptional. I mean, they're the only empire to successfuly invade Afghanistan. You gotta respect that.

I would say that Stalin, the Kin Jong's, Various African Tribal Genocides, and Pol Pot might disagree with your account of wholesale slaughter being reserved for the 'white' Europeans and their descendants. That is just to name a few. Also, what is a 'white' European? I mean the southern Europeans have quite a bit of Moorish blood in them, do they still count as 'white'?

All sarcasm aside, your argument is extremely flawed. Conquerors tend to lay waste to the societies they conquer, not always in terms of total lives lost, but in terms of cultural death. The reason why 'white' people are vilified for this lately is because for the past several hundred years they have been the ones expanding and taking over the regions you speak of. This is not exclusive to a skin color or originating locale, it is absolutely a core of our human nature.

I gave some examples earlier of non-European conquerors, but they are fairly recent. If we look in history at other groups, we find the same meme. The Steppe Horse Tribes were BRUTAL to cities and countries that did not capitulate. Look up "Measuring against the linchpin". That saying came from the fact that if you resisted Mongol rule, they would slaughter every male taller than the linchpin of a wagon wheel. The Aztecs and Mayans ruled southern American empires through great brutality, including human sacrifice for 'religious' purposes. Recent discoveries even indicate that it was considered a good omen if the sacrifices were crying in pain before they were to die. Remains recently found showed "All shared one feature: serious cavities, abscesses or bone infections painful enough to make them cry."

Slavery originated as early as human recorded history, if not sooner. Slavery can be traced back to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BC), which refers to it as an established institution. Slavery is rare among hunter-gatherer populations. Mass slavery requires economic surpluses and a high population density to be viable. Although slavery in some form or another existed in most European countries, it wasn't until after contact with the Arabic African slave traders that it soared in the 15th and 16th centuries.

tl;dr

You are referring to recent history to make an example while completely ignoring THOUSANDS of years of similar history. All humanity is flawed, narrowing it down to a singular group with cherry picked data is not going to persuade anyone with a brain.

You're kidding, right?
Do I have to make a list? On every continent white people visited (if you can call showing up and not really leaving a visit) we fucked up the lives of a good portion of the people living there.
Sure, mankind has always been cruel, in every corner of the earth. However, white people are to murder, theft and slavery what Coca Cola is to refreshing diabeeetus (yes, that's how it's spelled). A fucking international enterprise whose traces can be found everywhere. On every fucking continent.
I hope we can agree on that. Otherwise, here's a short list: Gippsland Massacres, Nagasaki, Opium Wars, My Lai Massacre, fucking Iraq, Crusades, Apartheid, Herero and Namaqua genocide, that whole Columbus mess, Trail Of Tears and transatlantic slave trade (because why the fuck not?). Oh, my bad, I forgot the freaking Holocaust and starting 2 World Wars.
Who does this? Who? White people, that's who. Europeans and their descendants.
Would you like to argue that level of evil is genetic? I won't.
It's cultural. We europeans (and later our emigrated offspring) always thought we're better than everybody else, we had god on our side (and the Pope agreed!). Probably a leftover from the Roman Empire. And that's why everywhere we go, we steal, murder or occupy the shit out of every place. No other collection of ethnic groups has so much blood on their hands and it's not because we're worse DNA constructs than the others. All humans are capable of evil, it just takes a certain way of thinking to go that far.
Thankfully, we wrecked our own continent so badly during WW2, that we finally started to improve our ways. But here's the problem: we just started. We're far from being done.
Orban, LePen, Farage, Putin, Petry and last but not least Trump.

Yeah, I do know who "those people" are, they're the fucking morons who voted for Trump.

See, here's the thing. I'm no longer interested in bringing them round or convincing them. Fuck 'em. We've had centuries of social progress from the abolition of slavery to women's suffrage to the civil rights movement to SSM. If they haven't got the message by now, I really don't give a shit.

But as a culture and a society we need to stop fucking pandering to these assholes. The idea that "everyone is entitled to an opinion" is a very important idea. But somewhere along the line that got mixed up with "everyone's opinion is equally valid".

I don't really have a solution for this. Part of me is actually considering what I would classify as extreme, abhorrent measures. Most of me just thinks that liberals or SJWs or whatever you want to call them, just need to stop being so fucking meek and apologising for being right.

Either way, we don't have time for this bullshit anymore.

This is what a fucking Trump presidency gets you.

At this stage, as utterly undemocratic as it is, I'm just hoping the Electoral College ignores the election (which it can totally do) and elects Hillary.

Yeah, she's a pretty poor candidate and she's in the pocket of business and blah, blah, fucking blah.

I don't care.

She's not an insane climate denying buffoon.

That if is a mighty big if.

And the lessons you think they "need to learn" from this election are probably different from the lessons that the professional class (credit to Thomas Frank) thinks the Democrats need to learn. To them, it's not about getting a candidate that has a higher favorability rating than a meteor strike, but to find a candidate that maintains their status in society. They are the winners of "free trade" (see Rigged by Dean Baker) and globalisation, while a vast number of people have been thrown into debt peonage, wage slavery or worse.

Unless the Democratic Party emancipates itself from the donors and the professional class, I don't see them becoming a home to champions of the people. Look at how the DNC conspired with the Clinton campaign to crush the Sanders candidacy -- lots of juicy bits about that in the Podesta emails. Look at Corbyn, who is basically caught up in a civil war within Labour, despite overwhelming support by the party base.

The Third Way (Social-)Democrats have bought into neoliberalism at such a fundamental level that I just cannot see anyone turning them into a vessel for social equality without getting utterly corrupted or even crushed along the way.

The lesson they learn might be to not nominate a member of a dynasty with so much baggage attached to them. Yet even that depends on them actually recognising the baggage in the first place, which they seemed unwilling to during this election cycle. Everything was brushed off.

And then you're still stuck with a representative of a system that doesn't work for a lot of people. The situation of the rust belt is not a result of anything particular to the current or previous candidates, but of the Washington Consensus and the widespread acceptance of neoliberalism as gospel.

Without major outside pressure, I don't see the party changing its ways sufficiently enough to become a representative of the people again. Maybe a Trump presidency is enough to create such movements, maybe not. Occupy was promising, yet crushed by the establishment in bipartisan consensus.

Dubai & the UAE:
Shari'a
Torture
Slavery
Homosexuals, adulterers and apostates can be stoned to death.
Abortion, blasphemy, public displays of affection, premarital sex, all illegal and punishable by flogging.
Domestic violence against women is legal.

Qatar:
Shari'a
Sodomy, extramarital sex, alcohol consumption, blasphemy, apostasy, proselytism all illegal and punishable variously by flogging or imprisonment.

Kuwait:
Blasphemy, homosexuality, transgenderism, public displays of affection, eating or drinking in public during ramadan, alcohol, pornography and 'sending immoral messages' are all illegal.
Domestic violence and marital rape is legal.

Indonesia:
Islamist violence against religious minorities is widespread.
Muslims are pushing hard to criminalise homosexuality.
Female applicants to the military and police are subjected to 'virginity tests'.
Shari'a in Aceh province includes the flogging of homosexuals among its atrocities.

Tunisia:
Homosexuality and blasphemy are illegal.
Persecution of the LGBT by both government and private groups is common and increasing.

Mali:
~90% prevalence of FGM
Half the country under islamist control, with all the oppression, murder, torture and rape that implies.

Will it? Or might the ignorant heard instead frequently shit all over something that lies beyond their own foresight, self interest and/or ill considered sensibilities?

By way of example, the abolition of the death penalty was opposed by the majority population in the UK up until about 2015 (it was introduced in 1965)

Likewise with equal voting rights, the abolition of slavery, child labour and so on (though I don't have numbers/dates for those to hand).

I realise the question of democracy is more nuanced than that, but there are enough examples of progress despite popular opinion to seriously call it into question.

I just can't help but shake the notion that the most successful and free democratic societies tend to be those most limited by political elites within them. (this can of course work both ways)

I will agree however that the illusion of democracy certainly seems to do wonders for keeping the baying pitchforks at bay.

A cycle of violent revolution does not seem at all preferable I agree. Clearly we are going to need a bit of both, a meritocratically regulated Noo perhaps? (i.e. earned but readily accessible votes for the demos to influence an elite Noo)

Though of course the problems with establishing that are also legion. I suspect that ultimately unless/until we create a mind greater than our own (A.I. or somesuch), it's always going to be a bit of a shit sandwich.

I don't think the systems are usually the real problem. I think it's just that people as groups are bloody awful.

All hail the mighty Noosphere!

Edit: I'm using Noo here to refer to the higher functions of the hypothetical collective brain. Strictly speaking everyone is part of the theoretical Noo and the anticipated harmony which it would/could grow into.

IMO, to be devout in any religion, you must be a fundamentalist. If you believe you have access to the direct instructions from GOD, and you believe in that god, yet you ignore the parts you dislike, you aren't following the religion and are an infidel, not devout. EDIT: Unless your text specifically allows you to use your own morality and interpretations, but I have not heard of a religion that does that.
As I see it, if you apply your own morality you are creating your own religion. Codified religions come with a defined set of morals that are unmodifiable, indisputable and unquestionable. If you question them, you question god, so can't be devout or following the religion. (This would be a good reason for any true believer to read only the original texts in their original tongue, not a translated version that's someone else's interpretation of the meaning.)

The religious texts are the central authority, they all contain specific rules and requirements. If you ignore some of those, IMO, you aren't honestly religious, you're a fan of religion.

I grew up in the deep south. I can say for certain that you are wrong that almost everyone ignores the outdated bits, but it's correct that most do hide the fact that they believe them because they know it makes them look terrible....but get them at a church picnic and you'll find out they do think slavery is fine, and whores should be stoned to death, etc. They are just mostly too chicken shit to do it themselves, as their book directs them to, because they're afraid of repercussion (and because they don't really believe god will protect them for being righteous, or that heaven is enough reward for being a martyr).