A few quick questions:

When you read news articles, do you consider the publishers bias?

Are you more apt to reading leftist media, or would you also read a piece from a right-wing publisher?

Are there specific topics in which knowing the publishers bias is more important to you?

----------
Extra questions if you have time:

Do you read news articles? (If you feel generous, Why or why not?)

How do you stay up to date?

Is it ethically acceptable or even strategically justifiable for politicians (regardless of party affiliation) to deliberately spread misleading, false, or deceitful information in pursuit of power, policy goals, or electoral success?

No blame game and no referencing individual politicians, keep it to baseline principles.

Should there be swift consequences or forced retractions when this happens? Does party affiliation change the ethical standard?

For context, on a scale of 1 (Never acceptable) to 10 (Very acceptable), how would you score the current baseline in your state and/or country?

Looking for thoughtful, principle-based answers with historical or philosophical insights.

I was watching Legal Eagle's "Supreme Court Just Legalized Racial Profiling" video (https://youtu.be/6ERPT3tZTSc?is=S5QVjErRjpnJzzr7), and realized that even though I agree with everything Legal Eagle is saying, so much of it would be superseded in the minds of many "turned-republican"s. I have a lot of family who fits that description, so I have a pretty good understanding of what how they respond; I imagine that they would say "I'm tired of slimy politicians who just make things worse for people like me while they line their pockets selling us out to their donors and enforcing the status quo. It's not about moral superiority, it's about choosing between my children and people I don't know." And a lot of people share that sentiment, even if they aren't good at communicating it, and I can't say I don't understand where they're coming from, even if I disagree with the conclusion that we're should trade some people's rights for other people's benefits.

How are we supposed to argue against that? Or, otherwise solve the problem of people using that rationale? Off the top of my head, I would try to argue that violating other people's rights leads to your future children being hurt. But I'm not sure how exactly I would do that, and the point of this post is to hear everyone's thoughts and have that discussion; this is a major problem that we're facing in America, and it can't be solved with just one person.

A lot of discussions about political influence focus on campaign donations, lobbying, and elections. That got me wondering whether there are other ways for ordinary citizens to collectively influence their communities.

Municipal bonds help finance local infrastructure and public projects, and investors receive interest payments in return. While buying a bond doesn't give someone a vote on government policy, it does provide capital for projects that voters and local governments have already approved.

If large numbers of citizens intentionally invested in municipal bonds issued by their own communities, could that be viewed as another form of civic participation alongside voting and advocacy? Could it strengthen local investment and public engagement, or would the impact of individual investors be too small to matter compared with institutional buyers?

I'm not suggesting this would replace elections or campaign finance reform. I'm curious whether encouraging broader public ownership of municipal debt could have meaningful economic or civic benefits.