A shared Reality

[Brutha]

In the classical view of a democratic society, there is a free press.
That press reports objectivly about the events that happen in that society.

Afterwards people talk about the events and share their views of interpreting those events differently and different future action that has the purpose to answer those events.
When those people are driven by reason and their own values the result of that conversation should to compromises that are good policy that can be enacted by the elected officals of the society.

When those people don't agree over the events that have to guide public policy, they can't reach an agrement.
The people have to be educated over the releavant events or they can't understand the other party.
When you don't share the view of the reality, you can't make a compromise with the other side.
Then making compromises is the basis on which a democratic state is founded.

When the society stops reading the news that talks about the same events it can't have a discussion that produces good policy.
It is no problem when a part of the society doesn't take part in the conversation.
While a greater number of people taking part in the discussion produce better policy, the quality of the exchange is more important.
The problem starts when those people that don't share the same reality want to take part in the discussion.
They have no chance to understand the results of the conversation and get unhappy with the society. Tension develops.