Of course I need mechanisms to hear criticisms, political ads like the ones in the USA are definitely not that, that's what I said.
I learn about the people running from different sources, journalism where I live still has some modicum of journalism and not entertainment news like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc. even though they have clear biases it's quite well understood where their biases sit at, and even the most biased publications here are not overtly partisan so even when they don't align with my political views it's still interesting to read and consider the whole spectrum of opinions without those clearly pushing a distorted reality.
I really do not understand how ads are even considered as any part of the solution, at all. I'm not attacking what you said but just want to clarify it's a very alien view to my own, ads are inherently untrustworthy, they are paid, they don't suffer public scrutiny.
I rely much more on interviews of candidates, publications pro and against them (including the ones I align with that's how I decided to not vote for a candidate and pushing for another candidate of the same party a couple elections ago), and read through their policies in their official platforms.
Well ads have informational value. They are very reliable source of what a candidate or a party wants to convey. They are a way to be heard.
I don't know any place where journalism is unbiased. Not saying it doesn't exist, maybe it does in some high trust society but it's definitely very rare. USA has it easy because there are only 2 parties and both have partisan media behind them. In parliamentary system with many parties though there is a problem of small ones not being heard. Ads are one solution to that. Social media/Internet in general is another. Incumbents have huge advantage in those systems because of media control, connections to journalists etc.
> Well ads have informational value. They are very reliable source of what a candidate or a party wants to convey. They are a way to be heard.
I agree with your latter points, not with the first one. Ads are noisy, they are not bound to be truthful and there's no pushback during an ad in case it states something obviously misleading or false.
> I don't know any place where journalism is unbiased.
I have specifically mentioned that all journalism is biased on my previous comment, I don't know how you missed it. Still if the bias is well known and the journalists are acting as journalists even under their own bias it won't be extremely partisan such as it is in the USA with Fox News and similar networks (CNN, MSNBC, etc.), given that they aren't overtly partisan I can still hold some trust even towards media that don't align with my political views because I know they are still working as journalists and not partisan hacks.
> In parliamentary system with many parties though there is a problem of small ones not being heard. Ads are one solution to that. Social media/Internet in general is another. Incumbents have huge advantage in those systems because of media control, connections to journalists etc.
There's still ample opportunity for many small parties to deliver their messages since it's well regulated, they might have access to public funding and have a more leveled playing field where money is not a barrier to entry. Ads cost money, so in an ad-infested political landscape smaller parties with little funding have even less opportunities to spread their messaging.
Again, I believe you are too coloured by your limited experience with elections, ads are a noise infested hellscape of information and shouldn't be a large part of the political discourse.
