There are usually hidden assumptions in journals which prevent certain types of papers from being published. This is usually related to the scientific orientation of the journal board and while it can be expressed and defended in scientific articles (and get replies from critics), it is there as an index of what is 'suitable' for the journal. The uncertainty and complexity of social sciences and their being twisted in the benefits of politicians and the media is a source of such disagreements and 'assumptions'. Our non-traditional journal does not hide its role as a critic of the present mainstream media and their preached forms of mainstream Liberal Democracy (with emphasis on capital 'L' and 'D'). Not hiding such orientations and scientifically regulating and tolerating such differences of opinion with the mainstream is to be valued. If you come from the mainstream and you are in much disagreement with Prof. Noam Chomsky, it is not very likely that your article is published here, unless you impress us with your article's precise and sound reasoning, or attribute your claims to your school of thought, not to the truth. In general, it is advisable to all authors to represent their school of thought rather than 'truth', as it usually (not always) takes too much to prove.

In technologically developed countries, in which the technology of 'generating consent' is also advanced, it seems that the most hostile obstacle to democracy is deep within one of its sponsors: the media. Major parts of the mainstream media's support and even tolerance of ethical democracy has had unethical economical and political limits. For example, when they are supporting a huge source of money which will bring in facilities to develop the media's influence and power. Competition for people's attention does not help as much as needed to resolve the problems of the huge money/power bias in the media. Flow of highly intelligent and morally responsible people to key media roles is strictly limited, as they eventually won't be considered to be suitable 'game' players. Also, there are stereotypes, prejudice  and bias regarding some minorities, e.g. religious Muslims, who despite the merits they may poses, are meaningfully unlikely to get high roles in the mainstream media. The media outlets are imposing a hidden type of soft dictatorship by generating consent and discriminating against people. Any solution? The "media - money" relation should not be left democratically uncontrolled, as the the  "political party - money"  relations should not. Maybe the power of the media should be democratized by direct power-sharing elections such that people can directly cast their votes in support of the truly suitable and ethical media leaders, to claim their (people's) share of the broadcasting right. Personal broadcasting via internet should be free from the dictatorship imposed by money, while ensuring a reasonably free economy at the same time. This is a challenging problem to solve. The definition of  "personal broadcasting rights"  is important. The money should not rule broadcasting, people should, according to Ethics. The media and military industries may need to be fed only by democratically controlled national money, despite the drawbacks. The supervision of people should be done more directly to be enough, maybe through an e-democracy! It is not still clear that the 9/11 tragedy has not been a real conspiracy of the militarist stakeholders with strong media support. The 'media elections' is not less important than presidency. We may need e-democracy including verifiable e-voting and online verifiable popular decision making portals, which can help with providing crystal clear elections and also fast direct political decision making power for citizens in ultra-important ethical cases like going to war.