It’s true, the media are biased.

The very act of publishing aligns newspapers with the principle of free speech, one of the suite of rights and responsibilities that are part and parcel of democracy.

Which is why you will find newspapers saying positive things about the various aspects of democracy, not just freedom of speech, but also human rights, the integrity of the electoral process, transparency in governance, the rule of law, the right of assembly, and so on.

It is why we feel Remembrance Day is important, because it is a reminder of the human sacrifice in defence of these freedoms. And that these freedoms should not be taken for granted because that is the surest way to lose them.

All of which is why we feel the need to raise our voices when threats to these hard-won freedoms emerge. Sometimes, the issue may be as mundane as whether a computerized voting system can provide the same voter confidence as a system involving paper ballots that can be counted, and recounted if necessary.

But sometimes it takes on much more profound dimensions and pits us against the policies of political parties that seem to undermine democratic rights in fundamental ways. When this happens, we are inevitably accused of being biased, to which, in all honesty, we must plead guilty, for reasons explained above.

This week, we suspect that a great many newspapers large and small, national and local, all over the world are feeling, as we do, an upwelling of that pro-democracy bias we tend to share. And it has a lot to do with recent events in American politics.

Under the leadership of Donald Trump, the good old Republican Party of the United States has become the greatest threat to American democracy to emerge in many decades. Perhaps ever. Which is why so many people are vehemently opposed to it.

It is also why even more people appear to be staunch supporters. They believe the current system doesn’t work for them. They want someone who can change it, and that starts with destroying it, a task for which Trump seems highly qualified.

That’s not to say that everyone who opposes Trump loves the system the way it is. It has many shortcomings. Data on poverty, obesity, insecurity and violence in America are among the many indicators that provide ample evidence.

But his opponents can see that the authoritarian alternative he offers will only make America an even more violent place where few feel safe, where there will be scant protections for minorities and the most vulnerable in society, where the courts and the rule of law cannot be counted on to deliver justice, where businesses will flee, where the electoral process is devoid of credibility, and where there will be little will or capacity to stand up to sources of global insecurity be they the aspirations of tyrants or the warming climate.

It’s not clear whether this sort of descent into chaos is what Trump’s supporters actually want or if they just haven’t figured out that this is where his occupancy of the Oval Office could very well lead.

Meanwhile, Kamala Harris is well-positioned to become the Democrat’s candidate for the White House and the antidote to the MAGA movement. In normal times, it would be an historic opportunity to elect a black woman to the country’s highest office. But these are far from normal times. In a moment when the opponent presents what any reasonable analysis would conclude is an existential threat to American democracy with probable global consequences, some are approaching the prospects of a Harris candidacy with caution.

Some may be concerned that a strong woman of colour might trigger an unprecedented turnout among the Republican party’s alt-right voters. But not every Republican is an anti-other racist misogynist. Millions of decent folks vote Republican. Somehow, they are being swamped and swept away by this new angry and divisive narrative.

There is no denying that Harris is a capable and compelling candidate. One need only recall what was probably her finest hour, her interrogation of Brett Kavanaugh during the hearings on his nomination to the US Supreme Court. She brought her best prosecutorial chops to the fore in a made-for-prime-time cross-examination that put her on the national stage and opened the door to running in the 2019 Democratic primaries.

Now, as many Democrats seem to be getting behind a Harris candidacy, much rests on the party’s ability to reach back into the pre-2020 archives to build her public profile as a viable presidential candidate. Many feel that putting prosecutor Harris up against convicted felon Trump ought to be a winning strategy.

In normal times, perhaps it would. Or maybe that’s just our bias talking.

Charles Dickson