However, these rights that were hard to acquire in the difficult process of democracy’s birth, are nowadays abusively exercised in subtle forms by one of their major beneficiary which should have been one of their main defenders: the mass-media.

Social democracy states that the freedom of the press, as well as the freedom of expression, are essential for the defense and development of democracy. The experience of the last decade in Central Europe, for example, shows that mass media served decisively in the construction of the civil society and in censuring the authoritarian trends of some politicians or parties. Also, it corrected and continues to correct, the excesses, negligences and management errors in the countries with a consolidated democracy. Without the freedom of expression, and thus without the freedom of mass media, a democracy cannot be conceived. A free press sometimes makes difficult a democratic government’s life or the life of public personalities; it always makes a dictatorship impossible.

In the context of these statements it must though be noticed that democracy is passing, at present, through a crisis of growth and of adaptation to the new contemporary world realities. The causes of this crisis are: i. the inadequacy of the mechanisms of the democracy developed in the national environment to the conditions of globalizations; ii. the occurrence, in the context of emergent globalization, of social communities who, fearing they will not be able to adapt to the new conditions, are sensitive to the populist and national-populist message; iii. the weakening of the credibility and even of the efficiency of democracy’s classic mechanisms because of the lack of transparency, electoralization and commercialization of the political action. As for the third cause, it must be underlined that the invasion of the democratic exercise by the methods of the commercial marketing and the development of "show state" led to the wider separation of society from the political field and of the power from the truth. This fact is expressed by the low turn out at the elections, the civic non-involvement and the cynical views of the social actors. In respect of all these three causes, mass media has an immense responsibility and an essential role to play.

Mass media has some responsibilities as far as the crisis of the democracy is concerned. This is related at least to the following aspects:

• Mass media makes it possible the appearance and the development of the "political show". Electoralism means the exaltation of the elections’ importance, not as a method for the consultation of the electorate in order to identify its aspirations and expectations, but only as a method of seizing the power. The power without a mandate regarding the application of a clear program is, though, a power that cannot be exercised. On medium and long term, such a power alienates the electorate; as it creates the feeling the voters have no control over politicians (decision making and decision makers).
• Mass media might create as well, false personalities and destroy real personalities. It might impose questionable political groups and hide compromising truths, inventing, at the same time, artificial crises.
• Mass media sometimes could determine the spending of important amounts of money in campaign that might confuse the ordinary people and, thus, might actually encourage corruption.
• Mass media, in a number of cases, distorts reality and induces pessimism, skepticism, distrust and an inclination towards isolation and violence in society through its mainly conflictual approaches and its search for the sensation.

On the other hand, the emergence of media monopolies creates the premises of reducing the number of options available to the citizen and the possibility of his subtle manipulation. The quality of information decreases and the danger of disorienting the citizen increases, as the very laws of competition on the free market are not protecting the press consumer any longer. This means, at the same time, the decrease in the quality of democracy.

All these negative phenomena - ever more serious as globalization advances and the press conveys events happening at long distance, events that the receiver cannot check directly – should lead to the recognition, besides the right to free information, to the freedom of expression and the freedom of the press, of a citizen’s right to accurate information. In light of such a right, social democrats should support the following:

• The recognition of the fact that the activity of the press is an activity of public interest and, therefore, it must be carried out in accordance with some professional norms, at the level of some deontological standards and under a specific public control. Political institutions that are parts of the governmental or parliamentary systems, though, may not exercise such a control. Only the judicial courts and the civil society may do it.
• The recognition of an individual right of recourse to a competent court for each person having a legitimate interest in a correct information.
• The adoption of special regulations regarding the fight aginst the conflict of interests in the field of mass media. According to these regulations, the property or co-property, as well as the participation in the administration of some media instruments by those who are active in the political life or by those who are owners or majoritary shareholders in commercial societies of another profile, among others, should be banished.
• The adoption of special anti-trust laws for the media institutions. To this purpose, the media trusts holding a television or radio station with a national audience would be forbidden to own national papers, or vice versa. Also, any cartelization or commercial or editorial policy ententes agreed by several media institutions should be forbidden. The conventions according to which a press institution will not criticize the position of another or will not denounce the information errors of another will be considered fully void.
• The adoption of regulations regarding the obligation of a previous (ex ante) checking of the news by consulting before the news are published, all those interested, as well as the obligation of granting the right to reply for all those who by doing that can preserve their good name or can defend other legitimate interests. Through the same regulations the right privacy for public personalities and for other citizens, as well as the means of defending this specific right, would be defined. The balance between the freedom of access to information, the right to a free expression of opinions and the benefit of doubt should be established through special norms, as well.
• The organization of professional institutions of journalists and the adoption of Deontological Codes of the mass media. The breach of the duties established by such codes could be sanctioned by special "press tribunals" formed by the journalists themselves, which, upon the inquiry of the applications laid by concerned persons, could apply moral, professional or pecuniary sanctions, according to each case.
• The establishment at the international level and by the international fora and institutions, of international professional and deontological standards in this field, such as to avoid the subjectivity always emerging from the internal political competition.

By endorsing such measures, at the same time with measures aiming at defending the freedom of the press, the mass media will contribute to the essential process of "democratizing democracy", a process that is necessary in the context of globalization and of the crisis that the traditional democratic mechanisms are facing.