“There is nothing that’s more important in a democracy than a well-informed electorate,” began MacKenzie McHale, one of the primary characters in Aaron Sorkin and HBO’s new journalism-based TV series, “The Newsroom.” “When there is no information, or worse, wrong information,” McHale continued, “it can lead to calamitous decisions and clobber any attempts at vigorous debate.”

The problem is, though, we live in a world where our media is driven by ratings. The media publishes and broadcasts that which it thinks will get the most people to pay the most attention. As real news is just plain ol’ news, and news is usually rather boring, the media drifts towards entertainment instead. And advertisers are part of this problem too.

As Will McAvoy, the main character of “The Newsroom,” said, “This isn’t non-profit theater; it’s advertiser-supported television.” Advertisers only want to spend money on media outlets if that outlet is bringing in the viewers or the readers. The idea is, of course, to get that corporation’s product in front of the eyes of as many people as possible, and they’ll pay media agencies a lot of money to do it.

Thus we have a vicious cycle: Ratings drive content, and that which entertains gets the most ratings; that which gets the most ratings gets the most advertising, and whoever gets the most advertising, gets the most money.

This leads to ethics and constitutional philosophy conflicts. The First Amendment, hailed by every journalist in America as the greatest thing ever, was never, ever intended to be used as we use it today. The role of the First Amendment is not to act as a conduit through which media commerce may commence. Rather, the First Amendment exists only to ensure that political speech is protected, so American citizens may, through the consequences of that right, make good decisions in the voting booth.

And economic speech, which is what advertising and ratings driven TV and news is, is not political.

We can have our cake and eat it too though. Just as the shooting sports are a convenient side-effect of the Second Amendment for many Americans, entertaining shows and articles are convenient side-effects of the First Amendment. As ridiculous as they may be, there’s technically nothing with airing reality shows on TV and putting human interest fluff pieces in newspapers. But we must always maintain the line between news and entertainment and not blur it. And we must still do good news.

News in the so-called “golden era” of journalism was a losing proposition. Whether it was television or print media, all the corporations that owned the stations or newspapers understood that news lost money. Doing the news right was just the cost of doing business, and that business was secondary to the constitutional and ethical responsibility of the press to inform the public.

“But people won’t watch or read real news” is the cry often heard in the journalism world. “I’d rather do a good show for 100 people than a bad one for a million,” MacKenzie told Will when he voiced the same complaint. Frankly, any journalist who understands the point and purpose of the First Amendment had better agree with Mac, or else they’re not genuine journalists but rather opportunistic hangers-on taking advantage of the Constitution for their financial or egotistical gain.

America has always been the country of doing things differently — of doing things right. The whole motivation for our founding as a nation was to do government and everything else better. Somewhere along the line our ethics changed, and money became more important than public duty. We should be sad and outraged by that, and being Americans, we should want better and want to do better.

McHale continued her lecture to McAvoy: “People will want the news if you give it to them with integrity. Not everybody, not even a lot of people — 5 percent. And 5 percent more of anything is what makes a difference in this country.”

Later, MacKenzie gives us a formula for doing good news by presenting the journalists in the room four questions to consider when doing a story: Is this information people might need to make good decisions in the voting booth? Is this the best possible form of the argument, not the most entertaining? Is the story in historical context so citizens understand what’s going on and why it matters? And are there really two sides to the story, or are there five sides, or only one: the truth and sanity?

I think people want good news too, just like the fictitious MacKenzie McHale. Sometimes it seems like people choose their own facts, and maybe they do on occasion. But that kind of thinking — and consequently journalists giving up on doing right and doing their duty — assumes that people are exceptionally stupid; they can’t recognize “better” when they see it.

If we believe that Americans are that stupid, then logically we’ve given up hope. So are we ready to throw the towel in then? Or do you think we can we turn things around?

Americans have to be informed. They just have to be. Charlie Skinner, the president of “The Newsroom’”s fictitious network, said to Will McAvoy right after he did a true news broadcast, “In the old days, of about 10 minutes ago, we did the news well. Know how? We just decided to.”

Journalists can do better. Citizens can do better. Let’s just decide to.