Election 2004(th Estate)

Last week, Charles Peters, guest blogging over at Washington Monthly, had this very pointed post on the media's responsibility to ensure that the public is truthfully informed on election issues by cutting through the rhetoric coming from both campaigns. The major premise is that the majority of Americans who consider terrorism their #1 issue when determining who they'll vote for overwhelmingly support George Bush, despite a strikingly underwhelming record actually fighting it. This brings me back to another issue that's been bothering me for some time; that the GOP (generally) has managed to convince their base that the media cannot be trusted, and that they shouldn't rely on anything that they hear from mainstream media because the entire media 'world' is out to get them, whether it's referring to CNN as the Communist News Network, or President Bush laughing at the mention of The Washington Post during the debates, or his ridiculous comment about 'the mainstream media' during the same debate. They ignorantly claim that news organizations are 'filtering' out good news in Iraq to paint an artificially uglier picture than reality would otherwise show... yada yada... Meanwhile FOX', The Weekly Standard, Newsmax, WND, et al receive "atta-boys" from the administration because their programming is based almost entirely on promoting a GOP agenda. In less than 2 weeks we will be in the midst of an election unlike any we have experienced before. The public is divided right down the middle... half scared to death, convinced that Kerry doesn't know how to fight the war on terror; strangely afraid to let go of the President who put them in this situation in the first place. The same man who scoffs when questioned about his ability to make it right in the end. And damnit if it doesn't seem like most of these people get their news exclusively from FOX. Yeah, I realize I'm over-simplifying and generalizing, but the results are undeniable. There is a stark difference between reality and perception when it comes to FOX viewers. It has affected people in such a way that FOX alone has poisoned the well. The credibility of objective journalists is under assault by virtue this overtly biased programming. It seems MOST crucial that, during the next 2 weeks, the media cut through campaign rhetoric and report the FACTS... period! When facts are being manipulated by campaign officials (or your own President or Vice President) for political expedience then there is an occupational responsibility for those in the news industry to hold those officials accountable for their misstatements. And no, I don't expect that FOX would change their ways, but that raises the stakes for the rest of the media to prove that they DO HAVE INTEGRITY. FOX has already proven that they have none. We need reporters, journalists and editors to revisit why they entered the industry, because as a whole they are effectively proving the Bush administration’s rhetoric correct... that they are not objective arbiters of fact, but (more accurately) sounding boards for corporate owners and their wealthiest advertisers, all of whom happen to have gained the most from Bush’s silly tax cut. Today, Laura Rozen has this post on today's Boston Globe article where she highlights how calculated misconceptions and deceipt by the Bush administration could have long-term effects on the public's trust in their government. These are the things that help me determine who I'm voting for. Simply put, I'm voting for the guy less likely to lie to me.

[From the Globe piece:] The explanation for the Bush divide seemed to come from another poll released last week, this one by the Harris organization. It found sharply diverging views of the facts about Iraq and the 9/11 attacks between Bush's supporters and Democrat John F. Kerry's. In many cases, Bush's supporters -- representing a large swath of the electorate -- went beyond the assertions of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in describing dangers posed by prewar Iraq.

Forty-one percent of all respondents, for instance, agreed that ''Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the US on 9/11." This interpretation persists even after Cheney, in his debate with Democratic rival John Edwards, denied ever suggesting such a thing.

In addition, 38 percent believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the US invaded, despite the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group that none existed.

And a large majority of 62 percent agreed that ''Saddam Hussein had strong links with Al Qaeda," even though the bipartisan 9/11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee said he did not.

[laura rozen] What are the consequences that so many people can be taught to believe something not true? They could believe anyone has done it. Those who push such falsehoods should beware. They could become the victims of their own deliberate conspiracy mongering. Because they have demonstrated that for a large number of people the truth doesn't matter, is something to be manipulated. It's a dangerous lesson.

Indeed.