The News Media's Role in the 2004 Election

Open letter to CBS News and 60 Minutes
September 19, 2004

Since 60 Minutes creator, Don Hewitt was removed, the pioneer investigative newsmagazine has tumbled into the partisan political abyss, along with CBS and the other television news networks.

As a former loyal viewer of 60 Minutes, who faithfully set aside that hour every Sunday evening, I now check to see what's going to be on the program before bothering to watch. And I do the same before watching 60 Minutes II.

Whatever the new culture of the news business is, it has developed an ugly face for investigative journalism, particularly in light of Dan Rather's betrayal of objectivity, and the CBS cover-up regarding the forged Air National Guard documents and political operatives working against President Bush during this highly volitile 2004 election.

Beyond the deep sense of betrayal, I guess what I miss most about 60 Minutes was when Mike Wallace used to read viewers' letters, commenting on their reports, at the end of the program.

The public needs to know the truth about what's going on. However, the way things are deteriorating in the news business, we are simply not getting it. Instead, we get sensationalism, media obsessions and political hype. CBS might as well replace Dan Rather with someone like rumorist, Kitty Kelley.

Dan Jeffs
Apple Valley, CA

Addendum:

In the wake of the media-driven chaos of the highly vitriolic 2004 presidential election, and the CBS News document scandal, public trust the news media is whirlpooling to an all time low. At a time when America is inextricably engaged in a deadly war against terrorism, this kind of irresponsible behavior is unacceptable.

Indeed, presidential elections were largely responsible for the September 11, 2001 attack on America. Have we lost our collective minds and memory of what has happened to us?

If our nation wasn't pre-occupied with problems in Bosnia and the economic campaign issues of the 1992 election, the first attack on the World Trade Center might not have happened.

Likewise, if our government wasn't distracted by protecting Kosovo, the 1996 presidential election, and presidential scandals, the attacks on our embassies in Africa and the USS Cole in Yemen would probably not have happened.

For similar reasons, if it were not for the highly contentious 2000 presidential election, the horrific attack of 9/11 might not have happened, and our government would not have had to retaliate by going to war in Afghanistan or be engaged in the war in Iraq, which has become the battlefront for our enemies.

Now, the question is, what might happen leading up to and after the volatile 2004 presidential election? Clearly, for over a decade, our unreasonably lengthy and unwaveringly partisan presidential elections seem to have been working against our national security.

Certainly, the voracious, often biased, appetite of our news media should bear some of the responsibility. America is better than this.

Addendum #2:

Democrats don't have to root very hard for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Democrat-dominated news media is doing an unconscionable job of focusing only on bad news propaganda to unseat President Bush.

Indeed, news media bias can't kiss off their behavior on terrorism and chalk it up to politics as usual. Not this time. Not when they abdicate their responsibilities as journalists and our survival is at stake.

DDC

No one calls it like it is like Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens.

Flirting With Disaster:
The vile spectacle of Democrats rooting for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan
By Christopher Hitchens
posted on Slate.com September 27, 2004

http://www.slate.com/id/2107193/#ContinueArticle

Addendum3:

Slanted Letters to the Editor

As an avid reader of news reporting and opinion pages, I am troubled by the print media's bias in publishing letters, particularly in regards to the 2004 presidential election. I realize the major print media leans to the Left, which is clearly reflected in reporting news, the editorials and commentary. However, letters to the editor are something entirely different. They are the opinions of readers -- the public -- and should not be an extension of the newspaper's view, which is consistently evident in most letters selected for publication. Indeed, letters ought to reflect a rich variety of people's opinions to stimulate independent thinking, rather than parroting the ideology of the media.

Even though moderate readers' letters may not seem interesting to partisans -- because many harbor contempt for moderates and hostility has become the norm for politics -- I would like to interject a centrist opinion into the debate. Considering the seriousness of our social, economic and political situation, serious thought should be given to replacing the two-party system with nonpartisan elections, nonpartisan government, and more democracy. We should seek and find the truth, and trust the collective judgment of our fellow citizens. Our future and our survival may very well depend on it.

DDC Founder

*****

There's a New Democracy "Sheriff" in Town

Those days when most people knew only what they read in the newspapers and watched on television news are coming to an end -- and just in time. There is a widening credibility gap in the national news media and they are being forced to recognize the advent of the Internet news police in the "New Democracy" of the information age.

The heat of mistrust has been building with fabrications by reporters at news giants, such as the Boston Globe, CNN, the New York Times, NBC and even the trusted USA TODAY, and the flashpoint struck in the home stretch of the 2004 presidential election battles -- with forged documents used in CBS News managing editor Dan Rather's investigation of President Bush's Air National Guard records and aired on 60 Minutes II -- in what is now being called, CBS' "Memogate" and "Rathergate."

Finally, the elite culture of the national news media is painfully discovering that the American people are not so ignorant and unsophisticated that they must be instructed how to think, how to behave and how to vote. Clearly, the news culture underestimated our need for being truthfully informed, which gave rise to people investigating on their own, and exchanging information through World Wide Web sites called Web logs, known as blog sites or "bloggers." Even though the name sounds unsophisticated, most people who operate and participate in these Web site activities, are well-informed concerned citizens.

The worst thing the news media can do is what they seem to be doing now. Coalescing around one of their own, Dan Rather and CBS News, while reluctantly chewing over their own status and falling into denial and an unwise self-defense mode. Certainly, the media are having extreme difficulty in accepting the people's growing lack of trust. The reality is, however, "there's a new Sheriff in town," and truth-seekers are multiplying throughout the Internet. Indeed, the new democracy of the information age will force the culture to change their biased, less than forthright, ways or become obsolete. And, indeed, the self-perpetuating culture of politics and government will have to do the same or the people's re-examination will re-invent it for them.

It is clearly evident that the tide against the status quo began to turn with the 1992 presidential election, when Ross Perot appeared on Larry King, told voters they were the owners of the country, and if they would get him on the ballot in all 50 states, he would run a world class campaign. Perot said that if he was elected, he would be the people's servant with a, will of the people, electronic town hall. The response was an unprecedented, spontaneous awakening of millions of people and volunteers, many of whom registered or re-registered as independent voters, and they got Perot on the ballots throughout the country. Though Perot shot himself in the foot and betrayed his supporters, because he really wanted to be king of America, his candidacy stimulated the growth of democracy on the Internet.

That's when I got involved with a Web site, The Direct Democracy Center (realdemocracy.com), which advocates a constitutional amendment establishing direct democracy with voting networks connected to voter's homes. The revolutionary proposal would create nonpartisan elections and government by replacing professional politicians with elected professional government managers, who would truthfully inform the voters and manage government, while the collective judgment of the voters would decide matters of taxation, public policy and just how much government they really need.

Regardless of how far the new democracy goes, the fact is, most people are simply fed-up with ideological bias in the media, in the education establishment, and with the lock the two-party system has on elections, government, perpetual incumbants and dubious political wars. And that's why people feel disenfranchised, why only half of eligible voters register to vote, and why only about half of registered voters, vote. Elections decided by 25 percent of voters, unduly influenced by political propaganda and media-driven chaos, is not a healthy democracy or a republic by any definition.

America is perceived by many as a superficial culture of selfish interests and extremes. Still, even though we are by far the best society and form of government on Earth, we are truely at risk, steeped in the uncertainty of a world at odds with itself, and held hostage by terrorism. Surely, we must get our acts together, come to grips with ourselves, and do the right thing, or there might not be anything left to decide.

DDC Founder

*****

Fix government with direct democracy

Presidential debates and other political debates have been reduced to little more than perpetual campaigns for getting elected or re-elected. They are nothing more than candidates babbling about fear tactics and what polls and focus groups tell them voters want to hear. The winners then govern deceitfully to maintain their personal power until the next election. In reality, they are part of the two-party system, which has grown government so large and so powerful that the people have been marginalized by special interests and selfish interest groups.

Our democracy has been betrayed and in these perilous times, we are in danger of losing it. It's time to re-examine ourselves and to re-establish our constitutional heritage of self-government and self determination.

If we really want to fix government, our national security, our economy, our society and our place in the world, we should pass a constitutional amendment establishing direct democracy with voting networks connected to voters' homes. We should have nonpartisan elections and government, and elect well-compensated professional government managers -- instead of professional politicians -- to manage government. The voters should be truthfully informed and advised to decide matters of taxation and public policy so that we would have no more government than what we need.

Elected government managers should be similar to city mangers and county administrative officers. The best example of an executive manager to fill the office of president would be someone like former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, who has the profound vision and the management ability to resolve the overall problems of government. On second thought, there is no one alive like Newt Gingrich. Therefore, Newt Gingrich should be elected the first president of our new democracy.

**********

October Surprise?

As moderate independent voter, I am an admirer of Bill O'Reilly's "no spin" news analysis and Fox News' refreshing objectivity in reporting the news. But, I am troubled by the recent allegations of sexual harrassment against O'Reilly. If the allegations are true, shame on him for his stupidity.

However, if this is an unfounded, politically motivated "October surprise" intended to take down O'Reilly and Fox News to influence the presidential election, then shame on us for allowing low-life politics and media-driven chaos to drag democracy through the mud -- again and again.

DDC Founder