Skip to comments.
INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW: EQUAL RULES FOR THE PRESS?
INSIGHTMAG.COM ^
| OCTOBER 13, 2004
| PAUL RODRIQUEZ
Posted on 10/13/2004 1:17:40 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Inquiring Minds Want to Know: Equal Rules for the Press? Posted October 11, 2004 By Paul M. Rodriguez
Catching up on the weekend news post the second presidential debate was a bit disturbing - and just reaffirms what so many readers of Insight have complained about concerning bias in the press.
Specifically: Where are the stories analyzing the campaign issues raised by John F. Kerry compared to his political stump rhetoric compared to the senator's 20 years worth of votes, speeches and legislative history?
Sure, sure - I know, that would mean that news organizations actually are looking for fair or balanced or news reported in context. And that's not going to happen. But I remain hopeful against all hope if only because I remain an optimist.
What brings this to mind is an email I received on Columbus Day with the following subject line: What Does Kerry Have to Hide? Why No Form 180?
The text of the note (also sent to other news outlets that probably won't even mention it) reads as follows:
Hi,
My name is Brian Sullivan, from Plymouth, MA (1-508-224-7775). I understand the following may seem like an inconsequential issue. Nevertheless, as a Vietnam Veteran, I think it is important for John Kerry to explain why he hasn't signed an SF-180 to release all his military records.
What's he got to hide?
There is a letter circulating on the Internet that suggests that John Kerry was awarded an Honorable Discharge in March 2001 and that he might have initially received an other than honorable discharge, which he appealed until he was later awarded an honorable discharge.
If this is nothing but a smear, why doesn't John Kerry authorize the complete release of his military records to disprove this?
As a Vietnam Veteran it would be an important character consideration, if John Kerry "reported for duty" at the Democratic Convention, while concealing the above.
Thank you,
Brian F. Sullivan 1LT, MP, USAR Qui Nhon, RVN '70/71
This issue has been increasingly circulating on the Internet, talk radio shows and even today when this editor was a guest on the Sam Donaldson show broadcast by ABC News. Is there any truth to what floats out there on the Internet -- like this issue involving Kerry?
We don't know the validity of the issue other than to know that John Kerry easily can clear such matters up by releasing all his military-related records. This is something he's not done -- why we don't know. But there you go -- and the press lets Kerry slide.
As president, whether one is for or against Bush, at least W's record is there for all to see both in terms of policy initiatives proposed and in legislation passed/signed. Ditto on administrative policies through the Cabinet departments and regulatory agencies. Bush doesn't run from the complex issues and policies his administration grapples with every day and must deal with in resolute ways.
And rightly so, political opponents and those in the press (and media) scrutinize the details and offer critiques ... and criticism ... and sometimes-good marks.
But what about Kerry? His Senate career must have something worth reviewing?
Though the nature of being a senator does not command the ultimate authority of decision-making required of a president, it certainly does provide a gauge of how a senator like Kerry might tackle the complex decisions any president must make daily.
Surely the larger and big news outlets that have staff resources (and budgets) can muster some in depth and/or investigative reporting to articulate the positions, stances, consistency (or lack of it), changes and evolutions of John Kerry's legislative record compared to his Senate political campaigns and now, the presidential race.
I seem to recall that Kerry's Democrat opponents had a field day on some of Kerry's various positions (some would say on the same issues) and the press seemed to give some coverage of such details, especially when Howard Dean was surging in the polls.
Frankly, as a consumer of news I sometimes enjoy catching up on the political talking points of the day that both parties and current presidential contenders espouse and which get reported - sometimes well even.
But I also would like to see what each political party has said in the past on particular issues of the day and, more importantly, what each candidate has said compared to what they did and then have that compared to what they are saying "today" on the campaign trails.
For example, much has been said about what Bush said prior to the start of the war in Iraq and reasons for the armed conflict. Shamefully, the press has failed to put context on the evolving and volatile issues in that part of the world - for example, that virtually the whole of the world thought Saddam Hussein had WMD's. Even John Kerry thought so - I think.
As events have unfolded we've come to learn that some WMD's may have existed but were secreted out of the country to, perhaps, Syria, and that intent was there by Saddam and his henchmen (and henchwomen) to reconstitute the programs. However, the stockpiles of WMD's the world's intelligence and political leaders thought was there were not.
Listening to Kerry et al one easily could get the impression that Bush lied and comes up with lies each day to justify the reasons why America is leading the coalition in Iraq. The problem though is that this is false. Sure, Bush has evolved in his statements about the war as events have developed. And he's been resolute in stating that had he to do it all over again, based on the intelligence at that time; he'd do it all over again.
Even John Kerry has said that based on what "we" know now, he still would have voted to go to war. Well, Kerry has said several things that are confusing about what he would have done then versus now versus what he's said in the past etc...
The point I'm raising is this: The press has a job to do. And key to this job is to put into context what, for example, presidential contenders have said, what they did, what they said they did and what they are saying now they'd do given a set of facts.
There's an old saying about what's past is prologue. If the press would do its job then maybe - just maybe - us voters might know who to trust to become the next president based on what they've actually said ... and done.
Bush and company has a solid record upon which to make such judgments - for or against the president.
What about Kerry? The failure of the press to apply the same standard to the senator is pitiful and a disgrace. And it's harmful to America.
For example: The press has jumped ugly for years about George Bush's Texas Air National Guard records. Yet when presented with the same "opportunity" to go after Kerry's military records, the press is largely silent.
Freedom of Information Act requests from various news organizations clearly show that upwards of 100 pages exist that have not been made public. I've raised this issue before and pointed to other potential repositories of additional records. But these records - known and unknown - are not being made public because of a simple fact:
John Kerry has not signed DOD Form 180 to release the records. Period.
And the press just gives him a free pass all the while bashing the hell out of Bush - for records he has authorized to be released whenever they are found ... and when there are holes in the timelines of the records. But not so involving Kerry.
On the issue of tax records the press also has used a double standard. Bush has released his family tax records yearly but not so Kerry. Again, a single standard ought to be used and the press should be clamoring (read that, beating him up) until the Kerry family tax records are made public.
The press enjoys a unique set of privileges in this country - ironically no more constitutionally guaranteed than rights for any person. But the body of law over the centuries has cut out a special set of protections for members of the press and our organizations. Doesn't a responsibility emerge from such privileges?
The over-the-air broadcasters are subject to Federal Communications Commission regulation given that the airwaves used belong to the public. This is good. No doubt, satellite and cable regulations soon will follow - results to be determined.
The print press/media outlets and the Internet press organizations are unregulated. I strongly am in favor of this unregulated marketplace. That said, I'm increasingly becoming concerned that continued failures by the established press organizations to do their jobs ... honestly ... ethically ... and in context might lead to unwanted laws and regulation.
The public already distrusts the press greatly - sad to say. And a failure to apply even standards (the Old Hickory Bat rule) on stories such as those involving the two major contenders for the presidency only further undermines trust in what we do. A trust that could lead to a slippery slope of unwanted regulation.
The public can protect us in the press and themselves by launching letter-writing and call-in campaigns to complain about bad journalism. The corporate owners of so many press outlets also should be alerted - and held accountable - for their media interests (think CBS here).
Such is the power of the people - the same inquiring minds that we in the press keep saying want to know what's going on.
Turnaround is fair play then: What's going on with the press and their bosses? Inquiring minds want to know.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 180form; balanced; bias; briansullivan; bush; campaigns; cbs; coverage; criticism; debates; discharge; disclosure; fair; honorable; iraq; issues; kerry; legislation; mainstream; militaryrecords; news; political; press; releaserecords; senatecareer; service; syria; tang; txnatlguard; vietnamvets; whattohide; wmds
1
posted on
10/13/2004 1:17:49 PM PDT
by
CHARLITE
To: CHARLITE
2
posted on
10/13/2004 2:08:19 PM PDT
by
68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
(GET OUT THE VOTE NOV 2 ! IF YOUR NEIGHBORS OR RELATIVES NEED A RIDE TO THE POLLS OFFER TO HELP)
To: CHARLITE
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS by Mark Twain
It is a free press...There are laws to protect the freedom of the press's speech, but none that are worth anything to protect the people from the press.
- License of the Press speech
...the liberty of the Press is called the Palladium of Freedom, which means, in these days, the liberty of being deceived, swindled, and humbugged by the Press and paying hugely for the deception.
3
posted on
10/13/2004 3:23:56 PM PDT
by
HuntsvilleTxVeteran
(Rather calls Saddam "Mister President" and calls President Bush "bush")
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
