Quiet, since you like the disclaimer idea for market journalists. . .let me try one out on you that should be a no-brainer, yet is not.
Political journalists. Networks are required to give "equal time" to opposing political parties during an election. However, this has never [to my knowledge] been regulated. The networks are mostly on the honor system here. . . and from what I see, honor is diminishing.
The problem, as I see it, is not so much one of network fairness [though I believe most to be liberal], as much as it is one of journalistic obligation, with regard to disclosing ANY political bias prior to airing views. This would give the public a FAIR picture of the views being presented. From which, they could make a BETTER CHOICE, when selecting a candidate.
Hypothetically, Joe Schmo is given his big debut as a news journalist for NBC Evening News. His first assignment is to cover one of the republican candidates. . .presenting his platform, a bit about his family life and about his history. . .not a biased view, just objective. To balance out the required perspective, NBC does a piece on a democrat. But this time, they use Tom Brokaw, reporting about his favorite candidate, which he has known for 12 years, from when this candidate was governor of Anystate, USA. This is one of the highest award winning journalists on the planet. And let us say that his piece is done without any bias towards the candidate he covers, or against any other candidates. . .totally an unbiased piece. . .
Both unbiased pieces air. . . which one is more effective?
Now throw some political slants in, with commentary following the pieces. . .as I saw countless times when a network was "obligated" to air a Ross Perot piece. . .snickers, chuckles and the shaking of a head back and forth says VOLUMES to would be voters about where the "in" people stand.
For the record, I have strong feelings against the Perot campaign, in terms of [purposely?] diluting the strength of the Repulican party, but we will leave that for another thread on another day.
And does ANYBODY remember who the most qualified candidate was in the 1996 election? I will give you some clues. . .a DOCTORATE from Harvard in GOVERNMENT. . .2 decades of public service, both as a UN Ambassador overseas and as a cabinet member under. . .I think Bush and Reagan. . . . president of a college. . .not the smallest blemish on his Family Values and Morality platform, due to his longstanding record of clean living. . . .a true patriot for the people. . .and easily the most powerful public speaker this country has heard in decades.
I will be nobody has even heard the name. . .Alan Keyes.
Having gained the required votes, etc. to keep him in the running for a spot on the republican ticket, he was rapidly gaining the popular support. Wherever he spoke or debated with other Republican hopefuls, he brought the audience to their feet in cheers for his patriotic American and moral family values views. Frankly, he made ALL the other candidates he ran against, look silly, by comparison. His intelligence was overwhelming.
INVITED to appear as a guest on a widely viewed live debate program in Atlanta, he shows up to the TV studio with bells on. . .only to be told that the Republican party felt that it was in the best interest of the OTHER candidates, that he NOT appear. He told them to bug off and that he was INVITED by the television program to appear. The heads of the Republican party would not back down, nor would he. . .
So what do you think happened to this honorable, brilliant, decorated and gentle man?
He was placed in hand-cuffs. . HAND-CUFFS. . and led right thru the crowd of reporters and camera crews into an awaiting POLICE CAR. Can you even imagine such a thing?
There was hardly a word about the Atlanta debate on the National News. . .just a 10 second report played over the footage of him getting pushed into the back of a police car: "ALAN KEYES WAS LED AWAY IN HANDCUFFS FROM A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE IN ATLANTA. HE HAD BEEN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."
To the world, he looked and sounded like a lunatic. And just like that, the campaign that thousands had poured their time and energy into. . .was over. Nobody fought it. Nobody debated it. Nobody discussed it. It was as though he had never even run.
There could be an argument made that the "good ol' boys" from the South didn't want a black man running for president. . .or that he might make the candidates that had a "better chance of winning" look bad, by overwhelmingly winning the debate. . .as he showed he could do. . . or that they just didn't want a BLACK man to get the chance to become president.
Regardless of the reasons or motives, the OUTCOME was clear. Television news had killed Keyes chances of moving forward in the race. Did the people get the REAL story? NO. They got the sensationalized story. . .the little clip that immediately erased him from the running. I mean let's face it. . .
Who wants a CRIMINAL as our president?
Television has power to make or break political figures. And the role that networks play in wielding this power, should, in my opinion have regulations or regulators to make sure that what is being reported or discussed or just shown. . . represents the truth.
Bottom line: Due to the enormous power television has in influencing voters, all journalists, commentators or expert guests, when speaking on network television, should be required to disclose their political slant, either verbally or thru a graphical on-screen display, prior to giving their views.
Send that to your congressional representative.
Rande Is |
