The handling of American policy, foreign and domestic, poses serious risks to the vitality of democracy in this country. However, the potentially greater danger to a functional democracy is when the basic institutions that are supposed to balance the equation fail to act responsibly. The Constitutional counterbalance to an overly aggressive or out of control executive branch should come from Congressional and judicial oversight and action. The counterbalance to secrecy and violations of law and ethics by the government should come from professional and thorough investigative reporting. If the public is reasonably informed, survival of democracy ultimately depends upon the citizenry taking action to remove from power those elected representatives that break faith with their sworn public trust.
A great deal of ink has been spilled on the incestuous and complicit GOP Congress led by the same party as the President. Ethics, regard for the welfare of the public and even principles of common sense have taken a back seat to the accretion and consolidation of power. When we consider that the “investigation” of the potential cover up by Speaker Hastert is being conducted by the same committee that wanted to change the House Ethics Rules so that Tom Delay would not have to step down, despite a federal indictment, it seems obvious that the current Congress is too far gone to be effectively retrieved or “fixed” unless and until the GOP majority is broken. When and if that happens, there will at least be the possibility of holding accountable those who have breached public trust and sold out their constituents and the country. Accountability does not necessarily require mass witch hunts, congressional investigations and recriminations. More importantly, the change of majority would create a true check and balance, the risk of being taken to task for one’s actions. It would thereby require members of Congress to act with greater fidelity to the job description they were sent to Washington to accomplish.
An institutional failure of equal or greater magnitude has been the unwillingness or inability of the media to develop and maintain a focus and a level of professionalism that would justify their special protections under the Constitution. For years, investigative reporting has been in suspended animation. The media, whether because of its corporate ownership, its lack of professionalism or its lack of courage, failed to expose available facts and inform the public of misconduct and breaches of trust by the White House and Congress. When stories did surface, typically months or years after the percipient facts were available, they were given the kind of attention that a puppy gives to a stick that is thrown. The story would get a few moments of cursory attention and then the media would chase off after some other distraction. The attention that the media focused on the White House upon release of the Bob Woodward book [“State of Denial”] was quickly wiped from the media spotlight when the Foley – Hastert scandal broke, involving Congressional Pages and failure of Congressional leadership to discipline its members.
It is true that the degree and the number of issues in which the staggering incompetence and venality of the Bush Administration and the Frist-Hastert [Delay] Congress have betrayed the American people makes keeping up with all of the stories of misconduct difficult. But no one said the job was supposed to be an easy one. And there clearly should be sufficient media outlets and journalists to permit multitasking. Every reporter need not attempt to cover the same story. The prevailing attitude stems from laziness and unprofessionalism. Moreover, it could be persuasively argued that a strong, vigilant and vital press might have discouraged such blatant corruption and discouraged the proliferation of misconduct that prevails. But a critical function lacking in the media today is the professional ability to discern real news from distraction and propaganda.
One easy example is the reporting on the Bush and Cheney stump speeches being delivered on the campaign trail. Both toss out meaningless jingoistic rhetoric about “cut and run” and “soft on terrorism” and national security. These blatant attempts to reintroduce the hysteria of fear are transparent. However, the media seems incapable of the courage to step back and disengage from being used as a propaganda tool. The editors should follow a simple rule. If the speech is not delivered to the public and fails to contain any new substantive information, it does not deserve daily public airing. Unless Bush and Cheney include specific information that supports their name calling and demagoguery, the media should simply treat the speech or appearance as a footnote and a campaign stop on the President's or Vice President’s itinerary. In the case of the recent Bush and Cheney campaign speeches to closed partisan audiences, the "content" is no more than the typical pandering, sloganeering and baseless rhetorical attacks. The media should spend their time and energy developing and publishing stories that are fact based and which involve important issues and events that affect the public.
The same standard should hold true for press coverage of Democratic representative speeches. In general, however, speeches by Democrats that do involve specific reference to factual matters and documented malfeasance by the GOP Congress or the White House have seen little daylight in the press. Balance is needed, professionalism and a greater attention span is needed. The notion that an item is not necessarily news because Bush or Cheney opens his mouth need attention. Instead of reportage that is miles wide and a millimeter deep, we need more in-depth reporting and analysis of a narrower range of issues that are more central to the functioning of our democracy. Do we really need to hear more of Bush or Cheney accusing Democrats of treason because of their dissent? What is needed is specific information about why, after five years of rhetoric and control of the government by the same party, the American people are less safe or certainly no safer than they were on 9/11. We need factual reporting about specific successes and failures of the Administration in the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The media needs to give us the facts, we can generate the spin ourselves.
We the People deserve better; and we can achieve better government. But we need at least minimal functioning or the fundamental institutions that make up our democratic form of government. If the current rate of deterioration and destruction of those institutions continues, the vital signs will fade and the loss will be irretrievable.
.........
footnote: If you think that PBS is giving you "balanced" news reporting, think again. See: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100806Y.shtml
No comments:
Post a Comment