Press and Politicians

JACK
In former days, when I watched a political program, the interviewers asked the same questions I would have asked, If he didn’t get a direct answer he would pursue the question until the politician being interviewed gave it or refused to answer. Today, the soft balls that are thrown out, and the acceptance of an answer that really doesn’t apply directly frustrate me. Questions I would like to see answered are: For that want to stay the course in Iraq, exactly what does that mean? Why a schoolyard expression, such as "we will not cut and run," is accepted. At the same time, I would like the opposition not only criticize, but to say what they would do if they were in power. It’s not good enough to say, "We would do better."

HILLARY
It’s par for the course with the occupants of elected positions these days. They say as little as necessary to please the largest number of people, and when truly pressed by the media, which doesn’t happen often, they fold, evade and often throw personal attacks as a response. As well, I no longer see any difference between Republican and Democrat, and because of this I recently became a registered "unaffiliated" voter.

JACK
The reason that you don’t see a difference is that they both employ focus groups to guide their thinking. When we had great leaders, they led. We elected them because we trusted their judgment. Most of the current politicians first ask, "What’s going to get the most number of votes" and then come up with the pabulum that will offend nobody. And the party that should be the referee (the press) is not strong enough, because should they have an inclination to challenge they would not get a seat at the next press conference. One of the most encouraging signs is the appearance of the internet (blogs) where the people are being directly reached, without having to be censored by an editorial board.

JACK
I just have a very strong feeling that the American public is getting wiser, and with undisciplined information will act accordingly and make intelligent decisions.

HILLARY
But to do what? Are you saying that if we had more information we’d seek to impeach our current leadership? Are you saying that if we knew more about the crisis in the Middle East that we would seek oil rations and alternative energy resources? I truly wonder of unadulterated information would really move our society at this point. I think it’s going to take some cataclysm on the scale of 9/11 to get people’s attention again, and get them willing to make the needed sacrifices.

JACK
You’re suggesting that the public would opt to make the sacrifices. I’m not taking it that far, and I’m not drawing conclusions. I just feel that by understanding more, being able to define the hypocrisy in many statements, that we’ll have a better weapon to define the truth. Then the American public would be able to properly use its ultimate weapon: Voting Power. By reading the blogs, we are beginning to get an insight into the important happenings that the mainstream press will not give us in depth. I cannot watch and listen anymore to the drivel about a star that is divorcing, or telling the public that their husband/wife is cheating on them. I don’t care about these trivial matters, which occupies 90% of the coverage.

HILLARY
I couldn’t agree more. I like a good tabloid magazine as much as any girl, but when I turn on the morning news, I expect it to be that – news. When Madonna’s adoption bid is given as much time as the nuclear threat from North Korea, something is dramatically wrong. I understand the need to escape all of the terrible and frightening things that are occurring around the planet, but the news hour is not where that escape should come. Yet, this is the way of modern media. So, you’re right…one has to turn to the internet and bloggers to get information, uncensored and in real time. I think it’s our only hope for maintaining our freedom of the press.

HomeSite Map

Communication is inspiration! Share your thoughts below.