| PresstheNews.Com |
| An Imbalance in Presentation? |
According to this none mainstream source, the Bush administration obsession with secrecy is one of the top 25 underreported stories of 2006. And it reminds me of a story. When you combine it with some of the points quickly referred to here, the administration's horrendous fiscal record, even more horrendous environmental record, management on Iraq, failure to pay attention to al Qaeda prior to September, 2001, and many other factors, it paints a picture that is hard to believe. So many people simply don't.
I had an acquaintance in 2004 who asked how I was not a Bush supporter, given my strong stance on terrorism, fiscal conservatism, individual responsibility, limited government, etc. I told her "Because there is a great deal of misperception about the two candidates and the issues." She asked me to send her something. I did. It was an intensely researched piece that I had submitted (unsuccessfully) to the Washington Post for its Sunday Outlook section. It said nothing purposefully pejorative, just laid out the successive case as to how the Bush Administration had undermined their own stated goals, policy, and rhetoric, in almost every instance, while increasing the size, scope, reach, power and secrecy of the federal government. For the most part, it didn't even include the administration's environmental record, which has been extremely poor (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).
A big supporter of the Bush administration, she wrote me back and said, "this was a really good piece. But I know it can't be true, because if it was, almost no one would vote for the current administration." And that was exactly the point.
The media did a poor job (and continues to do a poor job in many respects), covering the issues. But the democrats could have done a far better job at communicating with the media, at understanding the importance of how the mainstream media shapes the debate in a democracy, and at counteracting the cohesive, focused, and momentous campaign by the far right wing against the mainstream media. Given that, it is folly to blame the media. It is even worse to blame the voters, which is like blaming the leaves on the trees for being green. Voters will act upon the information that they receive. They always have. They always will (democrats seem to hate this fundamental law; which is part of their problem). And it is even worse to have blamed their opponents. Every time the far right wing Bush campaign (which, through effective rhetoric was able to convince much of America, and itself -- Democrats hate that suggestion as well -- that it is not far right wing) mischaracterized an issue, it was a gift to the moderates, democrats and liberals, to undermine the other side's message, as well as their basic campaign theme -- credibility. Not by telling America, as democrats are often wont to do, but by showing them.
But they didn't. Many democrats think the case is so obvious, that people just had to know. Refusing to recognize the reality of the fact that not everybody sees things the way they do, not everybody knows what they do, or has the same perspective, and, importantly, information that they do in a misinformation society. So they blame. Rather than focus on the heart of the problem. Holding the media accountable for responsible journalism, attacks from all sides based on even more rhetoric and logical distortion aside, and consistently communicating with the American people rather than with themselves. The case was not made, and people went to the polls in November largely misinformed. Consider the fact, for example, that most Americans believed that Kerry "flip flopped on Iraq," the critical issue of the election, in light of the facts.
Yet rhetoric took over, and it continues to guide America on critical issues.