Parlor Wit

“..if a Republican said the moon was made of green cheese, and a Democrat said, no, it’s rock, the media would cover it with a headline saying, LEFT, RIGHT CLASH ON LUNAR MAKEUP.”

- from Take It Back: Our Party, Our Country, Our Future, by James Carville and Paul Begala, Simon & Schuster, 2006, p. 228

“Balanced Journalism” vs. the Truth

Journalism & Democracy

Contemporary journalists appear to have decided they’ve done their job as long as they have presented opposing viewpoints in their reports. They’ve given both sides a chance to speak and don’t need to dig any deeper. Whatever the truth may be, at least their report is politically “balanced”.

What have we learned from the last four years of this “balanced” news? With respect to the occupation of Iraq, we have learned that the conservative “balance” has been wrong and worthless. Fox News said the war was going well, when it wasn’t. Fox News said the economy was strong, and it wasn’t. What they passed along as “balanced” news was piecemeal information balanced with a pro-administration lie.

It’s not just Fox. A political interviewer for another network said that news discussions prior to the Iraq invasion were pro-administration because Democrats failed to give a rebuttal to the administration. Pontius, you crucified our country.

The shame of it is that citizens of a democracy need to be adequately and objectively informed about facts in order to determine the best way to deal with problems they encounter. Perhaps the lessons of Iraq will convince more institutional journalists to join Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay in going beyond the talking-points they’re fed, to uncover the truth. It might get them more respect. Regardless, the new democratic media of the Internet – YouTube, blogs, Google, etc. – have given the citizens themselves new tools for getting closer to the truth, for uncovering the lies, and for informing fellow citizens about them. And you will see those tools used more and more.

Telecom Immunity Threatens the Constitution

George W. Bush and other Republican leaders have admitted that they oppose the extension of the "Protect America Act" passed by the House of Representatives because it does not give immunity to those telecommunications companies who willingly handed over the personal data of US citizens based on nothing more than a request from the Administration. Their reason? They claim that those telecommunications companies might not cooperate next time.

More than one blogger has pointed out that, if telecommunications companies were given warrants and subpoenas, they would have to cooperate next time, or suffer severe consequences. But I haven't seen anyone else make this point: we citizens don't want those telecommunications companies giving up our private data based on nothing more than a request from the government. In appealing to one fear, the fear of terrorists, Bush and his enablers overlook a greater fear woven into the US Constitution: An authoritarian government represents a greater potential threat to its citizens than any potential terrorist. That's why the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution says:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The "Founding Fathers" knew from experience that a government's powers are so vast, the potential for abuse so real, and the possible damage so grave, that restrictions on the government's powers had to be established. And one of those "safety clauses" was a requirement that the government be forced to show "probable cause" before searching and seizing our effects. I submit that this would include our electronic "effects". Alex Budarin