|
|
It seems reporters, interviewers and commentators have lusted for any and all of Donald Trump’s accusations, less for substantive policy comments by Democratic campaigner Hillary Clinton and only marginally for those made by Bernie Sanders, who is seen perhaps less of an ultimate nominee than a fun outsider.
Lacking are the media’s demands for these folks to substantiate their accusations and claims, and to provide detailed information regarding how they will do what they promise.
Most conspicuous is the reality that TV interviewers are easy prey for Trump, who seems willing to sit for an interview anywhere his personal airplane will take him, and he and his handlers have sniffed out the media’s obvious weakness to continuously fall for such “engagements” very well.
There’s no question the candidates themselves have played political “dodge ball” with facts and clear policy statements, another reason lazy media should pursue concrete answers even though formal nominations have yet to be announced.
In Trump’s case, the media have only tangentially pursued the almost unprecedented situation of a declared party candidate apparently despised by so many of the party he wants to represent. If this situation is not historic, it is at least strange, and certainly disturbing.
In Secretary Clinton’s case, the media have hardly raised the question as to why she thinks the Republicans have calendared the heaviest part of her alleged illicit use of a personal computer for classified purposes around this campaign time. My own sense is they expect to release it all the day after she is nominated. So why has no one in the media suggested that strategy or pursued her sense of where all that might take matters?
A key Republican leader this morning on NPR clearly stated he believes Trump to be “reprehensible,” but he would vote for him just because he is the party candidate. Would the party leadership simply accept a fascist on that kind of basis? Why have the media not demanded an answer from people like Paul Ryan or other key leaders if the situation came down to that?
The American public has been faced with one of the most vulgar campaigns in history, a battle waged by two powerful candidates, one of whom will ascend to the White House in just a few months. The media, whose unwillingness to address issues not sufficiently raised by either candidate and demand clear definitions of claims and promises — where Trump can hurl personal accusations while avoiding his own personal record — permitted this inelegant reality. The media have relinquished their responsibility to demand that the facts regarding both candidates are seen impartially so that the American public can better understand what to do in November.
The gutter nature of what we have seen would surely make the Cronkhites, Murrows et al twirl in their graves, and recalls that powerful challenge to the later-impeached legislator Joe McCarthy in 1954: Alas, have you no sense of decency?
Media must raise that same question to both candidates and dig into what we all have a right to know regarding the future leadership each will provide when those levers are pulled in November. The peace of the world might depend on what emerges.
* * *
Joe Honick is President of GMA International.
The ridiculously high prices Americans are paying at the supermarket might influence how—or if—they vote in November.
At a moment in history when there are so many conflicts among peoples here and abroad, let us put our differences aside and celebrate this wonderful season in a spirit of togetherness.
The news announcing the death of Henry Kissinger, the last of the prevaricating politicians and so-called statesmen who stole my future and that of thousands of other young Americans, got me thinking about Walter Cronkite.
Have a comment? Send it to 
No comments have been submitted for this story yet.