Publisher or Puppet Master?

Publisher or Puppet Master?

“Fake News”! Today’s anthem cry for biased reporting. Were any of us shocked when Donna Brazile, former Interim-Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), shared debate questions with then candidate Hillary Clinton during the 2016 primaries? Didn’t we share a collective laugh and attribute such action to national levels? Did our collective blinders extend a bit too far? What is the fallout when local publishers, editors, and reporters turn from their role of informing to roles of political puppet master and dutiful puppets?

            We rely on reporters, editors, and publishers for their ability to tell stories in a succinct, comprehensive manner and present facts. When a paper’s neutrality is maintained, the public and voters are well-served. Facts in well-researched stories provide valuable information for consideration in advance of scheduled elections. This is especially vital when candidates are new and relatively unknown to the community.

When neutrality is abandoned; then, motives MUST be called in to question. Did the publisher use power and position to influence, sugar-coat or suppress stories? Could the publisher pressure those from other media outlets to sweep information under the rug? If a publisher carried a grudge against an incumbent, would that publisher actively seek candidates for primary races? What if assurances were given that crucial background information would stay buried?

Gathering candidate petitions is commonplace. Most voters sign petitions, regardless of party affiliation. Many believe candidates deserve the chance to make their case to the voters. However, once qualified, significant access to monetary resources, such as personal wealth and/or strong backing from a local publisher, could, in this writer’s opinion, provide an easy path to buy the office sought and suppress past transgressions.

Consider the implications if neutrality has been tossed aside. What if facts began to surface that called into question the very political platform established by any candidate? If a candidate proclaims military service as evidence of experience, what happens when said service is shown to be exaggerated or fraudulent? If a candidate filed bankruptcy, was it a one-time event; or, is it a repeated method to address debt? What if a candidate is portrayed as a business man and that same candidate had multiple federal tax liens placed on property? Do voters have the right to know and the expectation local news outlets will report such findings?

            Political platforms convey character content, too. We’ve all seen and heard the “family man” card played. Later, we learn of escapades that make Bill Clinton look like a choir boy. How many times has God and religion been a part of a campaign, particularly if past indiscretions of younger days are to be overlooked? How many times have those same politicians been caught in establishments neither God nor religion would endorse? If given a simple traffic citation, does the candidate take responsibility and pay the fine; or, are political contacts called to quash the citation? Character matters and background stories help voters determine that content.

            Are we all perfect? Certainly not. In Romans, Paul writes, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. The difference is what we do going forward; after confessing and beginning a relationship with God. Consider the issue of divorce. A candidate with a divorce or two under his or her belt is not an unusual situation. What caused the divorce? Was it amicable? Was it messy, fraught with harassment? Did either spouse engage in activities that would cause Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt to turn away in shame? What happened after the divorce? If there are children, are the divorce provisions for the children, such as child support and health insurance coverage, being honored? What’s the current family situation? Did he or she remarry? Has past behavior changed or is it a repeated pattern? There’s an old saying, “when the cat’s away, the mice will play”. When either spouse is away, what does the other do? Does he or she engage is conversations or activities, neither would be able to explain to children? In this era of #MeToo, can the candidate’s actions be construed as the degradation and/or bullying of women? Shouldn’t voters have the answers to these questions in order to reach an informed decision?

            When neutrality is honored, diligent reporters uncover answers through public records, prior news articles, and conversations with folks who know the candidate. Information is presented to the editor for fact-checking or the development of more story lines. If the paper’s chartered course is in the neutral zone, the public will be presented with Joe Friday’s “just the facts” to develop an informed opinion. If a publisher exits the neutral zone, then slivers of facts appear in puff pieces designed to quell any further curiosity. The goal becomes to have the candidate get it front of the story early enough so that although a report has been filed, it’s done early enough so that voters will forget before primary season begins in earnest. It is at this point, in this writer’s belief, the publisher seeks to become the puppet master.

            Consider for a moment, emails transmitted from puppet masters to elected officials questioning party loyalty? Why would any publisher question the attendance of or absence from local organizations by any official? Imagine a successful puppet master, who, through careful orchestration of supported candidates, managed to help elect candidates such that a majority of a city or county council is now beholden to this publisher. Would either the editor or any reporters dare to air any unflattering revelation? Would any process be questioned? Would the pulling of such strings pave the way for partnerships with local government entities? Why would publishers knowingly abandon their natural, adversarial position to, as Jefferson would advise, “question with boldness”, statements made and platforms established by candidates and elected officials? What if puppet masters actively sought to intimidate public postings on social media with cautions of libel and slander? Think it couldn’t happen? Think again.

            We may chuckle when we hear “Fake News” ascribed to certain news outlets. When publishers seek to expand political influence, the possibility of local political organizations providing candidates with questions in advance of public forums becomes very real. Younger versions of established Democratic or Republican organizations dutifully host forums, offer support, and gather candidate petitions to curry favor and garner funding from publishers seeking fortune and fame; and, never stop to question who the candidate is. Vital information either becomes buried or appears on an obscure page of the publication. If candidates are unable and/or unwilling to break the strings that bind them to the puppet master; then we as voters must remain vigilant in holding puppet master publishers accountable when neutrality is cast aside.