Open letter to the media.

[gcomeau]

Something I'm thinking of firing off on the National Media blaster... thoughts?

====================================================================
When are we going to see journalists start to do their job? Namely, reporting the facts instead of simply endlessly repeating political spin?

Several hundred times hearing about how the Bush campaign *says* Kerry's position on Iraq has changed over and over is quite enough thank you. We get it. Bush wants to convince us Kerry's a flip flopper. That stopped being news several months ago. Now what would be really impressive is if I saw a report on what Kerry's position has actually BEEN. You know, those pesky facts journalists are supposed to be reporting?

Facts like the op-ed peice Kerry wrote for the NY Times on September 6th 2002, before he cast his vote on the use of force authorization? In which he stated his position: That war with Iraq might yet be necessary, but it hadn't reached that point yet and efforts should be made to get Saddam to comply with the UN.

Facts like the speech he gave on the Senate floor the DAY he cast his vote for the use of force authorization? In which he again stated his position and explained his vote: That war with Iraq might yet be necessary but it hadn't reached that point yet. The president needed the authority the vote would give him to provide leverage to GET SADDAM TO COMPLY WITH THE UN and that force should actually be used *only* if those efforts failed. A condition the president most certainly did not live up to seeing as the UN weapons inspectors were actually forced out of Iraq BY Bush when he announced the invasion was imminent.

Facts like Kerry stating up front in that very same speech that if Bush failed to meet that condition (and fail he did), Kerry would speak out against the use of force (and speak out he did)?

Just. Like. He. Said. He. Would.

No flip-flopping involved, just continuing with the exact same position he had from the beginning.

Facts like that a *conditional* use of force authorization (and yes, there were conditions in the bill) and a declaration of war are *not* the same thing? Or how about we just get the journalist themselves to stop saying Kerry "voted for the war" when that statement is a falsehood? Could we at least see that happen?

Facts like Kerry thinking that voting to give the president the leverage he needed *if* he was going to do the right thing is NOT the same thing as Kerry thinking that what the president then proceeded to do with that authority actually WAS the right thing?

So how about it? When do we stop seeing journalists act as nothing more than mouthpeices for the statements of political public relations committees and start seeing them acting like actual journalists?

I've heard a lot of news outlets talking about how it's hard for people to get a clear picture of Kerry's position on Iraq... well you know, it might be easier for them to get a handle on it if Kerry's position ever got accurately reported. What a novel thing that would be... people making up their mind based on what the candidate's position actually IS rather than based on what the news reports that his opponent wants to portray it as!

Just a thought,

-Grant Comeau

[ewagner]

1. Great letter!

Can I use it too?

[gcomeau]

5. Feel free.

And that goes for anyone of course.

-Grant

[bigpathpaul]

2. An excellent thought, though.

The media is either lazy or corrupt or both. I think if anything needs to be driven home it's that they are not doing their job!

[JuniorPlankton]

3. Thanks!

Do you have a link to JK's senate speech you mention?

[gcomeau]

4. Kerry's Senate speech link

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

Particularly relevent sections:

"Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances."

And:

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

And:

"I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq, and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change."

Kerry's position hasn't changed one iota since that time.

-Grant

[kaitykaity]

6. Send it! This is very good.

I would pick like three or four choice journos who you
think still have a soul and care about their job and
personalize it to them so that they actually read what
you're saying and don't delete it as spam.

Like Karen Tumulty, you know, the people who do Washington
Week on PBS. The serious folks print folks.

(I think all the talking heads on cable TV are soul-less
whores, but that's just my opinion.)

:kick:

[gcomeau]

7. Just did...

To about 50 different addresses on the National media list. I am not at all above personalizing and sending AGAIN however. ;)

Whatever it takes to get the point across. Feel free of course to personalize some for yourself and join in the fun. The more the merrier!

-Grant