Lessons From Election 2004

By now, the final votes have been cast, and one of the most bizarre election periods in our nation’s history is mercifully drawing to a close. Regardless of who wins, conceivably the most critical issue that has surfaced during this cycle might be the fact that the press in our country has gotten way out of control, and is wielding significantly too much power in molding public opinion about our candidates, the economy, and geopolitical events.

Let’s examine some of the most egregious incidents of media bias and manipulation during the last four years to get a sense as to just how serious the problem might be, as well as what can be done to prevent this from recurring in the future.

Likely, we all should have gotten an idea of how far the media was willing to go to unseat an incumbent president when CBS News’ ''60 Minutes'' became a platform for anyone who had either written a tell-all book or just wanted to badmouth Mr. Bush on the most watched television news magazine in our nation. This began in January with an introduction of former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill’s new book. Then, in March, it was anti-terror aide Richard Clarke. In April, it was Bob Woodward. There were three segments devoted to the prisoner scandal in Abu Ghraib in April and May. Later in May, it was retired General Anthony Zinni. Then, in June, while repeating an earlier segment done with Michael Moore, they previewed a 55-second clip from his propagandist film, ''Fahrenheit 9/11.'' By contrast, they never interviewed any of the authors of ''Unfit For Command,'' nor did they ask General Tommy Franks to come on and discuss his book.

Of course, the worst of the ''60 Minutes'' reports came as Dan Rather presented negative information concerning President Bush’s service in the Air National Guard based on documents that appear to be forged. To date, CBS News has not retracted its statements, or apologized to the American people for having participated in this fraud. Furthermore, maybe the most heinous of biased manipulations by ''60 Minutes'' luckily was averted last week when the New York Times decided that they would not hold the al Qaqaa munitions story in order for ''60 Minutes'' to be able to drop this bombshell on the Sunday before Election Day.

Not to be outdone, the New York Times did its share during this election cycle to manipulate and misrepresent information to the public in order to affect their votes. In fact, an organization called Times Watch has a list of ''The Top 10 Distortions by the Times in Campaign 2004.'' Although I agree with all of their favorites, I think potentially one of the key items that they neglected was how the Times and most of the mainstream media continually misrepresented our nation's economic condition in order to impact voter perceptions on this key issue.

Let’s look at some economic facts. Today, a larger percentage of Americans own their homes than have ever done so in modern history, and, correspondingly, home values are at their highest point ever. Additionally, we have exactly the same unemployment rate today as we did when Bill Clinton was seeking reelection in 1996. In fact, as estimated by the Census Bureau, there are currently 2.5 million more Americans employed than at the same time in 2000. Moreover, the average net worth of Americans is the highest it’s ever been in history, including at the stock market’s March 2000 peak. Lastly, the final Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2003 was $10.8 Trillion. This was 12% greater than in the year 2000. And, the GDP for 2004 is estimated to be $11.5 Trillion. This will be roughly 6% greater than 2003 – one of the strongest year over year increases in decades – and 19% more than the year 2000.

In reality, when looked at from a broad perspective of economic indicators and statistics, we are in the midst of a very strong economic expansion, and conditions are equally good if not better than in the corresponding period when President Clinton was seeking reelection. However, this is NOT what the public’s perception is. In fact, most people in our nation view our current economy to be quite weak. Why? Well, because unless you are reading the Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, or some other financial periodical, you are likely not getting an accurate picture of the economic data being released on a daily basis. In fact, the Media Research Center states that in 1996, during similar economic prosperity, there were 35 positive economic stories reported in the press for every six negative ones. By contrast, this year, there have been 38 negative economic stories for every six positive ones. Think this helps to foster the public’s inaccurate gloomy view?

Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, you should be extremely concerned about biased economic coverage because it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most economists keep a close watch on consumer sentiment indicators to get a sense of the public’s financial ethos. If economic data is being intentionally skewed to the downside, buying decisions by consumers and business leaders might be correspondingly impacted. As such, given how strong the economy currently is with all this negativity being spewed by the press, just imagine how much healthier it would be if the media were presenting a more accurate view. Maybe there would be several million more people on corporate payrolls. Maybe the GDP would be growing even faster. Therefore, regardless of political benefit, it is in everybody’s best interest for good economic news to be accurately reported rather than continually spun to advance an unrelated agenda.

Certainly, if the press has done a good job of convincing the population that the economy is doing poorly, it has excelled at molding perceptions about conditions in Iraq. From the overblown, nightly avalanche of shocking pictures from Abu Ghraib, to this most recent debacle concerning munitions at al Qaqaa, the mainstream press has continually presented the most negative picture possible from this region. In fact, not only has the press always depicted a lousy landscape, but also it has rarely shared any of the good news that has transpired there. Frankly, the average American has been much better off over the past twelve months learning about events in Iraq by visiting international news websites, or reading non-American papers like England’s Financial Times. We Americans should find this concept rather offensive.

Lastly, with regard to the reporting of some of the major character issues of each candidate, we should all find it absolutely appalling how much time the mainstream press focused on the president’s Air National Guard record while totally ignoring the assertions by the Swiftboat veterans. Now, without getting into the merits of their claims, the reality is that a large group of veterans did indeed cast some serious doubt concerning a presidential candidate’s well advertised military record, and rather than address the possibility of their veracity, an overwhelmingly large percentage of the American press not only chose never to interview any of the contributors, but instead castigated all of them as being liars. Certainly, even a healthy curiosity should have lead most editors to want to investigate this matter in some legitimate fashion, as they certainly would not have swept this issue under the rug if several hundred of President Bush’s fellow National Guardsmen had made similar assertions against his character.

So, what’s the solution? Well, every profession in our nation has rules and regulations concerning the conduct of folks who work in that industry. Whether you are a doctor, lawyer, accountant, insurance agent, stockbroker, realtor, mortgage broker, etc., you have requirements that are dictated by law and the industry that regulates you concerning how you are to comport yourself in your dealings with the public. For instance, in the banking industry, there are laws called Truth in Savings and Truth in Lending. These statutes dictate how interest rates are calculated, how they can be advertised, what you are required to tell your customer, etc. And, there are very serious fines and consequences for individuals and the companies they work for if these laws are in any way violated.

Unfortunately, beyond slander and libel statutes, there is very little that prevents our press editors and reporters from doing, saying, writing, and reporting virtually anything they want with total impunity. Frankly, as these media organizations have clearly done a reprehensible job of self-regulation as evidenced by the lack of any significant firings at the senior management level in the midst of many high-profile scandals, it quite seems appropriate that our legislators take action early in the next congressional session to address this looming crisis.

To be sure, our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of the press when they penned the First Amendment. However, it is safe to assume that they never could have imagined just how much power the press would eventually have in our country. As a result, if we as a nation feel that it is imperative for realtors, bankers, and stockbrokers to tell us the truth, certainly, we should be able to expect the same from our news media.

About the Writer: Noel Sheppard is a business owner, economist, and writer residing in Northern California. Noel receives e-mail at slep@danvillebc.com.

Excellent article. Couldn't have said it better myself, and I've tried - my blog is FULL of this.

The Corrupt Liberal Media must go, this is battle number one now that the electon is won.

Great article. I am grateful to have found this website six months ago. It has been a learning experience and a place to feel at home. I will continue to visit often because one's education is never finished.

Lets hope that the Republican election officials have learned how to stop the voter fraud committed in cities like Philadelphia and on Indian reservations in the western U.S. Standardizing provisional ballot procedures would go a long way in stopping abusive practices on the part of liberal lawyers and politicians.

I don't think regulation of the press is a good idea at all.

I would much rather that the Republican now deny CBS, the singularly worst offender, press credentials as an example to the rest of the press.

it quite seems appropriate that our legislators take action early in the next congressional session to address this looming crisis.

Huh? The New York Times is a private business. The Government and legislator have no legitimate role in telling them ANYTHING about what the publish, or how they spin things.

As the old saw goes: "I totally disagree with what you say but will defend to my death your right to say it...".

As for the Networks - cable news is like newspapers, runs on private networks and there is nothing that the Congress should say to them. Broadcast Networks and the stations that air them are quasi-public, so oversight is a legitimate function.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.