Op Ed: 'Pretentious' Pundits Pervert, Trivialize Citizen Decisions

(SALEM, Ore.) - America’s most crucial citizen decisions in more than a century are being “slobbered-over and stupid-ified” by overly-pretentous “ratings-fed pundits-of-the press and broadcast-media”.

They profess portentiously-probing knowledge of national-issue significance, while burying their actual participation under tons of minor trivialities; program-time/wasting repeat-accusations; false-celebrity sayings, and the most-recent/rumors of political rape and revolt; ad nauseam.

But what you REALLY get is simply recycled rubbish-quotes, while the major issues demanding desperate democratic attention at once are ignored or trivialized by trite and dangerously-deficient short-and-terse discussion if mentioned at all.

Honest, open, truly-democratic dialog by those who should speak up in deepened detail about these monstrous impacts on all our lives --the candidates -- either are not heard at all; or are overly/condensed/summarized and in turn totally cut off from the demanded clear definition of “where they really stand --and what they must now surely deliver, too.”

What’s right must lead today, one can almost hear these pundits declare to their producers: “No matter if it’s really-right and what Americans really need to know.”

Broadcast ratings, rather than profits-alone, have become the real reasons for far too many pundit-content/choices; while “profits uber alles” still drives management more-than-ever to acquiesce in this mutual, ongoing personal/professional self-denigration of on-air channels STILL, for now, recognized as common property of all the people, and surely meant for use to build, strengthen and preserve the commonweal.

It is truly amazing --as well as totally disingenuous on their part -- to see-and-hear the millionaire Clinton's, the millionaire McCain, and these also-millionaire pundits, all pretentiously attacking Obama, whose major career has ascended from his years of service remediating and representing the lives of those who are captured on Chicago’s notorious South Side.

But that denigrating, highly-defensive tendency does depict and display the realities of this political-posturing, stale, old-and-tattered return to the politics we may deserve: IF we let it continue and consummate in still another wasted democratic vote 'gone the wrong way for lack of common sense and common political-civility' --the cement binding us in community and concentrated common-sense decision for most of the past two centuries.

It is perhaps ironic --as well as very/strong warning-situation-- to see-and-hear that occurring just as the 21st Century takes off. Can we expect better things in the coming key-decade, the bare-beginnings of what should be a reaping and wonderful Century for our true-republican democracy, despite the despoiling and denigrating impacts of the old politics of confrontation and its inevitable consequences?

ANY remaining pretension to serving the most essential pure-principle of our faltering democracy -- clear statements for citizen clarity and comprehension on major issues and their resulting problems-- may well confuse, if not founder beyond any rational rescue, what this election must demonstrate: Redemption, remediation and return to the Founder-given basic democratic principles for a republic/shaped democracy, seen by millions as now-collapsing under political/nostrum neo-con weight.

Dismay and deep disgust by many of those same millions, now confronted once again by repeat-performance from past politicized punditry which swept us into a “preemptive war” via lies and links to sorry-level journalism, is now also affronting many more millions of Americans.

They too have, very recently, become much more painfully aware --and deeply concerned-- with the failed-role of our vaunted “free press” to “inform them wisely and well on the economy, on true unemployment-figures, and on the remorseless mounting of inflation”; right when we need that basic open, honest, democratic dialog like never before.

One overriding, overwhelming reason is the irresponsible rationales they have encountered, imposed on major and many minor national issues and problems by an administration deeply driven by neo-con motives for self-protection --and, until recently, political preservation, too.

That destructive impact on American public trust in its most essential instrument for public understandings --our “free press”-- is perhaps among the most potent possible motivations for Constitutional punishment of those so-committed; and openly still-committing, too.

From many sources, both public and professional, one now finds extremely sharp and growing deep distrust of the public media, in all their roles, and in every channel. Three decades of demonstrated deeper concern for ratings, by “professional”-staff; and “return on investment” by corporate ownerships in command after, too often, superseding traditional family-owners; has altered the very working-foundations of our vaunted “free press”.

One striking example shared in media channels: Now-recurring “incidents when public servants, clearly owing information to the people, are now refusing to discuss public business with media-persons they’ve come to distrust”, citing previous patterns of flawed and interest-flaunting coverage.

False-economy platitudes, even though plentifully disarmed by two centuries of real-field experience; heavy and repetitive staff-slashes; and penny-pinching poverty for that most essential of all journalistic activities --the investigation and comprehensive report to the public of diverse and desperate doings at all levels-- have been allowed to water down, and often to wash away completely what our open-and-honest press-and-media have long done for all of us: Report the reliable realities of the world in which we live, and must continue to exist either as citizens of a strong democracy, or as corporate serfs serving out self-imposed sentences, well-short of our stolen freedoms and full democratic opportunities.

Where that major, driving demand for disclosure of deeply-hidden truths, in true public interest, has continued to operate, it still does prevail and even prove-up again as the still-potent remedy for dwindling circulations and profits, too.

Again, we have chosen to lay out for you the factors now clearly evident making this mess so malodorous and malign; while presenting the worst dangerous-situation for our democracy since the Civil War and perhaps since our own original Revolution was followed by the world-shaking --and shaping !!--actions of our Founders; leaving to us the solid/strong and well-tested principles on which we have achieved so much, for so many, over such long and dangerous decades.

NOW it appears that “the Oregon primary vote may well be the chosen instrument for decision” on the Democratic candidate in this extremely important national election. SO we leave it with you what YOU do, now that you know the “big picture-surround” --and can consider rationally, and thus reasonably, whom it is that can serve our nation best --NOW, in the 21st Century’s opening and most dangerous phases.

See Reader’s Note below for a careful selection of top Internet source-documents, sent to you solely to allow your “see with own eyes” examination and evaluation with ‘your OWN mind” --probably by far the best offsetting information we can share with you for the sort of learning situation demanded for responsible, accountable American citizen actions in the face of such desperate, despoiling attacks on democracy by both parties and all three candidates.

Reader’s Note: Quotes are combined, summarized, shortened for space reasons here. Verbatim sources are available on request to Editor Tim with ID. Among the most intriguing of sources-used for this Op Ed are:

1. The Nation, 5/9/08; “Bitter Politics”: “Voters and super-delegates now have to ask, at what cost is Clinton willing to continue this fight ?”; www.thenation.com/doc/2008059.

2. Clinton Camp: “There Are No Rules”; Steven Rosenfeld; www.alternet.org/module/printversion/84692/?type=blog

3. Clinton: “Damn The Pundits, Full Speed Ahead:’: David Corn; MotherJones.com; 5/7/08.

4. The Nation, 5/19//o8; “Our Lapdog Media”;The Editors: “What should we do when Big Media fails democracy ?”; www.thenation.com/doc/20080519/editors/print.

5. After the Primaries, A United Progressive America: Bill Scher; www.ourfuture.org/print/24861.

7. Working Class Elitists; Ali Eteraz; www.huffingtonpost.ciom/ali-eteraz/working-class elitis...

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Jacob May 13, 2008 3:12 pm (Pacific time)

Vic I never read anything like that about President Truman. Do you have a reference, or are you just sharing information that came to you in some kind of stupor event? Thanks

Vic May 12, 2008 8:02 am (Pacific time)

Interesting that Gerald admires Truman, because he was one of the most unpopular and unliked presidents back in his time. He was an unrepentant war monger that was giddy to use the atomic bomb.He reportedly wanted to use atom bombs on Korea too. He should have been tried and executed and hung from a light pole ala Mussolini for all the other warmongers to see.

"ANON" May 12, 2008 6:24 pm (Pacific time)

Evidently you have misunderstood what I wrote, I'll try to be more clear for you, hopefully. As per the below posts that attributed various quotes to Obama, it sounded as though you did not believe that they were actual statements by Obama. They are quotes by him, and I would be happy to provide you a link source, in fact they have been saturated all over the media. Since this is a conversation that my hope would be to promote open and honest dialog, then it should be on this current site don't you think? As far as a private email communication with you I simply do not know how that would be productive with other reader's and poster's, do you see my point? Thanks for your input Mr. Ruark.

Henry Ruark May 12, 2008 3:27 pm (Pacific time)

"Anon"-inviter et al: Ready, willing and I believe able, too --but invariable policy, since I'm thoroughly ID'd on STAFF-page, is that any responder ID-self with emailer to Editor Tim. DO believe I have right to know to whom I'm opening my email-door AND files-to-share. Dialog is neither open nor honest when one hides behind tree OR semblance thereof... IF you unwilling to put self on open record (as I do here), with name, address and emailer, that in itself is proof of malign intent demanding unfair advantage. WHY "stay hidden" ?? IF you prefer face/face, for audible-dialog, that, too, can be so arranged, with witnesses and recorder...not first shot for me, how about you ? Always enjoy-and-learn in any such encounter, even in advancing age-situation. IF the potential high enough, can even arrange radio, possible TV, coverage, too...might be fun so to do, and share not only here but with broader audience, thus multiplying all advantages so long as dialog is open, honest and democratic-sharing in tone and content.

"ANON" May 12, 2008 1:24 pm (Pacific time)

Excuse me, did you want a link to various sources that Obama made the below statement(s)? If so I would be happy to, if you have some other statement you would like verified via a source link, please let me know and I'll provide it for you. Thanks, and may the open and honest dialog continue to grow.

Henry Clay Ruark May 12, 2008 12:27 pm (Pacific time)

"Anon", Sam, et al: Note with disdain neither of you replied with checkable "see with own eyes" links to ANY reputable non-partisan sources, as we supply here allatime. SO must "give you back of hand", which makes certain noise you might recognize from either your own manipulative manifestations or (forgive me) your personal physical processes. For YOU, "Anon", invite you to ID-self to Editor Tim for direct contact, exchange of reputable sources if you have any, for precisely the kind of dialog you describe but avoid with next-steps open to you and Sam. SO, what are you waiting for now ? "Engraved invitation", as in U.S. bills, to pay for further shilling-efforts ? IF that's unfair, you can prove it so, to my public chagrin, simply by Comments with links other than to such obvious McCain-tainted documents and suspect-ones used by Sam, which I did rapidly check for "integrity", only to find what I expected; and which others can check for themselves to evaluate my evaluation.

Anonymous May 12, 2008 9:11 am (Pacific time)

Sam you brought up some good points which should and will be addressed in the public arena during the coming months. I feel sad when people do not like a full robust debate on the issues and instead question those who want an airing of issues to be misdirecting in some negative fashion. I believe that they are the ones who are purposely behind misdirecting the debate. What would their reasons be?

Vic May 12, 2008 8:09 am (Pacific time)

Here is a link from the Wall Street Journal showing how Truman and Bush's approval ratings started out high and then tanked. I guess people were sick of little Napoleon wanna-bes back then too. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html

Henry Ruark May 11, 2008 8:17 pm (Pacific time)

Sam et al: Your diatribe so full of thisnthat hard to be clear, but I understand you citing interior document of McCain campaign. That says it all: If you want ongoing war, denial of any diplomatic action, further blood, atomic danger, and 20th Century continuing failed policies a la Bush I and II, this makes some small sense. For rational, reasonable humans, however, it reads like what it is: More political mish-mash meant to manipulate via malign actions to build fear and further confusion. Good luck in selling such shoddy goods to anyone, but I doubt if Oregonians will pay much attention.

Sam May 11, 2008 6:46 pm (Pacific time)

To: Interested Parties "From: Mark Salter, Senior Advisor, John McCain Date: May 8, 2008 Re: Senator Obama’s Attack Today First, let us be clear about the nature of Senator Obama’s attack today: He used the words ‘losing his bearings’ intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain’s age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning. We have all become familiar with Senator Obama’s new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is. It is important to focus on what Senator Obama is attempting to do here: He is trying desperately to delegitimize the discussion of issues that raise legitimate questions about his judgment and preparedness to be President of the United States. Through their actions and words, Senator Obama and his supporters have made clear that ANY criticism on ANY issue — from his desire to raise taxes on millions of small investors to his radical plans to sit down face-to-face with Iranian President Ahmadinejad – constitute negative, personal attacks. Senator Obama is hopeful that the media will continue to form a protective barrier around him, declaring serious limits to the questions, discussion and debate in this race. Senator Obama has good reason to think this plan will succeed, as serious journalists have written of the need for ‘de-tox’ to cure ’swooning’ over Senator Obama, and others have admitted to losing their objectivity while with him on the campaign trail. Today, Senator Obama is complaining about comments John McCain made about a senior Hamas advisor stating that Hamas would welcome Senator Obama’s election as president. Indeed, on April 13th, senior Hamas political advisor Ahmed Yousef said, ‘We don’t mind – actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance.’ The McCain campaign has never suggested that Senator Obama supports Hamas’ agenda, but it is more than fair to raise this quote about Senator Obama because it speaks to the policy implications of his judgment. Just today, the president of Iran, whom Senator Obama wants to meet with unconditionally, called the state of Israel a ’stinking corpse.’ Iran is the paymaster and state sponsor of Hamas. In his victory speech this week, Senator Obama stated that ‘wisdom’ is meeting with our enemies, including Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Raul Castro. John McCain couldn’t disagree more. Rather than giving tyrants and dictators the prestige of meeting with an American president, John McCain will instead meet with the champions of human freedom around the world and opposition leaders fighting for liberty . We understand why Senator Obama doesn’t want to engage in a debate over leadership and judgment with John McCain, but the American people demand that debate take place. These are serious times that call for a serious debate on the profound issues facing our future. John McCain is ready for that debate and we hope Senator Obama will one day get serious and join it." I don't think we're going to get any "NEW POLITICS" from someone whose campaign has employed all manner of fraud and chicanery in caucuses (including winning where they lost the primary--in TX--a little embarrassing--wouldn't you say?? And STUFFING ALL THOSE BALLOT BOXES in Lake County??? What was that...just "poor form""-- or another example of hypocrite "I never heard him say those things (for 20 years) Obama??? Chicago style politics in Lake County VOTER FRAUD: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/wire/chi-ap-indianaprimary-afterm,0,6823125.story http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=88435 http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/nyt-advocates-voter-fraud.php http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-gary8-2008may08,0,5215475.story I don

Henry Ruark May 11, 2008 11:45 am (Pacific time)

RJ wt al: Good that you noticed, since picture sometimes tells truth sharper, more pointed and also poignant than any pile of words can do.

Henry Ruark May 11, 2008 11:43 am (Pacific time)

G.M.: Your kind response really appreciated, as is your history special training. Sorry if I seemed a bit too confrontational, but intensity is part of 3D's in this pundit profession: Diligent, Determined and Dedicated..and sometimes the latter spills over,m esp. after some of our recent provocations here. DO still disagree with your reading of that key-quote,and do believe book/or/review will make very clear to you why. There's no question still now possible this nation has been sold longtime "con-man approach" via some of our trusted services, sometimes aided-abetted by ostensible national "leadership" acting for political cover; and we paying high price of it, including "surround" which, for me, shapes even your well modulated and trained view. BUT now we have choice of real diplomacy or return to Cold War about to get "hot" with Big One hovering overhead in too many instances. Appreciate your ID to Tim for direct further dialog, and know I can learn more from you via that. Meanwhile we must preserve, protect, strengthen, guarantee a peaceful world -- or we will surely have a piece-ful one, still smoldering...where neither your preparation in history nor mine in education will mean a damn thing any longer...!!

RJ May 11, 2008 9:52 am (Pacific time)

LOVE the SUPER FAKE smiles on both Clinton and McCain's faces in the picture!!

Gerald McNaught May 11, 2008 8:58 am (Pacific time)

I can appreciate the sources you provided me, but many decades ago I managed to pick up a graduate degree in history during a time period when you actually had to write a "Thesis" and defend it. As time has gone by I have seen a lot of tinkering going on with the history textbooks, so I have become rather particular when I review current historical writings. What I posted below was a quote by Senator Obama which I read and also saw the footage on a number of television networks. Because of the seriousness of the current state of global politics, it is very importnt that we have a leader who understands that dynamically-charged global environment, would you not agree? I am simply a messenger, and I believe this type of analysis helps enrich open and honest dialog.

Henry Ruark May 10, 2008 3:28 pm (Pacific time)

G.M. et al: Au contraire, friend GM - that reference contains, on the first part of the review itself, solid confronting information re your S-N views-as-expressed on our US history. To deny is to reveal you did not seek-out the review (don;t expect you to find the book), or did not read when you found it. The review is unmistakably by a respected writer, and the facts cited there (from the book) are now historically proven via Jones research (and further qualified by YALE publication !), peer review as is usual in academic-authority publications, and other solid evidence re the "con-man approach to intelligence" for more than 50 years in the US --surely relevant to our now proven "preemptive" entry for Iraq, and just as surely tied tightly to Reagan-era Iran/Contra, where it flourished but was old-stuff even then. Does CIA chief Casey ring any bells for you, as it does for me ?? Denying relevance, without a provable check via quote-to=be found/there, is old-hat neocon trick, unexpected from you. SO if you DID check (the review !), pick a phrase or statement, and show it here; with any denial you can document, too, please... Otherwise your comment seems to me easy proof of evasion and subverting intent here, which I do regret. IF you wish further dialog, simply ID self to Editor Tim and "let's get it ON !"

jill May 10, 2008 2:53 pm (Pacific time)

Mother's Day-Money Bomb Day for Hillary!
A Poem I found, Happy Mother's Day to all!

MILITARY MOMS

This year on Mother s Day
We should think of offspring lost
And Mothers of all those Troops
Who paid the ultimate cost.

They ve watched Sons and Daughters
Sent off to a foreign land
To fight wars and give their all
In some conflicts so ill planned.

But no matter what the reasons
They ve always stepped up to the line
To give their lives for Freedoms
Enjoyed by all of yours and mine.

We must Honor all those Mothers
Of all those who have Served
And Sacrifices that they made
With our, Thanks! , so well deserved.

It takes a very Special Lady
To let Her Child go off to War
Or just to join the Military
With the pride and fear and more.

There's too many Gold Star Mothers
And if you might know of one
Please send Her a special wish
To praise Her Daughter or Son.

Military Moms are the Greatest
With a strength beyond compare
Who hope and pray their loved one
Comes Home safe, from over there.

So, let s keep them in our thoughts
And hope their prayers come true
All those Moms and all those Troops
Who stand Strong and Proud, and True.

Del Abe Jones<br>5-10-2006

"If you have been touched by this poem
Please contribute to Hillary's campaign
To bring the rest of our troops home!

Five dollars will come in very handy
Let's give our troops a parade and maybe give them candy

Now is the time, if ever there has been one before
The time is now, let's not shut the door

If you don't want to contribute for yourself
Do it for the troops, do it for someone else

Contribute for those who are defending this land
Contribute for those so they understand
That they will be home in 60 days
the election of Hillary Clinton, the small cost now is little to pay"

-jill from florida

www.hillaryclinton.com

Gerald McNaught May 10, 2008 1:11 pm (Pacific time)

Thank you for the references, but they have no bearing regarding the below statement by Senator Obama and his historical misinterpretations. Molly Ivins is not on my current reading advisory list, but thanks for mentionng her.

Henry Ruark May 10, 2008 9:10 am (Pacific time)

GM et al: Here's "see with own eyes" solid-fact reference for mine re various perspectives on U.S. history: "Cloak and Dollar: A History of American Secret Intelligence";Rhodri J. Jones; Yale University Press; 288 pp. This is the third major examination of the topic by Jones, professor of American History at Univ. of Edinburgh; his stature guarantees quality and probing examination. Ref. is from book review in Molly Ivins' old surround of Texas: Texas Observer, a blog. Here's link to the review: www.texasobserver.org/article.php/aid=799andprint=true Can't beat "see with own eyes" so long as mind remains open, ready to learn !!

Gerald McNaught May 9, 2008 6:00 pm (Pacific time)

This was a pretty good read, but here is some more food for thought that is based on empirical facts--which open and honest dialog is all about. As per Senator Obama: "The other side can label and name-call all they want, but I trust the American people to recognize that it’s not surrender to end the war in Iraq so that we can rebuild our military and go after al Qaeda’s leaders. I trust the American people to understand that it’s not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but our enemies – like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did." Its a breathtaking quote and one that should not be glossed over. Not only is he completely wrong on his history , he is basically telling us what his policy will be once gaining the White House. I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender. FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb. Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman’s response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.

Henry Ruark May 9, 2008 4:12 pm (Pacific time)

To all: One of most-detailed links left off in error: "US Media Trivializes Campaign 2008", by Robert Parry, famed for breaking the Iran/Contra/Reagan stories. www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2008/050608.html

[Return to Top]

Op Ed: 'Pretentious' Pundits
Pervert, Trivialize
Citizen Decisions

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News