Op-Ed:Voters Wiser Than Press,
Display Discretion Defeating
Malign Attack-Ad Distortions

Democratic Principles Prevail This Time - What’s Next?

Photo by: Tim King

(SALEM) - Anyone really surprised? The election, this time, despite all the foreign-money attack- ad furor and fantasy thrown wholesale at confused voters caught in their own concentrated economic considerations, went well for rational, reasonable decision; with democratic open, honest dialog helping to capture that consequence. But there remains the imponderable danger that one time, sometime, whenever; with whatever further-means modified from dollar-bought decisions, that may not be the outcome. Will that, then, be the start of the coming Second American Revolution -- or the end of the same?? That makes some situations within that context, NOW, surely that much more meaningful, even if in negative read-out --as for the role of the media in this one. The "role of the media" generally, and of daily print-side papers particularly, has become a part of the historic record -- from which we should surely learn. We are clearly at our peril if we fail to do so, NOW, given the unforgivable impacts of negative attack-ad techniques --and of widely-rumored vote-corruption and theft-- in this one, at least nationally. What has clearly happened this time --and last time, too!-- should teach those who advocate a truly "free press" what it may take to guarantee further solid impact in coming confrontations, sure to become more negative and more malign via unfailing further pressures by those seeking destruction of democracy for their own malign private gain and purposes. That overall goal is now completely clear and obvious even to the most frustrated of citizens; "framed" into acceptance by ongoing impacts of still further concentrated propaganda and political-concept distortion and perversion; in everyday publication of too many diverse media products, too widely spread, with too much "framing" for business/industry purposes. We are learning that such unconscious "framing" of major values in a variety of ways; working within the human mind to control both all possible consideration and then final decision; is among the psychological components we must now, somehow, take into full consideration. That psychological impact --consciously or unconsciously-- can even frame and shape key endorsement decision; in a major daily committed by its own rational, reasonable, professionally balanced-and-fair coverage of campaign events; to an obvious Edit-decision. Then refused by distorted endorsement. That distortion carries over even after the decision-by-the- people, demonstrated in the actual vote-action taken despite the endorsement. Here's a very timely example, from the Big O day-after/vote: "Though Saxton didn't win, he did Oregon a service by highlighting ways to save millions of dollars in areas such as transportation and health care, money that could go into classrooms. Kulongoski did not run on these reforms, but it is vital that he pursue them now." The fact is that those strong suggested actions were made by others acting in concert to prepare materials for the Legislature; then seized upon for their own purposes by those definitely driving the negative-attack campaign. (See also: CHALKBOARD and STAND statements at the time.) They were already well-recognized and definitely within the Governor's action plans --a result of close cooperative working emphasis with those building the proposals for the Legislature. Yet here, in critical-time after the vote, they appear in these very-illuminating words. Saxton simply seized upon that work for campaign ammunition. He had his chance to state and detail precisely what he would and could do, if Governor --and remained strangely silent; despite detailed, continuing, probing, sharp, and demanding encouragement from many others writing for citizen consumption and understandings, too. Content of this Edit, prior to this quoted-statement, "gives the lie direct" to the entire theme of the Saxton campaign: "Time for change"; it details and defines steps and stages of the Saxton distortions and perversions, even going so far as to state: "The voters stood up for Kulongoski and stood strong against the out-of-state interests that spent millions of dollars to persuade Oregonians to defund and distrust their own state government." Then later it adds this: "Voters have done their job. There are no excuses now. Oregon has a solid economy, sufficient state revenue, an experienced governor, and a Legislature that will be more friendly to Kulongoski's priorities." But every one of those points was not only fully obvious but well-defined, explored and detailed in OREGONIAN reporting for some months prior to this "framed-and-distorted" endorsement which could, very conceivably, have changed the positive outcome now achieved. Any question of control over those inner workings of each mind, especially within any democratic frame of governance, is surely both anathema, morally; and fraught with furious and competing dangers both psychologically and practically. Yet it now happens, as we can clearly see, at many levels, including some of the most influential within the media itself. That said --and, now, backed by solid worldwide-accepted linguistic and psychotherapeutic research over more than three decades-- surely presages and even demands a sure and solid media approach; somehow doing away with the known-and-proven dangers to which we are forced to submit, no longer unwittingly; when malign private interests are allowed to manipulate major and even some very minor political actions, both explicitly and implicitly shaping our democratic pattern of governance. Here, too, we have a highly fortuitous and now-demanded area of special service for democracy across this nation; where Oregon can lead out in Legislative action to control and perhaps even end campaign attack-ad malign manipulation of democratic process. First step should be a Commission set up by Legislative edict to explore, examine in depth and consequence what can be done; and what must NOT be done; while preserving potently what our Founders felt was demanded in their First Amendment. Is that a state-level task? Undoubtedly; that's precisely where what the Founders first accomplished came from by means of democratic dialog, done definitely right in the face of furious charges for fomenting “controversial" and "consequential" impacts. (See also: any collection of Federalist Papers) Do we now have that kind of leadership in this assembly, coming again to "the Salem Arena" for ...what? Still further "confrontation" for cult-shaped delay and decision-avoidance? OR Open, honest, “democratized-again” public-hearing discussion, leading to representative dialog and even, finally, democratic decision??