Elizabeth Edwards Speaks Truth To The Press

[Hope And Change]

Op-Ed Contributor
Bowling 1, Health Care 0

By ELIZABETH EDWARDS
Published: April 27, 2008

Chapel Hill, N.C.

FOR the last month, news media attention was focused on Pennsylvania and its Democratic primary. Given the gargantuan effort, what did we learn?

Well, the rancor of the campaign was covered. The amount of money spent was covered. But in Pennsylvania, as in the rest of the country this political season, the information about the candidates’ priorities, policies and principles — information that voters will need to choose the next president — too often did not make the cut. After having spent more than a year on the campaign trail with my husband, John Edwards, I’m not surprised.

Why? Here’s my guess: The vigorous press that was deemed an essential part of democracy at our country’s inception is now consigned to smaller venues, to the Internet and, in the mainstream media, to occasional articles. I am not suggesting that every journalist for a mainstream media outlet is neglecting his or her duties to the public. And I know that serious newspapers and magazines run analytical articles, and public television broadcasts longer, more probing segments.

But I am saying that every analysis that is shortened, every corner that is cut, moves us further away from the truth until what is left is the Cliffs Notes of the news, or what I call strobe-light journalism, in which the outlines are accurate enough but we cannot really see the whole picture.

Read the entire article here--->http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/opinion/27edwards.html?ex=1209960000&en=42cf9ad2ef539bb3&ei=5070#

[chimpymustgo]

1. Wow. This is one of the best pieces of journalism I've read in a long time. Elizabeth is my hero!

We should email this to Obermann and Tweety and Katie and Brian and Charlie and EVERYONE IN THAT SKANK TANK WE CALL THE MEDIA.

[Maine-ah]

2. k/r

[Dammit Ann]

3. I miss her so much.

K&R.

[cornermouse]

4. She's right.

She does that (being right) a lot. :)

[leftofcool]

5. She is right.

[EFerrari]

6. Elizabeth is right and wrong. She's right of course about

what is left of our press. (And how ironic that this is published in the New York Times, aka, "We let the Pentagon decide!"), but she's wrong about how to fix this.

It's not enough, imho, to assert our need for a vigorous media or to complain. We have to COMPETE because that's all the machine understands. They've been losing readers and viewers for years now. The whole industry is a big mess and they STILL aren't paying attention because somewhere, someone is making enough off of these ventures to ignore the whole situation. They'll try to rig the net before they change their M.O. They'll never pay attention to consumer complaints. They've been insulated much too long to do that.

The only solution that I see is to support, build and be the alternate media. This is a huge project but there are many, many people working on it already. We need to support those people. If the dinosaur eventually notices they have no audience and that their ads are worthless, maybe they'll have a change of heart. But we can't wait for or expect that.

[goclark]

12. Thought she was going to start campaigning for HC

[Catchawave]

14. She does like HRC's health care plan better....

but the OP isn't about campaigning.

[EFerrari]

32. I heard that report, too. It appears that it was wrong.

Hi there, goclark. :hi:

[quantass]

50. Actually that was a RUMOR made up by a Hillbot...

Read the thread and you will see it was not based on actual fact but a hope.

[Creideiki]

16. How about

if instead of corporate welfare for oil companies making record profits, we apply that corporate welfare to media companies that are offering good coverage--non-partisan, investigative, and in the public interest. The problem (this is definitely a kernel of thought, not a fully developed one), is that it would be difficult to keep this from being partisan. But with most media companies suffering through consolidation and the change of news organizations from public service to revenue generation for their parent companies, maybe a public subsidization of a public good that clearly can't be delivered by the private sector alone would help.

[Muttocracy]

25. If people got behind alternative media with little donations...

I agree with you, demanding without power behind it won't work. Some types of regulation and enforcement would (consolidation etc.) but you're right that we have to COMPETE. Commercial media has always been that - ad-driven. and now in the face of the internet, Tivo, YouTube, etc. ads are becoming worthless.

Maybe millions of small donations (sorta like a certain campaign) to Democracy Now, good local public radio and TV stations, good internet news outlets, etc. is the answer. It can feel futile on a small scale, but maybe the trick is a bigger campaign that can get the big attention and then distribute that money to worthwhile media outlets.

[EFerrari]

30. Donations and maybe, with internet presence.

LinkTV has a nice website and their well mannered forums are like ghost towns. If we made it a habit to go there and not to CNN.com & Co., it would be noticed. In other words, somehow we have to make the corporate media UNFASHIONABLE, too.

When you look around at all the new media and the alternate media, it's actually very encouraging.

[Two Americas]

49. not sure sfexpat2000

The airwaves and networks already belong to the people. Should we have to compete for them, especially against corporate behemoths?

Can the "making the right personal choices" and "free market" competitive and individualized models ever work to achieve social goals? Is that not promoting the libertarian and right wing political ideas of individualism and "personal responsibility?"

I think that there is no escaping the fact that we must fight, together, against the powerful few who have usurped the public resources, corrupted our government, and control our lives. That means political solutions, and that means collective action.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of Government. - FDR 1938

An old English judge once said: "Necessitous men are not free men." Liberty requires opportunity to make a living—a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor—other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of Government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the Government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the Government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the Government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=15314

[Frustratedlady]

7. She is right, and great that the NYT printed it.

The media has turned the election into another American Idol. It is junior-high reporting.

[Hope And Change]

8. Kick!

:kick:

[AP]

9. love this part

Who is responsible for the veil of silence over Senator Biden? Or Senator Dodd? Or Gov. Tom Vilsack? Or Senator Sam Brownback on the Republican side?

The decision was probably made by the same people who decided that Fred Thompson was a serious candidate. Articles purporting to be news spent thousands upon thousands of words contemplating whether he would enter the race, to the point that before he even entered, he was running second in the national polls for the Republican nomination. Second place! And he had not done or said anything that would allow anyone to conclude he was a serious candidate. A major weekly news magazine put Mr. Thompson on its cover, asking — honestly! — whether the absence of a serious campaign and commitment to raising money or getting his policies out was itself a strategy.

[chimpymustgo]

11. Great line. Hi AP!

:hi:

[benny05]

22. Hey Chimpy

Long time no see.

Elizabeth bowled a perfect frame!

:kick: :hi:

[Catchawave]

10. A K&R for Elizabeth !

:toast:

[JoFerret]

13. Excellent op-ed. It's up to voters...(that's us folks)

I was lucky enough for a time to have a front-row seat in this campaign — to see all this, to get my information firsthand. But most Americans are not so lucky. As we move the contest to my home state, North Carolina, I want my neighbors to know as much as they possibly can about what these men and this woman would do as president.

If voters want a vibrant, vigorous press, apparently we will have to demand it. Not by screaming out our windows as in the movie “Network” but by talking calmly, repeatedly, constantly in the ears of those in whom we have entrusted this enormous responsibility. Do your job, so we can — as voters — do ours.

[mnhtnbb]

15. Well said, Elizabeth.

[Muttocracy]

17. awesome. thanks. nt

[Eurobabe]

18. If she had run for President, I would have supported her

She's everything Hillary isn't and then some. K&R.

[KoKo]

19. I love her phrase...."Strobe-Light Journalism." Great Editorial...! n/t

[mzmolly]

20. One of the reasons I supported John was due to his excellent choice in a partner.

;)

Who is responsible for the veil of silence over Senator Biden? Or Senator Dodd? Or Gov. Tom Vilsack? Or Senator Sam Brownback on the Republican side?

The decision was probably made by the same people who decided that Fred Thompson was a serious candidate.

An excellent point among many.

[GoldieAZ49]

21. Great article, looks like she will help inform NC voters

one way or another!

from the article:

I was lucky enough for a time to have a front-row seat in this campaign — to see all this, to get my information firsthand. But most Americans are not so lucky. As we move the contest to my home state, North Carolina, I want my neighbors to know as much as they possibly can about what these men and this woman would do as president.

If voters want a vibrant, vigorous press, apparently we will have to demand it. Not by screaming out our windows as in the movie “Network” but by talking calmly, repeatedly, constantly in the ears of those in whom we have entrusted this enormous responsibility. Do your job, so we can — as voters — do ours.

[BlueIdaho]

23. John married up.

She is a real class act.

[benny05]

24. A Lot of Men Marry Up

I think Obama said that about Michelle recently.

[BlueIdaho]

37. Yeah

I know I did.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

26. the same people who decided that Fred Thompson was a serious candidate

Ha she made a funny:

"Who is responsible for the veil of silence over Senator Biden? Or Senator Dodd? Or Gov. Tom Vilsack? Or Senator Sam Brownback on the Republican side?

The decision was probably made by the same people who decided that Fred Thompson was a serious candidate."

[Catchawave]

36. LOL....I liked that too.

:hi:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

27. wish she'd told how media is only thing keeping Clinton campaign alive

that its mathematically impossible for Clinton to catch up unless she
wins at least 60% in every contest.

[ekwhite]

28. Great article. Elizabeth Edwards is a wonderful woman.

She has such courage and forthrightness.

[noel711]

29. We love you Elizabeth! When are YOU running for president?

And why isn's SHE a commentator at some highly rated
talking head political panel?

She's too smart for that!

[gateley]

31. Wow. What an exceptional op-ed.

We tend to look to our 'news' providers for news! Imagine that. Yet, as she indicates, they are nothing more than for-profit corporations whose only interests are to show profit.

It presents a conundrum. With these current 'sources', we will only be getting the parts of the stories that generate viewers/advertisers/revenue.

If we have a government controlled media, OSTENSIBLY to present the facts, well, we know how well that would work. It would be even worse.

Publicly funded broadcasting may be the only solution, but the struggles of current public broadcasting entities doesn't bode well for that becoming a reality.

What can we do?

Again, I can't praise Elizabeth Edwards enough for this very important and accurate piece.

[benny05]

33. Neither can I

She gets it. Why won't the BSM (bull-**it) media get it?

[LibraLiz1973]

34. SHE ROCKS

Seriously, why cant she run for President???

[bling bling]

35. Excellent piece.

Whoever can get the media to knock it off with the tabloid stories and out-of-context soundbyte loops will be, in my opinion, doing a service to the public that will be more profound than anything a President could do. The negligence of the so-called 4th estate over the past two decades is simply breathtaking in scope.

Glad to see Edwards speaking out about this. It's so important.

K&R

[defendandprotect]

38. Also miss Elizabeth --- she would have been a great candidate ---

[mcollier]

39. The message was clear

whether the media people give a $hit is debatable.

[Radio_Lady]

40. The graphic of the "NEWS remote control" is so inventive!

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/04/27/opinion/27opart.final.ready.html

The artist -- credited to Alan Dye -- is a genius, IMHO!

Cordially,

Radio Lady in Oregon

[gateley]

42. Thanks for pointing that out -- I didn't even pay any attention to it! nt

[Infinite Hope]

41. Gosh I love her! "Strobe-light Journalism"....LET'S ALL START USING THAT TERM! n/t

[gauguin57]

43. Edwards-Obama '08! (Elizabeth and Michelle, that is!)

Well, a girl can dream...

[benny05]

54. That would be a dream ticket

Both are inspiring...

[stevenleser]

44. I will always love John and Elizabeth! Her basic premise here is where are the issues?

My answer is that one of the candidates doesnt want to talk about them. One candidate wants to talk about Jeremiah Wright, Rezco and Ayers, all things that have nothing to do with what any of the three remaining main candidates would do as President. One candidate wants to engage in personal attacks, rumor and innuendo. What is interesting is that the candidate that is doing that is the one that is most vulnerable to them. The difference is that the other candidate isnt interested in going that route.

[Greylyn58]

45. Outstanding piece by Elizabeth Edwards

She nails the MSM in this article and every word she writes is the truth.

The news in this country has become a joke. They seem more concerned with "what is wrong with Britney", "what Paris Hilton is wearing" and whatever is the sensational crime of the week than reporting the real news. It is little wonder that many in this country are so ignorant of the real dangers facing us. It is the "dumbing down" of the society.

[Whoa_Nelly]

46. Thank you, Elizabeth

Can I write JE in on the ballot?

Am still sad he's not in the running.

While I will vote for whoever gets the Democratic nom, John Edwards was my first choice....pretty much my only choice.

[benny05]

53. I plan to do it anyway

I live in a blue state, so I will write JRE's name on the ballot. He was the most progressive of all, in my view.

[Whoa_Nelly]

55. Wish I knew how to start an Internet grass roots site

to have others join in on JE as a write-in this November.

[cynthia]

47. Brilliant

I love Elizabeth. The news organizations in this country should be ashamed of themselves.

[BzaDem]

48. All of you people who won't vote for Hillary if she's the nominee.. are doing exactly what Elizabeth

denounces.

You are voting on personality. You are voting on petty, personal hatred.

You are not voting on issues, on which Obama and Hillary are 99% the same. You are not voting on SCOTUS nominations, which will be 100% the same (and won't move our country into the stone age, like a McCain appointee will).

[TahitiNut]

51. Bullpucky!

:puke:

[JTFrog]

52. Another opposite day in HillaryWorld.

Sure is a dizzy little place with green moons, red stars and orange clovers.

:freak: