Lottery Post Journal

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

In my view, this is the best article published this year.  There is no way to say it better.

by Orson Scott Card
October 20, 2008

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Sen. Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" (http://snipurl.com/457to): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Fred Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means. That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards' own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women (NOW) threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city.

Source

11 Comments:

  • Excellent.

    By emilyg, at 1:25 PM

  • Maybe if people would have cried out like this in 2000 & 2004, we wouldn't be where we are today as a Nation. When "your" Commander-in-Chief alleged that another nation was responsible tor 9/11, when it has been said time and time again that the Bush Family had ties to Osama bin Laden and that that was payback, everyone dismissed those thoughts as a "conspiracy theory" and still thought that the great George Bush and the Republicans were going to take care of this country. Well what happened..............

    By NBey6, at 3:04 PM

  • Hard to come to terms that Clinton in 1994 signed legislation which allowed corporations to overstate their assets, cook the books which precipitated some of the most massive bankruptcies in American history when Bush took office.

    Cowards (Clinton) let the other guy take the fall for their action.

    Also hard to come to terms with dates and times I've posted on my blog about ACORN's lobbying so Clinton would also ease up restrictions on banks placing loans on undocumented and unqualified borrowers.

    Another Clinton handiwork which precipitated the housing collapse we're witnessing now.

    Hard to come to terms with the fact Barney Frank was literally in bed with a Freddie Mac executive, but "no conflict in interest."

    The press should be all over this with in depth investigations but they're more worried about Sarah Palin's wardrobe furnished by the RNC to be auctioned for charity when the campaign's over. You can bet the RNC legal advisers outlined what would be done with the clothing before any monies were released or before a patently lying press CBS distorted facts. Come to think of it CBS hasn't been the same since Dan Rather was dethroned for defending counterfeit documents.

    Truly the press is "just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party."

    By konane, at 3:44 PM

  • Um, NBey6, those lies about the Bush family come from the tin foil hat crowd. It's a bunch of B.S.

    Besides, I don't see you arguing against any point this author makes -- you're simply shifting (uncomfortably) away from the matter at hand: that the media being in the tank for Democrats and Obama is a bad thing for the country.

    Even if you're a Democrat, don't you think it's bad for the "independent media" to be in the tank like that?

    Also, the point about Bush has nothing to do with 9/11, and the article makes no mention of him being "great". It is about reporting the *Truth*, no matter what happens as a result. The *truth* is that Bush twice tried to reform the lending process, and twice he was rebuffed by Frank and Dodds.

    I'd love to hear you comments related to the specific points raised in this article, but I'd rather not have the comments in my blog go off-topic into 9/11 or some other non sequitur.

    By Todd, at 3:58 PM

  • @konane:

    Those are all good points, but one thing that I like about this author is that he sticks with recent events and makes a compelling argument without going farther back.

    With all of this stuff, you can keep tracing events back in time, and when you stop depends on your political ideology.

    The fact is that no matter what happened to bring us to this point, this meltdown and bailout could have been avoided if action was taken within the past few years.

    Whether you like Clinton, hate Clinton, like Bush, hate Bush, or any other permutation, you can boil things down to the simple facts of the past few years: it could be stopped with reform, but the reform was blocked, and hence there was a meltdown.

    That is the story that the media refuses to tell, because they know that if they keep quiet it will help their favorite candidate win. And that is insidious.

    By Todd, at 4:06 PM

  • Anyone who takes thirty seconds and pays attention would SEE and COMPREHEND that Barry's promoters are not looking out for the USAmericans but for themselves. Barry is all about style, Barry has no substance.

    Let me simplify, Barry is nothing more than a slick salesman, he is selling the USAmericans a huge rotten lemon load of problems that would never pass inspection by anyone taking a close look.

    Barry is Trojan horse, all his little buddies are waiting for him to be inaugurated and then we are toast.

    Why in the world are all the markets selling down? Because USAmerican businesses and the rest of the world are pragmatic and see Barry as the perfect storm on the horizon that will New Orleans wreck the whole country and world economy!!!!!!!!!

    Now get back to work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    By jarasan, at 4:10 PM

  • Todd you're absolutely right about reaching back in time, but the press began running interference for Democrats noticeably in the 90's, have been cheerleaders for them since.   

    With few exceptions today's mainstream news is incapable of presenting facts without inuendo, yet wonder why newspapers are falling like leaves, tv ratings continue tanking. They're losing viewership to citizen journalist blogs who present facts and back them up with more facts.

    By konane, at 4:31 PM

  • If Barry loses, the mainstream, drive by, Goebbels inspired media will be done. The polls are starting to steer righty tighty, swing states have become statistical toss-ups, they are talking about Sarah's awesome (paid for) wardrobe, they are starting to panic. Some animal criminal carved a "B" into a victim's faced when they noticed a McCain bumber sticker after robbing them! Where is the outrage???????????????

    There is an "artist" in NY city that has one of those full size photos of Sarah hunting and there are people posing like they are killing her.

    It is the fault of the dems and the media making the derangement hate syndrome so viscerally ugly.   They can beat up on their own but they can't stand up to real enemies.   Kinda like the abusive deputy in Mississipi Burning, he beat his wife, but was a punk, the FBI guy stomped him, if I remember correctly.

    By jarasan, at 5:35 PM

  • Let me tie in my above rant which referenced Bill Clinton signing legislation allowing businesses to overstate assets precipitating massive bankruptcies such as Global Crossing, Enron. Have always maintained those actions were deliberate in order to topple our economy, have posted references to that fact.

    My post with link below outlines the precise theory which has been carefully orchestrated like a symphony performance before our very eyes.

    Since the press is "public relations machine of the Democratic Party" then they are 100% complicit in bringing this Orchestrated Crisis about.

    The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis.

    http://www.lotterypost.com/blogcomments.asp?o=k&i=25041

    By konane, at 9:37 AM

  • @ Todd - The article mentioned 9/11 and I have the right to also, especially when I know the article is not about truth in journalism. See that's the problem with this country, it likes to divide people with lies and deceit. If the other guy doesn't agree with you, he's too far to the left or right for that matter. You speak of the "truth", but most people wouldn't know the truth if it slapped them in the face because they have heard so many lies, time and time again. That is what, about this article that, makes me uncomfortable.

    ^_^

    By NBey6, at 3:43 PM

  • Well, I know the truth, whether it slaps me in the face or not. Thanks for reading my blog and taking the time to post your thoughts. Hopefully after this divisive election is over the country will heal, no matter who wins.

    By Todd, at 10:25 PM

Post a Comment

<< Home