Biased media doesn’t report all the facts

Implicit in the Constitution is a requirement that the people know the facts upon which they make the decisions about their leaders, representatives and laws. At that point enters the media, with a responsibility to report the facts concerning all issues. This is idealism at its height in the current time. We saw distortion in coverage of the campaigns of the Democratic candidates with strong bias toward Mr. Obama. Why? Because the media were attempting to prejudice the people for one candidate over another.

In your Sept. 3 editorial, “Scrutinize candidates; leave families out of it,” you cited that “Obama’s experience and readiness” will continued to be questioned and he will have to “convince voters that he’s up to the job.” Yet in the same editorial you choose to delineate unresolved issues about Palin as “legislative investigation of allegations that she abused her power as governor, details of her political and financial history, and her knowledge of national and international affairs.” It seems apparent that listing issues for one candidate and not listing them for the other is prejudicial. Where is the listing of unresolved issues in the relationship of Obama with Mr. Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist of the 1960s, or the issue of the transfer of money and favor from a convicted felon to Mr. Obama in the purchase of real estate?

Surely we hope that the media have not chosen to treat a female candidate less fairly that a male candidate. The media have proven themselves masterful at selective writings to support their point of view. Reporting by editing facts, omitting “politically undesirable” detail, and selecting out news that is not favorable to the editor’s political point of view deprives the citizens of an unbiased set of facts upon which they can satisfy their constitutionally defined responsibility.

Joel Carlson

Camano Island