wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

This segment touched a nerve; I have often been frustrated by contradictory assertions of political partisans. When listening to these dueling positions, it is as if the audience finds itself in a dark windowless room with one party saying its noon and the other saying its midnight. How do we evaluate who is telling the truth? This dilemma is not academic as we, the public, have been in this position for decades. I think that the Founding Fathers believed that a free press would perform this function. But in fact, in a 24 hour news cycle, a politician can now make outrageous assertions knowing that the mainstream press will not in most cases challenge them or insist on an answer (and the damage is done). Can the press be the honest referee in this new media environment? The example cited by your guest illustrated this problem well: Romney asserted that Clinton reduced defense spending which is not factual. Since in many instances, the positions of the participants on issues is public, I often wonder why an interviewer can’t fact check a politician’s assertions beforehand, and challenge false statements or figures. I know some journalists assert that this would be interjecting themselves in a story, but holding a politician to a standard of truth is reasonable.

Spin can also be unspoken -- e.g. the way most mainstream media -- and sometimes, even you, Brian -- only talk about the "front 3" candidates in the Presidential race (both Democrat & Republican). Other candidates' views are rarely put forward and thus, the media guide the national discourse very narrowly to a pre-determined end. Third party views are even more consistently omitted from the media yielding no room for new ideas to be taken seriously.