Editorial

Is the primary being called by the media?

We just started the primary season, and it seems media pundits are enamored with their ability to predict election outcomes before people vote. When they cite polls, we need to be wary. Who was asked what questions when and in what setting?

When my classes in political science made it seem to be more about gamesmanship and popularity than about the issues people face, I opted out of that minor.

It's fascinating as pundits say the election issue this year is the bad economy, when the stock markets reached two record highs, inflation is lowering, gas prices are dropping, unemployment is down, and jobs are up. Recently one pundit pronounced the economy "bad" because people "feel uneasy"—while others point to consumer spending being up. Are we being manipulated by opinions presented as facts?

Are we being enticed to vote for a person media wants? Where is objectivity? The journalism I learned was about granting equal time for candidates. Count it in newscasts as media rush to cover and quote outrageous things one candidate says and briefly sum up what the other one reports about what he's doing.

Such election coverage does not meet criteria of being unbiased. Some in media rush to the raucous to win ratings, readers and profits. Is it working? Do we click on the bait of those stories? Are some media prematurely ending the primary and cutting out voices? Are they inviting a dictatorship that may censor them?

Are faith communities seeing these dynamics? Will we speak and act to help the blind see, deaf hear and voiceless speak?

Mary Stamp - Editor