Media should keep public informed
The founders of this country formed a government based on the concept that man, as long as he maintained high moral standards, was educated and informed, could rule himself, and not be in need of a ruling class which controlled most activities. This form of government, called a republic, not a democracy, set clear limitations on the federal governing body. I learned this in the Cassville school, from Mr. Lassiter.
The purpose of my letter today is not to address the decline of moral standards, but to comment on the degree to which many are informed. I write this in reference to a comment by a local contributor to the Cassville Democrat, who strongly criticized a major news organization for accurately reporting information on the Boston bombing. How can voters be informed if news outlets do not report that the FBI and Homeland Security knew these people were potential threats, but failed to follow up on the information? That only one of the major media reported it extensively is the cause for concern, yet this commentator accused them of placing blame.
I have to wonder if this person feels the same about the coverage of the Benghazi incident and recent testimony of the whistleblowers who are now coming forward. The news organization denigrated by the local contributor, had 108 minutes of coverage on the testimony, while the other major media had anywhere from zero (MSNBC) to four minutes.
CBS has censured one of its own reporters who has thoroughly investigated and reported on the incident. It has now been revealed that a top CBS executive is brother to a high level communications person in the White House.
Yet the media with the most information is accused of being the cause of problems in the country.
Thus my point. For those who depend on news agencies to keep them informed, the repression of information to further an agenda equals a most uninformed electorate and the result is a country in crisis.