catapult magazine

TRUTH, LIES, AND THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH IN THIS ELECTION…

ABC news has an interesting analysis on the CBS quest for the truth re Pres. Bush’s war record. (SEE WEB ADDRESS AT END OF THIS ARTICLE) Possibly CBS knowingly ignored experts’ doubts on the records in their possession. Possibly (???) someone faked the documents/signatures.

My brief note does not address Mr. Bush’s war record (which he freely admits is not as good as Kerry’s).

It addresses the charge of fraudulent journalism against CBS TV, and the search for truth.

My point: Did CBS use fraudulent documents to try & tarnish Mr. Bush’s war record???
Do I have a definitive Yes or NO?
No, but the growing evidence (at this time) supports the charge of falsified documents—possibly falsified signatures. Also, that CBS execs may have knowingly disregarded some of the experts’ questions about these documents.

my basic concern: TRUTH.
DO WE INVENT IT?
OR DO WE DISCOVER IT?
AND HOW DO WE PROPERLY & ACCURATELY ANALYZE ANY POTENTIAL EVIDENCE FOR TRUTH (i.e. the alleged National Guard documents CBS produced…some of which are under question.)

The answer to this dilemma is NOT for you, me, or someone else to merely cite instances —-where someone may have molded the evidence to frame Mr. Kerry.
THAT TOO IS WRONG. BUT THE PROBLEM IS NOT SOLVED BY BLAMING THE OTHER SIDE.

Today, it is too easy to say “Well, your side did it too!” .

The answer (overall) is to STAND AGAINST ALL LIES & LIARS.
Whether they lie for “our candidate” or for “the other candidate”.

And to chide those (especially those with vast power such as media people
(IN tv, film, print)
who ignore sound expert advice on potential evidence, who manipulate speech, documents, edit video tape, quotes to distort truth—
—into merely a tool for manipulating opinion- regardless of actual facts.

Otherwise, future elections will simply go to whichever candidate hired the most successful LIARS.

Here’s the address to ABC’s analysis of the CBS program & use of “evidence”:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/bush_guard_documents_040914.html

i agree with you that we should challenge political candidates and indeed all political affiliates, outlets, agencies, etc. to truth in an election. constant polls detailing the ups and downs of current voter opinions as they coincide with major media events (like the Republican convention, for instance) reinforce our tendency to shift sides according to the success of candidate PR campaigns.

truth ought to inform the style of the process, as well, not just the content. the current election process is not necessarily a good measure of who would be the best president of the US; it is more a game of who can convince the most consumers to buy his “product.” and when we think of the campaign in terms of product marketing, manipulation of the truth should be expected because it parallels the “fixing” of food to make it look good on the camera, the actors who pretend to be enamoured of a product, the airbrushing of a face in a magazine. it’s an intentional illusion that is representing the truth (or what the truth could be), but it tends to lack something deeply satisfying and real.

from another angle (and I know I’ve harped on this before), why is the issue of truth not coming up more in connection with the war in Iraq? how can we not only tolerate, but think about reelecting a President who led the country into preemptive war when there was a shadow of a doubt about its legitimacy and justification? i’m amazed that we can take war so lightly.