by Diana Howard

Created on: October 28, 2008   Last Updated: October 30, 2008

That people should have an inherent right to information about their candidates is a fundamental statement that no one can truly disagree with. Whether press conferences, whose questions are formulated by a media with a rating and privilages agenda, should be mandatory is debatable. In the preamble of the Atlanta Declaration it states;

"Acknowledging the right of access to information is a foundation for citizen participation."

The news media is more corrupt than the politicians, for they cleverly twist information in order to push their own agenda. A for profit organization which relies on ratings would certainly suffer loss if they harassed a candidate with embarrassing questions only to discover that they would have to face four years of his presidency. So, the lead candidates in most elections are treated with kid gloves. If the tide of an election turns, the media changes tactics, and attacks the one who trails in the polls. How does that materially effect "citizen participation"? In fact it goes on to say that this right to information will "combat corruption" yet the way in which we gather information regarding the candidates is completely corrupt.

While I believe that the Atlanta Declaration has the right spirit, its execution leaves much to be desires. Candidates should be subject to questions on current issues that are important to Americans, and not to the news media. The media has proven over and over that they haven't a clue as to what the average American considers important. They also have a propensity for wording their own questions in order to the advantage of their particular agenda. Instead of this media circus, each candidate would have a goverment taxpayer funded campaign expense account in order to supply every voter with a complete report of the candidate's voting record along with a statement of his plans for solving current issues. I know this is possible because each year in my state, a small non-profit citizen's group does exactly that. Interviews could conceivably be conducted by the media, but using questions submitted by the public; pulled randomly so that no media interference would be possible.

A complete overhaul of our campaign and voting system is what is desperately needed. By applying the monies spent yearly on purchased favors, cleverly labeled as contributions, we could reduce the national debt, and possibly elect more qualified candidates. I believe that campaign contributions should be outlawed completely and the information

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>