7 of 11

No

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 2

be mandated by the above suggestion. It is not as glamorous, as the media madness that we all endure, but it is also not as dangerous. Local question and answer sessions attended by the media but run by the citizenry would be much more desirable. The nation would be better served if good solid candidates were heard equally with those candidates who were supported by powerful and wealthy constituents, such as those with television shows that influence the public simply by the repetition of their candidates names and profiles.

This method would totally eliminate negative campaigning as well. If you were to hire a contractor, electrician or other tradesman to work in or around your home, you would first require him to show you proof that he is both licensed and efficient. You might be attracted initially by some slick advertisement, but ultimately you should be interested in only one thingcan he do the job. Imagine yourself ready to hire someone who has shown photographic or physical evidence of his proficiency, when suddenly your tradesman candidate begins lambasting his competition, calling them liars, cheats and accusing them of doing bad work. I know I would begin to think that he might have a hidden agenda, covering his own lack of skill.

If we can easily see through a mere tradesman with such an attitude, why do we falter when it comes to intelligently selecting Senators, Congressmen or Presidents? Americans have completely lost the spirit of what election means. It is each and every man's personal say about how this government operates, yet most of us select our candidates based on who has the best commercial or the wittiest comebacks or is the most charismatic. Some men and women, who have great personalities, couldn't govern their own children, much less the United States of America. Our citizenry has abdicated its responsibility to know the candidates and think through the issues. Each of us, without help of the news media, can hear and understand what the candidates are saying without an explanation. Yet, after the typical press conferences, the media rehashes and explains what they heard the candidates say, brazenly insulting the intelligence of the American public. If that's the price I have to pay to receive information, then I say the price is too high.

Candidates should be surveyed on the issues and should be required to answer. Too often, they make no comment and that in itself is an admission. However, the American public has a right to know each candidates philosophy on a given issue uncolored by media interference. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press have digressed into license and a return to integrity and open communication with the public via platforms and mailings will save millions in campaign ads and perhaps allow people to make truly informed decisions.

Learn more about this author, Diana Howard.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2

Add your voice

Know something about Should government candidates be required to hold press conferences and answer questions from the media and the public??
We want to hear your view. Write now!