Orson Scott Card Rhinoceros Times Article
Orson Scott Card – best-selling author, political writer, speaker, and self-described Democrat, takes on the Democratic Party and mainstream media in an open letter making it’s rounds on the internet.
In the article, which first appeared in Card’s hometown newspaper, The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina, he blasts the media for “consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie,” about who is to blame for the housing crisis, and throwing away “everything that journalism is supposed to stand for,” to “get people to vote for Barack Obama.”
“Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That’s what you claim you do, when you accept people’s money to buy or subscribe to your paper.”
“Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards’s own adultery for many months.”
I, for one, applaud Card’s sentiments. Journalists are supposed to report the facts — unbiased and objectively. Lacking journalistic integrity, what we get from the media is information skewed to suit the political agenda of the reporting agencies. The public is forced to sort through the propaganda to ascertain the truth — a task most people are not willing to tackle. Confused, they simply spout the latest dogmatic rhetoric.
For those of you ready to send me comments on how this blog is full of opinions and biases — bring it on. This is a blog. We frequently add commentary and express our opinions on the subject matter. We also allow readers to do the same in our comments section.
View Orson Scott Card’s entire article below.
An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President’s Men and thinking: That’s journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It’s a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can’t repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can’t make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It’s as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn’t there a story here? Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. “Housing-gate,” no doubt. Or “Fannie-gate.”
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled “Do Facts Matter?” ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): “Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury.”
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was … the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was … the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It’s not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let’s follow the money … right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate’s campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an “adviser” to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama’s people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn’t listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That’s what you claim you do, when you accept people’s money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that’s what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don’t like the probable consequences. That’s what honesty means . That’s how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards’s own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That’s where you are right now.
It’s not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation’s prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama’s door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.
You’re just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it’s time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.
Source: Meridian Magazine
Related Articles:
- Obama's Grandmother Madelyn Dunham Gravely Ill
- Michael Signator is Obama's Man of Mystery
- Crazy Campaign Memorabilia (PHOTOS)
- Colin Powell Meet the Press Obama Endorsement VIDEO
- Alfred E. Smith Dinner Speakers Obama, McCain (Video)
- McCain on Letterman Video
- Joe Wurzelbacher aka Joe the Plumber Speaks Out After Debate (Video)
- Obama Army? Obama Youth Junior Fraternity Regiment Video
- Walk Softly and Carry a Big Stick Debate Video 10/7/08
Filed under: Across the Nation, Politics
Right on target: The mainstream media are acting like the celebrated Sophists of ancient times: making lies sound like truths. These distortions targeting President Bush, John McCain, and any Republican within sight are patent, discoverable falsehoods. When lies are repeated often enough by formerly reliable media, of course, many folks will believe them to be true. In Greece and Rome Sophistry was a respected, even learned, art, practiced by scholars. In America today, these pervasive, politically-motivated distortions will further erode our mutual trust and respect.
Carry on,
John Davis, Charlottesville, VA
THANK YOU for having the balls to post this on your site!
Not everyone is a sheep, following the media.
Mr. Orson Scott Card, to you Sir, Kuddo’s. Thank you for your Integrity and Honesty. I have mentioned your article to friends.
A day will come when they’ll have no subscribers.
B.G.Laraway
NOW has no principles? I think that perhaps they endorsed Clinton because all though he was a womanizer, he supported women’s rights.
What a toolbag. Stay out in space.
Gobama
I didn’t link to this article because it is so political, and I concentrate on the fun stuff, but you have made some cogent points.
Both political parties are corrupt through and through, but the Democrats always seem to pretend that the corruption belongs solely to the opposition, and the media generally let them .
GOBAMA:
“I think that perhaps they endorsed Clinton because ALL THOUGH HE WAS A WOMANIZER”—hahahaha…..you have to be kidding me. You’re entire point is lost on NOW when you confirm that Clinton engaged in a lifestyle that undermined the core values of NOW. I think you showed you’re backside on this one….keep drinkin’ the kool-aid.
As someone who was subject to the indoctrination of a journalism school, none of what the media does surprises me. They have an agenda and will do whatever it takes to see it through. Believe me, in journalism schools across the country, students grades depend on their willingness to cave to the liberal agenda. I’ve seen it first-hand.
It’s unfortunate, but the advertising industry is now more trustworthy than mainstream media.
Mr. Card, I respect you greatly. What I have seen in journalism since the campaign for the presidency got underway is disheartening. It’s almost af if one is in the twilight zone and nothing makes sense. The truth is ignored and people are wondering where the good journalist have gone. Thank you for stating the facts as FACTS. I hope other journalist read your article and take note. If Obama is elected and the media continue to shelter him, we will not have a president but instead a dictator. God help us-
Dude,
YOU ROCK!!!!!
If a Republican said what Card said, it wouldn’t be news. But, Card calling himself a Democrat is like Sean Penn calling himself a Republican.
Here’s a quote from Card regarding gay marriage:
“The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to ‘gay marriage,’ is that it marks the end of democracy in America.
“How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.”
= = =
Sure, a member of the DemocratIC Party (with the “IC” intact… no matter how Rush says it’s the “Democrat” Party) could be anti gay marriage AND pro government overthrow, but it might cause one to pause and consider his or her other views and opinions.
And on the same vein:
“Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society’s regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.”
= = =
He’s also written in support of Intelligent Design… pro military (the term Fascist is often used to describe him)… and I could go on. But my point is, he could be a Democrat… but I think he uses the term to make his views seem more extreme. He’s a Democrat pretty much in name only.
Card has some valid points about the media… in general. But, to have the Conservatives wave his article like it’s a major indictment by a Democrat is not a proper evaluation. It should be viewed as written by Sean or Rush… no differently.
That doesn’t negate valid points, but there is definitely a heavy slant to the Right rather than from the Left.
JS
Although Pres Bush and administration did not directly link Irag to 9/11 (just implied it), they most certainly did connect Iraq to terrorism.
And this is not opinion. Bloggers are welcome to opinion and conjecture as long as they get their facts straight.
Liberals are threatened by the truth be/c they “CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH”. When facts get in the way of a good story, liberals are just beside themselves.
Mr. Card,
Praise God for one last honest journalist. Over the years honest journalism has played such an important role in American freedom and lives, but no more. The media has become a quasi-DNC organization and I no longer trust anything published in newspapers or reported on the three major networks. I feel like America is becoming the old Soviet Union with regard to a controlled media. Thank you for having the courage to step forward and expose the lack of intergity in your profession. I pray that other journalist will read your letter and realized the obligation and responsibility they have to tell the truth at all times, regardless of the politicians or political parties that it helps or hurts. Americans want, need and deserve the truth. Thanks you for giving me hope that there may still be a few journalist who have not sold their intergity to the DNC and Barrack Obama. God bless and keep the truth coming!!
M. Camp
Barnett, let’s not pretend that only applies to one party. Please. The vast majority of journalists, democrat or republican, MSNBC or Fox News, have a bias toward sensationalism and a good story, and against reporting on the actual issues.
Card’s major point is indeed an excellent one — that the media narrative of the financial crisis has skewed towards blaming the republicans. But he goes a little awry with his minor points; for example, he himself purposefully misrepresents Obama’s role in the crisis. Remember, Obama wasn’t even a member of the U.S. Senate until 2005.
Some smaller points, like complaining about coverage of Palin’s daughter vs. Edwards’ affair, are just silly. Both issues were widely reported when they first happened, but sputtered out after only a few days. If Card perceived a slant of coverage towards Palin’s daughter, that maybe, just maybe, is because Palin’s currently running for VP and Edwards is a footnote.
The above commenter Jack Smith was right: Card calls himself a “democrat” to make his letter sound more dramatic. Again, his central point is sound, but it’s surrounded by a little too much nonsensical bitching.
First, I think Card is right about the media. I think he does make some sense about the housing crisis. But, he’s also suffering from too narrow a view of truth. At his age he should have a much more nuanced view of truth than to jump on the liberal-bias bandwagon.
The real bias of the media (in this election) has been simply to focus on Obama much much more than McCain. They have analyzed everything he’s done and delved into far more corners than they ever do about McCain, who has regularly told lies or extremely twisted versions of the truth throughout the campaign without so much as batting an eye. When Palin came on board, she attracted a ton of media attention simply because she’s a lot more interesting than McCain. The witch hunt against her based on inexperience has been unfair in my opinion because it’s just a backlash against people calling Obama inexperienced. A more fair critique would cite her fundamentalism and disinterest in developing a nuanced view of the world. I also find it unconscionable that she talks about certain people being unamerican when her husband was a secessionist. That is literally the only thing that can indisputably be called “unamerican” in a political climate where that word is thrown around as a now-meaningless generic aspersion along the lines of “fascist”.
Bottom line, the media is guilty of terrible reporting for the most part, but it’s not along party lines. It’s along pop culture lines and is driven by dollars pure and simple. The American people are guilty too for not demanding more out of their news. Card is right to criticize the media, but if he thinks that Bush did not spin the hell out of the war on terrorism in order to create the mental link to Iraq then he is too naive to be taken seriously.
FOR ORSON,
That journalists all being corrupt might be questioned. I float the possibility that they are simply employees, writers, hired and charged with a job. Being hired with that caveat commits them to toeing the line.
What if the particular media is purchased to do just that. It is plausible given the amount of money and resources Obama has garnered?
It is a distinct possibility that much of the media has been purchased, and if that has any credibility, what else?
Complements to Orson Scott Card for his morality applied to words. WONDERFUL & REFRESHING!
While liking what you said it didn’t rise to powerful level until I read your background. Orson is sooooooooooo qualified to speak about honest writing.
What percentage of voters understand the importance of “freedom of the press”? ARE WE ABOUT TO LOSE IT? OR MAYBE IT’S ALREADY LOST — BY DEFAULT!
I wonder if I’m living in Austria in 1934?
The connection between Iraq and terrorism is valid, whether Democrats and liberals like it or not, and regardless of former statements by prominent Democrats to this effect one way or another (often they proclaimed this connection).
The Bush Administration made no connection between Hussein and 911. Then on the other hand, there is no direct connection to AFGHANISTAN, the Taliban, or foreign contacts from other areas to 911.
The Democrats however say that Afghanistan is the “proper war” we should be involved in. The reality is that Hussein, like the Talibs, did harbor terrorists at various times. That is not theory or conjecture. It is fact. And yes, Virginia, Hussein really did want those WMDs back once he kicked the UN inspectors out in his cat and mouse game.
As always, the inconvenient reality is more complicated than liberals like to parody when telling you “Iraq” didn’t attack us on 911. True. But then neither did the Taliban for that matter.
One gets the distinct impression in this kind of reasoning that therefore no one is responsible for 911 (unless you’re Michael Moore, and think Bush did this) at all.
The Democratic Party is the wholly owned subsidiary of the propaganda elite or simply ‘the media’. It is the political action wing for their industry. Candidates wishing to run as Democrats audition for the part by telling lies. The biggest liar wins and becomes the candidate. The biggest liar is most vulnerable, therefore easiest to control via propaganda. The media is losing it’s power because of new technology. McLuhan, in War and Peace in the Global Village, said that every new technology necessitates a new war. The election of Clinton was the end of the Democrat Party, the election of Obama will be the end of the media.
Some interesting responses. Personally I have to praise Card for sharing his thoughts and could care less which party he supports.
It’s impossible to write without invoking a bias - simply read a dozen “Factual” books about Thomas Jefferson and you’ll find 100’s of “Factual” items printed which reflect the bias of the writer.
News without the color doesn’t sell to the majority.
What is happening with the majority of the news organization today extends well beyond opinion and threatens “Our America”.
Test Card’s words -
1.) Do a search in the archives of the Drudge Report or Fox News for articles that might have a negative implication for Obama.
2.) Do a search in the LA TImes, NYTimes, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and see if you can find any mention of the article. If you do find a mention of the article - check the date. Check to see if there are any follow ups or true fact checking and honest journalistic reporting.
3.) Now reverse this and do the same for McCain.
4.) Run the same test for Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Franks, Chris Dodd.
Like Card says - if you possess self-honesty you’ll share the results with everyone you know.
If you share these results I’d be very interested in your opinion on why you think this is occuring.
I for one applaud Mr. Card for standing up and taking a swing at the media. After doing my research on him I do have to say he IS a Democrat, even though he may not support the agenda 100 percent. It was refreshing to hear someone like that give such an unbiased report on the state of things.
For many years now I have watched as Democrats constantly shift blame and are almost always the first to come out throwing mud or smearing Republicans while the majority of the media take it for gospel and never check. However, when a Republican goes on the attack he/she is looked on as a rabid animal who needs to be caged. Long have I noticed flagrant one-sided reporting toward the Democrats. Card has it absolutely correct, had McCain or any other Republican been involved in all this it would have been front page news and cries of scandel would be heard from sea to shining sea.
Then there are the other issues with Obama, aside from the fact he received the second largest sum of campaign contributions from Fanny Mae. How about his association with Bill Ayers? The fact he did not know he still espoused bombing government offices and wishes he had done more?
Or his stint as a lawyer for ACORN who is not under investigation for voter registration fraud in several states?
Or the fact that Biden called him inexperianced and beat him up for his ever changing and often conflicting stances on several issues such as the war, but now Biden stands shoulder to shoulder with him and says he is qualified to be President.
I know people want change because they dont like the way things are now, but what price does that change come with. What will actually change. How often does a Presidential candidate actually do in office what he pledged to do on the campaign trail? I know many of you believe Bush to be the source of all the worlds problems but you are in for a rude awakening when Obama does not magically turn things around. Believe it or not the President does not have total power over the day-to-day runnings of the country. Congress, Judges and the like often are the ones setting policy and spining the wheels.
Oh and for the record, yes there was a direct link to Iraq and terrorists. In 1998, Clinton ordered the bombing of a factory in Sudan which supposedly made baby formula. The official reports (according to the Clinton Administration)say is was a chemical weapons factory run by Al Qaeda and managed by Saddam’s own chief chemical weapons man.
And if Iraq did not have the chemical weapons, why did Clinton say he had them in 1998, 1999 and again in 2003. Why did Clinton and the UN authorize air strikes to force Saddam to allow the UN inspectors back in.
But I guess we just believe Saddam when he states they dumped the chemicals in the desert but forgot where. Or that the paperwork was destroyed.
What about the 3 months leading up to the invasion of Iraq in which there was a steady stream of trucks going from Iraq to Syria, all caught by satalite imagery? Ever wonder what was in the trucks? Saddam was no fool, move all the valuable stuff to Syria, wait for the Americans to leave then bring it back in and start all over again.