The Defeat of Kerry
Aloof Elitism, Moral Relativism and Meddling Outsiders
By Sara Pentz (11/11/04)

Pundits have spent thousands of hours and millions of words dissecting the 2004 presidential election results. Theories abound about why John Kerry lost and George Bush won. It’s all about moral values some say. No, it was the Swift Vets ads others say. Was it tax cuts, national security or abortion? Was it the lack of the youth vote or the Christian fundamentalists vote? Pick your reason and you’d be partially right.

It all boils down to a few points that account for the defeat of Senator John Kerry. And they are as clear as the arrogant look on his face.

The American public rejected John Kerry because they did not like his superficiality and his condescending elitism. They did not vote for him because they did not like that he stood for nothing but his own self-image. The American people did not elect Kerry because in their simple, hardworking lives they could not relate to the unimaginably lavish lifestyle he so flagrantly flaunted—that set him apart from them. It was so European.

The Red States rejected him because he was soft on terrorism. They did not choose him because he encouraged the impotent meddling of the United Nations, and cozied up to European leaders who are avowed enemies of a country devoted to individualism, free enterprise and the kind of confidence that makes this country so exceptional. It was so un-American.

Despite apocalyptic claims of systemic voter suppression, the scandal of the exit polls, the vandalized party headquarters, the threat of ten thousands of lawyers and general scare tactics—more than120 million Americans went to the polls and solidified the course of this president.

Against all odds, George Bush was the winner. He overcame the blatant media campaign against him. He prevailed over the billionaires who vowed to defeat him. He remained steadfast when party hacks, aging Hollywood comics and vindictive militants called him vile names. It was all so base.

He never swerved in the face of the hateful firestorm leveled at him by the left-wingers. His was a campaign of optimism and hope. You may not agree with all President Bush has said and done, but if it were not for his adherence to his own vision, the United States would be the worse off for many things, most importantly the fight against of terrorism.

American voters flatly rejected Mr. Kerry because they saw that he stood for absolutely nothing. He was against the Iraq war but he was for it. He was against gay marriage but he was for it. These are not idle flip-flops. They represent the lack of a core value system that guides actions, behavior and the character of man. Without them Kerry remained in an intellectual state of perpetual motion that canceled out each attempt at a stand and ended up forging a gigantic zero around his head.

John Kerry simply cannot make up his mind on any issue because—it is a documented fact—he took a poll of his colleagues at every turn in order to know where he should stand. In fact, his are the vacillations of a mind that is not capable of taking a stand because it is fastidiously focused on only one goal—a zealot’s all-consuming need to be President of the United States. He was preoccupied with this personal fanaticism from an early age and, as such, nothing—absolutely nothing—could take precedence over that in his thinking.

As political commentator George Will so aptly pointed out—Kerry’s was a biography candidacy. It was all about his Vietnam record and that proved to be the predominant issue that most assuredly sunk the premise of his candidacy. Most people do not go around bragging about their heroism. For a presidential candidate to do so with such cocky swagger and artificial pomp, without providing a campaign of ideas for the future, is the height of pretension. He was like a broken record, repeating over and over again what a good fellow he was. Even so, despite all the money behind him, the media of hate and the ragtag of vagabond celebrities touting him, he was not to be believed. Braggadocio cannot top substance.

Kerry’s philosophy, which also reflects that of many democrats—particularly those in Washington DC—consists of a subjective view of life and a moral relativism that necessitates a kind of broad ‘whatever’ attitude on everyday issues. His is a life without absolutes, without accountability, without values. If anything, this is why the exit polls reflected the so-called ‘moral values’ theory of his defeat.

The moral values issue is not, however—as some would condescendingly say—about the singular issues of religious preferences or gay marriages. It is far more fundamental than that. Instead, to most Americans morality encompasses the values of honesty, integrity, hard work, belief in themselves, a love of their country and an ardent passion for the virtues of freedom and enterprise. These are what defeated a John Kerry who seemed to be without them except in some superficial vague way.

For Kerry and his ilk words have no meaning. Their words do not represent a solid commitment to anything in particular, rather to everything in general. They are merely tools to toss around in order to curry favor and gain access to power—or to blaspheme and degrade their opponents. Kerry’s words were not those of the great leader that the American people deserve.

Beneath it all the average Joes could see through the ruse because it was as obvious as the nose on Mr. Kerry’s face. His affectations of superiority, his arrogance, his belief in his own entitlement—these characteristics were transparent. He stood for the worst conceit of the Liberals—their view that they are morally superior to what they would call ‘religious fanatics, racists, homophobes and cowboys.’ Kerry saw the rest of the folk as stupid hicks—in contrast to his view of himself as benevolent, worldly and wise.

As Victor David Hanson, a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, wrote for National Review online, “His (Kerry’s) unsolvable problems ranged from his Brahmin, aristocratic coldness and deductive pessimism, to his transparent and opportunistic flip-flopping…”

Hanson’s evaluation is right on target. He wrote, “The East and West Coasts and the big cities may reflect the sway of the universities, the media, Hollywood, and the arts, but the folks in between somehow ignore what the professors preach to their children, what they read in the major newspapers, and what they are told on TV. The Internet, right-wing radio, and cable news do not so much move Middle America as reflect its preexisting deep skepticism of our aristocracy and its engineered morality imposed from on high.”

As for aloof elitism, moral relativism or meddling outsiders, Americans basically don’t like other people dictating to them—whether its Barbra Streisand, Kofi Annan, Jacques Charac or John Kerry. They made that clear in the election of 2004 by voting for George W. Bush.

Bringing Down a President
Dan Rather’s 60 Minute Flameout
By Sara Pentz

'When you tether yourself to ideology, you necessarily liberate yourself from facts. '
Author Daniel J. Flynn, Townhall.com, September 21, 2004

On Monday evening, September 21, 2004, Dan Rather publicly apologized to his viewers for airing on CBS’s “60 Minutes Wednesday” the anti-Bush story based on partisan sources and forged documents. Up to that point, Rather explained how he was not responsible for the flameout at his network that the report was causing. Instead, for 12 days, he publicly insisted that he was the victim—that he had been lied to—that he was the innocent. He maintained that CBS was promoting truth in the face of the partisan political forces that were ripping into the September 8, 2004 broadcast.

It was a transparent apology—an attempt to shift the blame and portray himself as a lily-white truthsayer. In fact, the report was one of the most blatant examples of TV network news bias perpetrated on the American public. It will go down in history books as a classic case study of non-objective, partisan and fallacious reporting.

No wonder Rather is so publicly defensive. He has blown his television network sky high in his own flameout. Watch for the network’s inevitable implosion as Rather’s ratings continue to plummet, and advertisers try to decide whether they are getting their money’s worth.

Since that on-air apology, Rather has repeatedly turned-coat on his flimsy mea culpa. He has defiantly failed to concede that the documents are forgeries; he has never apologized to the experts and analysts he impugned as partisan; and he has not retracted the discredited story. He has only said he was sorry. That is hardly a confession equal to the enormity of the deceptive scheme perpetrated by him and his co-workers in this report—one dangerously bent on bringing down the President of the United States. It did not, however, do that. In fact, it backfired on CBS, and the fallout has spread throughout the culture at CBS causing considerable discomfort.

Here is a recap of how CBS prepared the report, the sources they relied on and those they ignored.

The original players: Democratic Texas politician Ben Barnes; CBS producer Mary Mapes openly known for proselytizing her Liberal views; and adamant Bush-hater Bill Burkett, an ex-Lt. Col. in the Texas Air National Guard, who provided the faked memos. Barnes and Burkett have been decisively exposed as fabricators, liars and publicity hounds. Mapes has been ‘outed’ as an extreme Liberal with close ties and deeply insidious activity with the Kerry Campaign.

On the other side, the players consist of Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, George W. Bush's squadron commander in the National Guard, now deceased. Others included a number of professional document experts who told CBS, during the preparation of the report, that the memos were fakes—followed by hundreds of documented experts who came forth on the Internet to demonstrate the report’s astonishing bias hardly 60 minutes after it had aired.

The shameful groundwork for the false report: Rather and the CBS producer relied on the testimony of the hyper-partisan Democrat Barnes, whose claims he helped Bush into the Guard has flip-flopped over the years. His daughter has publicly called her father a liar with regard to his statements because, she says, he is a publicity-seeking politico with an upcoming book to hype.

Further, Barnes was involved in a bribery and stock fraud scandal in the early 1970s, and had a sweetheart deal with a Texas lottery company in which he received 3.5 cents for every ticket sold—more than $3 million per year. This was information readily available to anyone interested in checking Barnes’ background.

Rather’s CBS segment producer, Mary Mapes, came up with the four memos from Burkett. If she had been honest about a background check on him she would have found his home replete with anti-Bush propaganda. Further, he had a personal ax to grind against President Bush and had sought out publicity for himself in his rage to damage the president—a fact Mapes rejected out of hand.

Burkett had peddled the same faked documents to various media and political sources—each had flat-out turned him down. He called the Kerry Campaign trying to retail the memos. He tried to pawn off the memos to several major newspapers, but was again rebuffed. He even attempted to find a buyer inside the Al Gore camp, to no avail. And even the blasphemous Michael Moore had rejected him. Burkett’s motives were always blatantly questionable.

Then it was learned that ‘experts’ used by CBS to authenticate the memos were not accredited by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners. By their own admissions they came forward to say that they were not document experts, and their roles in the report were misleading at best.

Burkett finally made his deal with Mapes, allegedly with the caveat that she pass along the information to the Kerry campaign. She would, of course, have to do this on the sly for fear of retribution by her network. She is said to have called a top Kerry campaign aid, fulfilling her promise to Burkett—ignoring the fact that her job might be at stake. Her behavior represents a blatant disregard for journalistic ethics, a violation of CBS’s own policy of Standards and Practices and a probable cause for dismissal.

Rather intoned on air that these four ‘newly’ discovered memos were from the personal file of Lt. Col. Killian. However, Killian’s wife and son stepped forward immediately after the Rather report to deny that Killian could or would have written such memos. They maintained that Killian had a history of hand writing his memos, a fact later confirmed by Killian’s secretary.

Further, Rather deliberately refused to include information in the aired report from several document experts who had stated that the memos were not authentic. This is of paramount import because it establishes absolute, irrefutable proof that CBS and Rather were aware of, but not willing—in advance of the report—to honestly challenge their agenda. This clearly points to the bias of everyone involved—a fact that could be provable in a court of law if it were a legal issue.

The entire episode began to disintegrate when professional experts came forward on the Internet to document the discrepancies of the forged memos. They demonstrated how the CBS version of the l971 memos was written with a Microsoft program—not yet available in the early 70s. It must have been humiliating to the network that had prized and touted Rather over the years as the consummate professional, to be exposed by bloggers on the Internet.

Far more repugnant, Rather and his production team refused to take responsibility for a politically motivated smear. Saying you’re sorry is not enough. That was the extent of his apology—even through the end of September 2004. This man deliberately rejected the truth and, consequently, abdicated his role as journalist—so much for the principles of fair, accurate, reliable and independent reporting – the ranking motto at CBS News.

It is, frankly, just plain silly to take these people seriously. They consider themselves to be professional journalists with the highest of moral integrity. But they do not care one whit whether they use politically motivated deceit to fool and lie to us. That is obscene and representative of the arrogance demonstrated by the entire gang.

The truth is these people, who tout their credibility, are not to be trusted. They exhibit an elitist media attitude that upholds a deep contempt for the American public. In fact, it would be far better to say that it is the American viewing public that has been betrayed and cheated—rather than Mr. Rather.

Political Polling
Blowing in the Wind

By Sara Pentz

Each day prior to the 2004 presidential election an online organization called realclearpolitics.com records rolling averages demonstrating that Bush leads Kerry or Kerry leads Bush. The Zogby poll, considered to be the most historically accurate, shows the election is a flat-out tie one day and the next it’s a different story. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll shows Kerry leading by 1.0 point. An ABC/Washington Post poll shows Bush ahead by 6 points.

Indeed, from minute to minute poll numbers tumble and levitate as if blowing in the wind. However, polls can be much more dangerous that the colorful fall leaves that glide so innocently to Earth. They can be used to influence performance, control thought, verify predetermined theses, counter rational objection, lead segments of society to certain false conclusions or discourage voters from casting ballots—and these are just a few of the more malevolent goals.

Even worse, if a bias is built into the statistical sampling or a testing error is caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others polls, the outcome can be seriously harmful and misleading. The most scientific polls are constantly searching for the truth—the facts. It is often impossible to determine which is which unless someone takes the time to research the specific circumstances of the poll.

Political polling is based on the art of statistics, an imperfect science at best. The only perfect poll of the American public would be one that interviewed everyone in the United States. Since that is impossible, pollsters take random samples—a selection of participants from the population in which each subject is chosen entirely by chance. Polling less than about 1,500 people is not considered reliable for our population of 209 million.

The margin of error is anywhere between three percent and five percent for any of the more carefully crafted polls. That margin rises dramatically as the group controlling the poll searches for a prescribed outcome. It is critical to understand that polling errors occur when there are flaws in the wording of questions, in the order of the questions, in the nature of the question response options and in the timing of the poll.

Unless there is a difference of, at least, ten points between one candidate and his opponent, the chances of either winning is up for grabs—especially in political polls where one single news event prior to a November presidential election could change the minds of thousands of people.

Somehow it seems that for all of these conditions to be in perfect sync, it would be impossible to poll. Yet, pollsters abound and report their findings sometimes overnight, sometime collectively with an assortment of other pollsters and mostly with impunity.

When appraising the use of polls to determine election outcomes, it is clear there is a deep variation of opinion from differing segments of society that is often not reflected in the polls. There is also a deep variation in the way polls are conducted. Some are honest attempts to reflect opinion and some are not. Some are accurately reported in the media, some not.

According to an article published for the Public Agenda, a nonpartisan opinion research organization, public opinion researchers liken polling to making a big pot of soup. “To taste-test the soup, you don't have to eat the whole pot, or even a whole bowl's worth. You only have to try a bite,” they say. The same is true, they allege, of public opinion. “You don't have to ask every single person in America to find out what Americans think; you only need to ask a few to get the flavor of public opinion.”

In fact, there is a flaw in their soup. You cannot compare one taste of the same soup to the variety of answers of 1,500 different people because the contents of the soup remains exactly the same while the ideas of people do not. This soup analogy is not valid when talking about the great American melting pot.

Poll watcher and respected commentator Bruce Bartlett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, writes at Townhall.com “If polls were truly scientific, if the public were well informed, and if public opinion was stable, this (polling) might help advance political debate. However, none of those things are true. Moreover, it is too easy to load questions so as to get pretty much whatever answer is wanted by whoever is paying for the poll.”

It is important to understand Mr. Bartlett’s pronouncements because with the proliferation of polling the cost has decreased—making it more affordable for any ragtag group to create questions to suit partisan goals.

Then again, some people polled do not honestly reflect their true opinions. In fact, in a time-diary analysis done in l994 to account for every minute of a person’s life, 26 percent of Americans actually went to church weekly, although the Gallup poll for the same period reported the figure at 42 percent. So there can be a vast difference between what people do and what they say they do. Some respondents may not be willing to state their own beliefs, either because of the sensitive nature of the question or the possibility their answer may be considered socially unacceptable.

Pollsters ask questions on many subjects, in many different ways. Here’s an actual example: Do you think Bush’s handling of the war is appropriate? How could an individual answer yes, no or maybe to that question? It is ridiculous to assume that the average citizen could consider—or even know—all the complicated information known only to the president as he guides the nation. Therefore, any reasonable answer to that question must be: How can I know what the President knows?

How people get their information, is, of course, at the heart of what judgments they make and what opinions they hold. With accusations of bias aimed at so many of the mainstream media is it often nearly impossible to know what is fact and what is the opinion of the reporter. Individuals often make fatal judgments about their own personal lives because they do not consider all the relevant facts. If they are not getting all the facts from the news media outlets, or those facts are slanted, how can they possible answer questions for a poll?

For example, The New York Times has publicly endorsed Mr. Kerry. Its polls consistently show Kerry leading. A combined Times/CBS polls favors Kerry more times than not. It is a documented fact that Times writers consistently write about how the public does not like Bush and CBS News has been castigated for a discredited report smearing Bush.

Furthermore, bias is a documented fact when the reporting of polls by the elite media is involved. For example, whenever a CBS News poll placed Bush ahead of Kerry, the CBS Evening News ignored the result, according the Media Research Center (MRC) online.

Again according to MRC, when a Newsweek poll put Kerry ahead of Bush by three points, 49 to 46 percent, the NBC Nightly News touted it, reporting that Kerry’s "performance had sharply improved his standing with voters" and trumpeted Kerry's lead as "a big jump for the challenger after a month of trailing the President." But two weeks later when a fresh Newsweek poll showed a Bush rebound with the President ahead of Kerry by two points, 48 to 46 percent; the NBC Nightly News did not consider it newsworthy even though the newscast spent six-and-a-half minutes on campaign coverage. In other words, it consciously ignored the information. Now, that’s bias.

It is important to understand bias—the practice of influencing in a particular or typically unfair direction and from prejudicial point of view by favoring certain facts or opinion over others. Often the mainstream media will twist the facts in order to favor a point of view, or they will eliminate certain facts and weight other that are more to their liking. Most reporters resist that label: some for ugly ulterior motives, others for self-serving reasons and most because they simply do not care.

Biased reporting is meant to influence voters. The hope is that as the polls go, so go the voters. Most reporters would say it is their duty to guide the public because only they can know what’s best for ‘the great unwashed masses.’ This attitude deeply permeates the mainstream media and, in much the same way that politicians contradict themselves when playing to their constituents, reporters and anchors hold to this ‘I know best attitude’ dogmatically in order to solidify their job security. In fact, there is no mistaking the fact that at the base of this arrogant attitude is a bald grab for power.

Polling sinks to new depths when self-serving organizations attempt to affect outcomes for political purposes. In fact, a number of academically sponsored, or so-called think tank organizations, pop new studies just prior to elections that are deeply flawed and riddled with assumptions, rough approximations and inaccuracies. Writing for National Review online Chester E. Finn Jr. points out a report that was created and then contradicted by the prestigious RAND Corporation: “One can't help but recall four years ago when, weeks before the election, a RAND analyst released a "study” purporting to show that (educational) achievement gains in Texas were not as rosy as then-Governor Bush claimed. It was immediate rebutted by, among others, another RAND analysis.”

Speaking of the nadir of poll reporting, The Wall Street Journal’s online Opinion Journal recently discussed the following Baltimore Sun story, "Heavy viewers of the Fox News Channel are nearly four times as likely to hold demonstrably untrue positions about the war in Iraq as media consumers who rely on National Public Radio or the Public Broadcasting System, according to a study released this week by a research center affiliated with the University of Maryland's School of Public Affairs.”

But wait! This "study," turns out to be pure propaganda, according to Opinion Journal. Here are the questions that were asked. They are designed as trick questions, each containing an erroneous belief. 1. "Saddam Hussein has been directly linked with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks." 2. "Weapons of mass destruction have already been found in Iraq." 3. "World opinion favored the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq." One would have to label each of these questions untrue, therefore slanting the outcome and twisting the survey numbers in a partisan direction.

In the last analysis, one should ask the question: Are political polls a rigged affair or a fair appraisal of public opinion? As in all cases of opinion, one must look at the circumstances, the goals, the motives behind the surveys—keeping in mind that most of the information about polls is filtered through the views of pollsters, journalists, self-interested parties and those who pay the bill. Given those issues, one must always be cautious of relying on polls to form or solidify opinions.

In a broader sense, it is absolutely imperative that we do not allow polls to influence our vote, regulate our minds or dictate law. That is the fundament caveat implicit in understanding the roll of polls.

(Sara Pentz is media and political commentator. She has been a TV news reporter and an editor/writer for magazines and newspapers. sara@sarapentz.com)

This article was written September 27, 2004

Dissecting Dan
By Sara Pentz

When you look closely at one of the first statements made by disgraced CBS anchor Dan Rather after his disastrous “60 Minutes Wednesday” report smearing President Bush using fake documents, partisan politicians, and blind obedience to his personal political agenda—it is enlightening to see the ‘it’s-not-my-fault’ implications rampant throughout his statements. His so-called apology is one of the most insincere in all of television news broadcasting. There is not a morsel of repentance evident.

It is typical of Mr. Rather—a man who has spent his life glorifying liberal theories through his network reporting. He follows in the grand tradition of his predecessor Walter Cronkite. At least Cronkite has the honesty to admit that throughout his CBS career he was a liberal. Rather’s history is quite the opposite. He endlessly denies his liberal leanings even though they can be clearly documented over the course of his career.

The latest denial tops them all. He has accused the White House of trying to ‘smear’ him. Speaking recently at a media forum in New York City, Rather insisted, "I don't have a political agenda…I'm an independent journalist,” reported the Washington Post and NewsMax.com. Further, Rather pledged that he wouldn't give in to his critics who, he said, were themselves guilty of bias.

Rather adamantly maintains that he is politically independent and demonstrates shock that anyone would think otherwise. He guards his political independence as if his life depended on it. And, in fact, it does. If Rather is fired, dismissed, or retired early by CBS, his personal credibility will be tarnished forever. In other words he has a lot at stake. If he is booted, as he should be, it will end his career and besmirch his life’s work—perhaps a fitting punishment for so much arrogance.

This is the man who has been openly accused of liberal bias by just about everyone on the planet. He has insulted, pilloried, harangued and castigated presidents and vice presidents—all Republicans. That’s our first clue, giving lie to his argument that he is not biased. He has praised Carter, Clinton and Kerry. He has tossed softball questions to them and applauded their actions and behavior. The clues were there all along on his nightly reports and throughout the endless hours of his 60 Minutes program.

To bring home the issue of bias by Rather, here’s a brief look at the implications and contradictions in this particular statement, September 20, 2004, when Rather first addressed his use of forged documents. It will demonstrate his irresponsibility and the insincerity of his apology.

“Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 Minutes Wednesday (September 8, 2004) story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome. Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.”

First, Rather said CBS, “…vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously.” Did they do that? No. They waited 12 days before even acknowledging that there might be a problem. In fact, in a bizarre statement several days into the brouhaha, Rather said he wanted to be the first person to break the story if the documents were really forgeries. Since he was actually the last person to acknowledge that fact, he then lied about his intent and therefore becomes suspect as a trustworthy reporter.

Next example: “And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.” Many weeks after the so-called confession CBS and Rather have not ‘let us know’ what issues their examination turned up. In fact, they have been so confused about how to examine the problem that they brought in two prominent outsiders to investigate. Or perhaps they did that because they were wary of their own bias. In fact, both CBS and Rather have fervently fought to maintain a cover-up of the details “…whatever the outcome”—the opposite of what they said they would do. That promise is un-kept. It is a delaying tactic used in the hopes that the entire incident will go away. The evasion needed to take this kind of stance is immense.

Next example: “I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers.” Dan Rather admits to being misled? How could that be for this seasoned professional? To admit such implies that he is not smart enough, or dedicated enough to his profession, to detect the forgeries. Or, if we are to take him at his word, is he admitting that he can easily be conned, scammed and deceived by a source? Does he really want us to think this? These are not very flattering descriptions to apply to a network news anchor—especially one who has a reputation for an inflated ego.

Next example: “…if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.” Why was Mr. Rather so blinded by the forgeries? The answer—he was not looking for truth. His sole agenda was to damage President Bush so much so that he could not allow himself to think about the possibility that the documents were not authentic. It is a monumental act of subterfuge. To this day Rather still contends that the content is true even though the evidence is fake—a blatant refusal to adhere to the principles of journalism—and to the vital relationship between the cause and effect.

In the last analysis, Mr. Rather has only himself to blame for the current rush to judge him of corrupt reporting. He has only himself to blame for being deceive, duped and misled about information he received and then spoon-fed to the American public. We can only hope that CBS will punish a man who not only lies, but also refuses to take responsibility for his unconscionable behavior.

Freedom to Speak the Ridiculous
By Sara Pentz

“Just because you have the right to say something
doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to say.”
Fred Friendly, former President of CBS News

Let’s be clear about something. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. Regarding the freedom of speech, this document does not, however, guarantee that what people say will necessarily be rational, logical, factual, objective, truthful—or, perhaps more importantly, meaningful. A comment can be a falsehood. It can be a distortion. But it can be said. Once said, however, the comment can be discussed, criticized, analyzed, questioned, decapitated and revealed for its flaws and inaccuracies. This is called open discourse, and it is a fundamental principle of American law.

Let’s be clear about this Amendment. It applies to the government only and not to the private sector. It was written to protect man from the government. If, for example, the publisher of this publication chose to eliminate my column, he has the right to do so. I can call his actions censorship—I would be wrong—but I don’t have the right to force him to publish my column. One can call anything censorship and anyone a censor, but, unless it is done by a government, it is not an issue of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech means the freedom to advocate one’s views and to bear the possible consequences, including disagreement by others as well as opposition and lack of support. It is meant to protect dissenters and unpopular minorities from forcible suppression by the government. Furthermore, this Amendment does not demand that we hand a microphone to anyone who would advocate our destruction.

The First Amendment is a two-sided coin. It allows anyone to speak the truth or spout any nonsense and not fear banishment to the nearby prison. It works both ways. The people are protected when the truth is told and when it is not. That is the splendid impartiality of this document. But there are those who argue that dissent is censorship or intimidation when it comes from their opposition. They do so in order to stifle dissention. It is necessary to identify this if we are to adhere to the distinction between freedom of speech and the accusation of censorship.

Here are two examples of how people misunderstand this issue. The First Amendment does not protect anyone who physically threatens another person in words or writing. To do so is actionable under the law. As an example, The Washington Post wrote in a recent article: “…it was said that Susan Sarandon's mother accused Sarandon and Tim Robbins of "indoctrinating" her grandson with their leftist views. A snarling Robbins confronted Grove at a party and said, "If you ever write about my family again, I will (bleeping) find you and I will (bleeping) hurt you.” If Mrs. Grove chose to, she could have correctly filed a lawsuit against Mr. Robbins because she had been threatened with physical harm.

As another example, Columnist Jonah Goldberg at Townhall.com makes this point about the lack of understanding of the First Amendment by this star: “Tim Robbins who, after being disinvited from an event at the Baseball Hall of Fame because of his anti-war stance, denounced the climate of "intimidation" and "censorship" that (he says) is preventing open debate and discussion in America. Robbins made his comments during a televised speech (to millions of people) at the National Press Club (before a gathering of the American media).” Clearly, Mr. Robbins is accusing a private group, and not the government, of intimidation and censorship.

Unfortunately, in the oft-times schizophrenic world of news reporting, political/academic commentary and Hollywood stars, there are some who believe that only they have the right to say what they want. They believe that anyone who criticizes them should be banished to that prison—or, at the very least, judged as infringing upon their freedom of expression. Such views also demonstrate their lack of understanding of the First Amendment.

In fact, by using words like intimidation and censorship, many speakers are hoping that their opponents will be silenced. Those people are like bullies in the schoolyard playground who do not wish to debate on an intellectual level. They call upon the word censorship as they would a stick and a stone. Criticism and analysis are their ugly enemies. They mock the very concepts of debate, discussion and disagreement.

Let the reader beware. It is incumbent upon each of us to understand the difference between fact and fancy; between truth and spin; between honest disagreement and dishonest harangue. It is our responsibility to be the judge. Because twisting and spinning, distorting and falsifying are unethical. They may be legal, but they are deceitful and corrupt.

So, let us be clear that the First Amendment is a precious tool that promises freedom from governmental abuses. Let us be clear that this document, guaranteeing debate, dissention, disagreement and criticism, is a marvel of mankind. And, let us be clear that— unless we critique those who use it out of context or as a threat—we lessen its very value.