NEW CASTLE —
As a journalist and editor, I receive a lot of requests for help.
They come from people suffering from injustice — real or perceived. They come from people who are struggling to grasp the finer points of modern bureaucracy. They come from people who believe I posses the power to alter public opinion in a direction they deem to be desirable.
I suppose such requests are flattering. But they are, at times, frustrating. There may be little I can do for these individuals. Journalists aren’t miracle workers. And we don’t have the ability to right all wrongs.
Besides that, when it comes to the power of the press, I often tell people that the only things newspapers can do is produce words. If there is something that ought to be done as a result of those words, it’s up to the readers to respond.
And I have learned over the years that such a response isn’t always forthcoming. In some instances, what the press does generates a reaction that’s tantamount to blaming the messenger for the message.
A classic example of this occurred a couple of weeks ago in a Republican presidential debate prior to the South Carolina primary. To start the event, moderator John King of CNN asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich about a report that had surfaced earlier in the day.
It involved claims by one of Gingrich’s ex-wives, Marianne, that he had asked her for an open marriage so he could freely continue his ongoing affair with a woman who is now his current wife.
Gingrich reacted angrily to the question, portraying it as “despicable” and inappropriate for a presidential debate. He added, “I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.”
Then Gingrich proceeded to basically call his ex-wife a liar by denying her claim.
The reaction from the audience was clear: Gingrich was a hero for taking on the big, bad media. And King, who made a clumsy attempt to justify his question, was humiliated.
It’s now believed that this incident gave a final boost to Gingrich’s South Carolina campaign, propelling him to a solid victory in the contest. And it exposed the nation’s media — or at least much of it — as an ineffective lot, more interested in attacking candidates than informing the public.
Now, I am the first to admit disappointment in how many news organizations do their jobs when it comes to covering national politics. Too many reports treat the selection of a president more like a horse race than a serious exploration of the issues.
And the case can be made that King handled his debate question poorly. It wasn’t the way to lead off the gathering, and better phrasing would have given Gingrich less opportunity to respond as he did.
But I have a few questions for those of you who sided with Gingrich on this point. Don’t we want our presidents to possess a certain degree of character? And isn’t it appropriate to consider how they handle their private lives as a gauge for assessing how they would deal with their public ones?
Plus, isn’t it worth considering that a man who so willingly cheats on his wives would do the same to the American people? Doesn’t trust matter?
Gingrich may have won his battle with the media in South Carolina. But something tells me his character will remain an issue so long as he continues his campaign. I’m just not sure that a candidate’s ability to beat up on the press is the deciding factor for most voters.
Mitchel Olszak
Related Photos
-
Mitchel Olszak, Dear Reader
Discussion
Mitchel Olszak: Does making the press the villain play over time?
- Mitchel Olszak
-
-
Mitchel Olszak: Snooping threat to the free press
In “All the President’s Men,” reporter Bob Woodward conducts late-night meetings with a source in a parking garage. That source, Deep Throat (later revealed to be high-ranking FBI official Mark Felt), was worried that he would be exposed as a tipster in the Watergate scandal.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Toomey takes a chance on guns
How does a conservative Republican senator representing a state with a Democratic majority protect himself politically? One way is to take positions that tend to straddle the nation’s ideological fence.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Terrorists strive to create fear
The finish line of a road race serves as the division between one world and another. Ahead of the finish line, there is structure and discipline, with attention paid to the runners as they cross over. Spectators are kept back, mainly to avoid interfering with the participants — and perhaps to keep them from being trampled.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Kelly, allies battle arms treaty
Supporters of the right to bear arms have a champion in Congressman Mike Kelly. The federal lawmaker, whose district includes most of Lawrence County, has been making waves with his criticism of the Obama administration and its support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
-
Mitchel Olszak: I like beer, so I’m watching our state closely
I like beer. More to the point, I like good beer. In my younger days, just about any swill would do. But with the passage of time, sophistication and exposure to the possibilities, my interests in beer have sharpened and matured.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Political lessons from distant past hold value today
If you want to gain an appreciation for great thinkers, read some of history’s major political philosophies. Here you will find the works of Plato, Machiavelli, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, St. Augustine and many others. They explored difficult social issues and offered serious insight.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Do the emotional centers of the brain guide our politics?
People who hold specific political points of view like to think their positions are based on serious analysis. They view their given ideologies as careful conclusions reached through assessing the world around them and examining how things work. Thus, liberals and conservatives both manage to claim the intellectual and ethical high ground.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Will GOP survive current divisions?
Somebody asked me the other day if I thought the Republican Party was about to split apart. I said no. It was an assessment based on history. Creating a new political party in America is a challenging process. They occasionally crop up, but they don’t last.
-
Mitchel Olszak: History as a matter of chance
History is full of pivotal moments. What if Socrates had decided against drinking that hemlock? What if Gutenberg hadn’t developed his printing press? What if Washington’s army failed to survive the winter at Valley Forge? What if Edison gave up on inventing the light bulb?
-
Mitchel Olszak: Pennsylvanians shouldn’t be fooled by electoral hijinks
Back in the 2000 presidential election, Americans received a civics lesson of sorts. Much of it involved obscure terms such as hanging and dimpled chads, as well as butterfly ballots. All of this, of course, came courtesy of Florida, whose clumsy election efforts produced an extended period of uncertainty in the presidential contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
- More Mitchel Olszak Headlines
-
