Under the Microscope: Political Campaigns and the News Media

I doubt there are many Americans who think the news media fairly and accurately reports political news. The more important issue,however, is not whether individual stories are reported accurately, but which stories the media chooses to report at all. TV newscasts are drastically limited in time, and newspapers neither have the staff to report, nor the paper to print, every story that may be of interest to the public. Of course, the first amendment protects the media no matter what it does, but with those rights also come important responsibilities that the media are neglecting.

Let me give you an example. The two-party system in the United States largely exists, for better or worse, because the media chooses to give almost no attention to third party candidates. Forget about national politics where third party candidates have absolutely zero chance of success today; let’s focus on state-wide races for governor, congress, senate, and state legislative offices. There have been numerous highly credible, well-credentialed candidates for these offices all across the United States, and virtually none of them are able to get their campaigns off the ground because the news media refuses to follow them and report their ideas to the public. When there is some news report, it typically focuses on the candidate’s low public following in the polls rather than on the ideas the candidate espouses. By reporting only on the major party candidates, even when the stories are fairly written, the media are actually making news more than they are reporting it. They are making news by ensuring that the current parties, which every poll has shown represent only a minority of Americans, maintain control of government indefinitely.

Who EXACTLY represents the public's interest in civil litigation?

Civil cases between private parties clearly impact the general public; time is used by judges and court personnel, and decisions made by judges and juries can have a profound impact on the lives and businesses of countless people. I have heard many lawyers promote our tort system by arguing that it is very effective in preventing so-called transgressions by corporate America. Their view is that the threat of a lawsuit is key in preventing negligent behaviors before they occur. Of course, the lawyers have not actually been hired to represent the public’s so called best interests; they are hired only to get the most they can for their one client. In fact, no one represents the public’s interests in civil lawsuits, not even the judge, whose sole job is to referee the dispute before him.

What I find most troubling by the argument that these lawyers are acting in the public’s best interests is that they have not asked the public to define what its best interests are. Instead, they somehow equate the public’s best interests as identical to the amount of money they can get for the one client they actually do represent.

But what gives an individual lawyer the insight to know what is and what is not in the public’s best interest? Is the public’s best interest served by causing doctors and hospitals to run countless unnecessary tests just to avoid medical malpractice claims? Is the public’s best interest served by making the cost of doing business and the cost of buying insurance so high as to force companies out of business or to price their products so high as to make them uncompetitive? Is the public’s best interest served by filling operators’ manuals with dozens of useless warnings that very few people ever read, thereby reducing the importance of the few warnings they actually should read, just to have some warning in print to cover any potential lawsuit the company might face?