Like death and taxes, another sure bet you can make is that the truth will be resisted. It will be resisted by those who know itâ€™s the truth but benefit from lies, and it will be resisted by those who cannot bear to hear it.
Such resistance is easily spotted by the shallowness of the â€œargumentsâ€? used, which typically fail to rise above the level of name-calling.
Thus, Mr. Ferrantelli accuses â€œDemocracy Now!â€? of being myopic, predictable, fundamentally flawed, uncritical, cynical, never subject to debate, having dubious ethics, and slanting the news, among others (Letters, March 10-17). Lacking in his critique is a single example or any fact to support his notions.
As I pointed out in my original article (â€œA Valuable Voice,â€? Opinion, March 3-10), any news program has some sort of bias. The simple act of choosing which stories to present requires some judgment, based on experience, that must rely on human opinions. â€œDemocracy Now!â€? approaches these decisions from a different perspective than corporate news and is generally much more skeptical of official pronouncements.
The Washington Post, Time, The Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times (among others) all wrote about their failure to be appropriately skeptical during the lead-up to the Iraq war.
â€œDemocracy Now!â€? had no need to
The skepticism clearly present in â€œDemocracy Now!,â€? far from being a flaw, provides a useful service. One wonders what might have been if more folks had been exposed to such critical reporting.