I just read an article on the New York Times' website called The Preacher's New Pulpit, by Clark Hoyt. In summary, he wasted an entire section explaining the hits and misses the Times has had during the entire Jeremiah Wright controversy. I absolutely despise the media and its distractions, so I did what I normally do when I read crap like this, especially from the nation's largest and most influential newspaper--I wrote them a letter. Below is what I just sent to Mr. Hoyt, explaining a conversation I had with an Indiana resident that I called last night trying to help the Obama campaign.
I am of a strong opinion that if the media--which plays such an extremely important role in the democratic process--were to stay focused and on topic with the real issues that affect people's lives, the American People will always select the right candidate for office regardless of who that may be. The entire Reverend Wright story is deeply rooted in a different type of issue that cannot be measured effectively and is largely a distraction--electability. People that religiously vote down party lines are the same people that claim that issues such as these are important in picking a president, knowing that regardless of how or what Obama says or doesn't say will not change their minds to vote for him in any case, and only gives them more fuel in their quest to keep him from winning. That is the definition of a distraction.
Please let me tell you a quick story. I am deployed to Iraq right now, away from my wife and two daughters. I have been blessed this deployment to have a pretty good civilian internet connection here that allows me to make phone calls over the internet. I have been a Barack Obama supporter since September of 2006 when he was only flirting with the idea of running. I have been trying to figure out ways to help his campaign, because I have been completely inspired, so I began using an internet phone service last night to make calls to people in Indiana to try to get some more support.
I ended up talking to a man named Dean, who I have never met or talked to in my life. I asked Dean if he was considering supporting Barack Obama and he went off on me, making claims about many of these distractions that are force-fed to the people through the main stream media. He claimed that Obama stood for absolutely nothing except "change", and he wanted to support McCain but, in his view, all of Washington is worthless. I didn't get discouraged, and when he made a claim, I patiently listened and tried to explain what was actually the reality of the situation. He honestly didn't know one policy position that Obama has put forth, which was pretty amazing to me because he said he reads the newspaper and listens to talk radio daily. When I explained his positions on foreign policy, creating jobs, energy policy, bank regulation, the use of military force, and many other topics, he was absolutely shocked that 1) I somehow knew so much about his positions, and 2) that Obama actually has provided some substantive proposals. After an hour-long conversation with a very cynical man that I didn't know, he was enlightened. He didn't say he was going to support Obama, but he was definitely committed to giving him a second look. So I gave him some places to search for information on the real issues that were important in this man's life.
Not one of my recommendations was the New York Times.
Sincerely
Matthew S. Finnie
Good night everyone.