A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Gazette, Colorado Springs, Colo., Oct. 3, on the notion that American’s are fortunate to have a free press:
For some reason, this election season seems to be more emotionally charged than is normal (as if anything is normal in presidential elections). Maybe it’s that neither major tickets for the nation’s top spot are the usual pairings of middle-age white guys. Perhaps it’s conservative talk radio providing handy sound bites and throwing around accusations of media bias. The growing influence of the Internet and bloggers can’t be discounted, either. In any case, newsrooms around the country are more aware of charges of attempting to influence elections at all levels. Hardly a day goes by, it seems, that The Gazette doesn’t receive letters or e-mails accusing us of liberal or conservative bias. Can it be both?
One of the things that makes this country work is that media are free to operate as their owners see fit. Most major organizations try to provide objective reporting of events, and many, usually smaller organizations, are patently and proudly biased to one side or the other. One doesn’t read DailyKos or listen to Sean Hannity to get unbiased reporting. Residents of other nations are not so fortunate.
In Egypt last week, Ibrahim Eissa, editor of the independent daily al-Dustor, had his conviction upheld but his sentence reduced, for publicly questioning the health of 80-year-old President Hosni Mubarek. Eissa’s actual “crime” was that such speculation about Mubarak’s health threatened national stability and caused foreign investors to pull out of Egypt.
Eissa was originally sentenced to six months in prison. Prosecutors appealed, saying the sentence was too light, according to an Associated Press report. The appeals court agreed the sentence was incorrect, but reduced it rather than increasing it.
Eissa said he’ll do his time, but that “The verdict is dangerous for political life in Egypt. It says it is prohibited to speak about the president. It says political reform is an illusion.”
His comments are on target and his story illustrates the need for an unfettered press.
When government controls what the people hear and read, it controls their actions.
Americans are deluged with news reports to the point we can’t avoid it even if we want to. It’s the responsibility of each individual to sort through that information to decide what he or she will believe. It’s a lot of work and it’s imperfect, but it’s better than getting our news from a single source, especially if that source is controlled or limited by government.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, Oct. 5, on rough sailing for Somalian stability:
When pirates off the coast of Somalia captured a ship carrying grenade launchers and 33 Russian tanks, they got something they likely didn’t bargain for: worldwide attention.
The international community quickly saw the peril of such armory falling into the wrong hands and took steps to challenge the lawless seafarers who operate in the Gulf of Aden.
The United Nations Security Council is scheduled this week to take up a measure that would urge its member nations to deploy naval vessels and military to the waters off Somalia to combat crime at sea.
The united front is a necessary step, but it’s clear that more must be done to address the root cause of the piracy problem, which threatens an important shipping route.
The piracy is a symptom of the anarchy that has enveloped Somalia despite efforts by the international community to help Somalia install a functioning central government.
In fact, over the last two decades, Somalia has had 14 transitional governments and has received $8 billion in foreign aid. Yet, the country remains divided by clans, gripped by chaos and suffers from severe food shortages. Human-rights activists estimate 9,000 civilians have been killed in fighting over the last year.
A U.N. envoy to Somalia has been overseeing peace talks between the most recently installed transitional government and the Alliance for the Reliberation of Somalia, an Islamist group that has led the insurgency in Somalia.
Those efforts must be redoubled so that an acceptable power-sharing agreement can be negotiated. It has become ever more apparent since the 9/11 attacks that there is an international interest in seeing stability in Somalia.
Analysts have long believed the chaotic conditions and loosely controlled borders make the country a favorable home base for terrorists.
The road ahead in Somalia is difficult. The U.N. must continue supporting talks between all parties involved in the conflict so that an acceptable government can be agreed upon. Whatever agreement emerges from such discussions cannot be perceived as being imposed by outside forces.
A government with popular support could rein in the pirates, many of whom are displaced fishermen, and would go a long way toward normalizing life in Somalia.
And it’s clear that a stable Somalia, which can take care of its own renegades, is in the world’s best interest.
Editorial:
———
STATE/REGIONAL:
Rocky Mountain News, Oct. 5, on reaction to the recent ballot deal involving Colorado labor and business groups:
Let’s hope Thursday’s deal between labor and business groups sets no precedent for future initiative campaigns in Colorado.
There’s something disturbing about people putting draconian measures on the ballot—as labor groups did—in a brazen attempt to pressure other citizens into abandoning their own measures and then cutting a deal of the sort announced last week. And if organizations started placing truly insidious measures on the ballot with the expectation that some deep-pocketed opponent would pay them to remove it, that would be an ugly abuse of the initiative process.
But that’s not exactly what happened Thursday, as we’ll explain. And there’s no evidence that scenarios involving outright bribery have occurred or are likely to occur in the future.
Enter state Rep. Amy Stephens, R-Monument, and Sen. Mike Kopp, R-Littleton. While the lawmakers haven’t drafted their proposal, Stephens told us she wants to make it a felony for sponsors of ballot measures to remove their initiatives if it could be proved they did so after receiving money from their opponents.
Sponsors could be tried for extortion, perhaps facing charges for accepting (or soliciting) bribes.
What an overreaction. Critics of Colorado’s initiative process say it’s too easy to get measures on the ballot, but it’s not so easy that people would be likely to put one on in the hope that someone would pay them to pull it off. And sponsoring a measure is certainly not cheap.
Placing a citizen-sponsored measure on the ballot can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, even if sponsors collect a good portion of signatures with volunteers. And once a measure reaches the ballot, there’s no guarantee it will pass, even if sponsors spend millions more promoting it. More often than not, voters reject genuinely awful ideas.
Besides, the proposed legislation would not address what happened Thursday, when business groups agreed to finance a campaign against three amendments unions oppose if labor groups removed four measures they sponsored.
The unions actually assumed the risk. Amendments 47, 49 and 54 are still on the ballot. One or all three could pass.
Until we see more evidence that actual bribery or extortion has or is likely to occur, we believe such legislation is unnecessary. Before the legislature convenes in January, we hope Stephens and Kopp will reconsider.
Editorial:
———
Fort Collins Coloradoan, Oct. 5, on the need for voters to become consumers of information; sort through political noise:
Voters in the upcoming election face an enormous responsibility and, in turn, an enormous amount of propaganda, spin and sound bites.
There is no surprise that money continues to play a major role in elections, and in many cases, that influence can’t be tracked by the public. You’ve likely seen the ads, received a phone call or opened your mail to experience such influence firsthand. Groups such as 501(c)(4s) (named for their IRS tax status) have been pumping in millions of dollars to get candidates elected, to make sure other candidates are not elected and to get their ballot measures passed in Colorado. In many cases, these organizations are either funded or controlled from out of state, with scarce information about their contributors made publicly available and with little interest in promoting truth.
What’s a voter to do in the face of so much political noise?
The fact is that there are plenty of resources for voters to access beyond one-minute commercials and partisan mailers. For example, each candidate has his or her own Web site, with many positions on issues outlined. While understandably framed from the candidate’s point of view, these Web sites usually offer more in-depth perspectives about issues, and most invite residents to ask questions.
Those looking for information on ballot initiatives also can find pro/con submissions in the Blue Book. Registered voters already should have received a copy of this booklet, but the Colorado Legislative Council also has made a copy available online at book/2008Bluebookmainpage.htm. Not all information contained in the Blue Book is checked for accuracy, and the pro and con portions of each proposal are written by those advocating and opposing the measures. Still, the book is a relatively good source of information because it provides more in-depth arguments for both sides of ballot issues than those contained in commercials and fliers.
The weight of this election, in its import and sheer volume, requires voters to become discerning consumers of information. It’s time for voters to set the agenda by looking beyond the sound bites and targeted campaigns.
If information is power, and we believe it is, voters should be fulfilling their responsibilities by becoming informed.
Editorial: 50317/1014/OPINION
