|
Here's what I wrote: To whom it may concern: I was watching today's MTP, and I noticed a biased assumption that bothered me greatly. Here's the transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: But he stays on through the end of the year?
MS. WRIGHT: I think he stays on through the end of the year. I think it's always been the case he was a one-term secretary of state. It's a tough job. He didn't particularly want it in the first place. I don't think he's going to go because of Iraq, but I think he'll be glad to get out because of Iraq.
This is an election year. As of right now, the race between President Bush and Senator Kerry is a very close one. In fact, Kerry is leading in many of the polls. With the present situation in Iraq, the scandal of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, questions concerning what the administration did or did not know prior to 9/11, and various other inconsistencies in what this administration has told the Congress, the UN, and the American people, I feel it is very irresponsible journalism for a national news program to pose a question which assumes a Bush reelection. The question which immediately sprang to my mind was, "Do they know something I don't know?" With the dubious means Bush used to position himself in the White House in 2000, I am aware that this election many not be decided by the people. The purging of voter registration rolls by Jeb Bush has once again begun in Florida. The Diebold voting systems adopted across the country make manual recounts nearly an impossibility. I just have to wonder when I see members of the press discussing a second Bush administration as if it is already a done deal. We say we are in Iraq to bring democracy to the Iraqi people, but with statements that ignore that this is an election year, I have to stop and ask myself, if what we really need is to be bringing democracy back to America?
|