Not limited by party lines
Re: Miller letter, The Press, Aug. 21
It is the responsibility of every citizen to vote for the candidates, regardless of party, that are the least virulent. If that requires a change of party registration then that is the responsible action; this is not unethical, as Miller states, but the most ethical and responsible action possible. Party loyalty is fine when it is warranted but should not be the guiding principle when voting; thoughtful consideration of position and philosophy of the candidate is what matters.
When deciding which candidates to support, it is necessary to obtain as much reliable information as possible regarding each candidate. This is hard to do when candidate’s ads are paid for by dark money from sources that are unknown and may not state the facts accurately. When the GOP resists undocumented sources of money it will be easier to believe what they say.
There is no denial that we all need to get out and vote. To vote effectively and in the best interests of Wyoming and the nation, it is important that we vote based on reliable information about issues and candidates, not on party loyalty. Since I first voted in 1960 I have been registered at various times as an Independent, Democrat or Republican. But I have always voted.
Roger D. Haight
A lot to unpack
Re: Coordinated editorials
The editorial board of The Sheridan Press added its publication to the coordinated cacophony of some 300 newspapers nationwide by simultaneously editorializing “on the dangers of the assault on the press.” They joined the media herd being categorized by the president as “the enemy of the people,” following up on this nonsense by publishing a childish cartoon on Aug. 18 showing the president hugging Putin and Kim Jong Un while shouting to a reporter “you’re the enemy of the people”
The SP claims that they wanted to praise “the employees of news organizations around the world helping to inform and engage citizens of a global community.” Where were all these people in 2013 when the Obama administration’s DOJ seized the cell and home phone records of more than 100 AP reporters — a move that even the NY Times admitted appeared to be an “effort to frighten off whistle-blowers.” And where were they when Obama’s feds tracked Fox News correspondent James Rosen’s email logs and pried into his parents’ phone records? Where was their collective outrage when the Obama Administration used the Espionage Act to hunt down whistleblowers who had allegedly leaked to journalists. I don’t recall any media outrage at any of these excesses.
Consider the current media uproar against a backdrop of Gallup polls showing public trust in the media at its lowest point since 1972. Last month a new Gallup survey found that American adults found bias in 62 percent of the news reported to them and considered 44 percent of such reports to be inaccurate (with 33 percent being factually inaccurate).
The media’s well-orchestrated assertions of Trump’s “assaults” on the press are belied by the fact that their coverage of Trump and his administration has been 91% negative. The Center for Public Integrity reports that media Democrats outnumber Republicans four to one, and 96% of their political contributions in 2016 went to Clinton.
While, as if often the case, Trump’s choice of words is unfortunate, he nonetheless has a valid point. Undeniably inimical to a constitutional republic is a media cabal which distorts reality, omits germane facts from so-called “news” reporting, concocts ideological narratives (e.g. the Russian collusion hoax), and shields their allies (e.g. Hillary Clinton) from what should be rigorous, objective scrutiny. It is these tactics that many Americans find hostile to a free and open society.
Methinks the media protest a bit too loudly.