The Post-Star Censors Me, Then Tells Me Why ;-)

----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Tingley
To: mattfuniciello@earthlink.net
Sent: 2/12/2009 9:27:30 AM
Subject:

Mr. Funicello,
I swore I would never email you again, but I will take one more shot. When you write insulting things about me and the newspaper that are patently not true, I will not allow it on my blog. That is my call. You repeatedly talk of some corporate conspiracy against third-part candidate - which is ridiculous - it is hard to take you seriously. The reality is that we make decisions each day over where to spend our resources and what the most important stories are. You may not agree with those calls because you believe third-party candidates are a big issue. It is a subjective decision.We constantly editorialize about change and for you to say we are for the status quo is pretty big leap. I also find it insulting for you to comment on Maury's blog that we will not let Maury do certain stories on third-party candidates. which is also not true. Maury makes his own calls on what stories he does and does not do as do all our reporters. When you stop making accusations that are not true, then I will consider posting them on my blog.

Ken Tingley
Editor
The Post-Star



** MY RESPONSE **

Ken,

I appreciate that you have broken your silence (however briefly) where I am concerned. I accept that many of your readers do not see independent or third party candidates as "big news". I think that, if we're honest, much of what is printed in the paper on any given day is of little interest to the average reader. Its really circular logic, anyway. How do we know people aren't interested in real candidates and instead are interested in daily anecdotes about the blank slates who are just waiting for their corporate donors to fill in the blanks?

Its like a bad song. If you play the Tedisco/Murphy "song" every day on your "radio", I may well find myself humming along whether I am engaged by that song or not. This is how mainstream media influences the American voter and helps retain the status quo. It is low-level brainwashing. Its pervasive and makes most people hesitant to have an independent thought. Its really important that you understand I don't see poorly made choices in media as a corporate conspiracy. I see them as a result of mainstream media CULTURE. It is well-established, long-term patterns of behavior and decision-making that reflect almost no curiosity about anything outside of the box or the mainstream. Historically, substantive change is almost always instigated by those who think "outside the box".

The problem I have with your paper is the total lack of response when your readership shows interest. As evidenced by activity on your forum, we were all quite interested in third party and independent candidates during this past election and we wwrree given excuse after excuse about why there was almost no coverage at all. We were told repeatedly that our candidates don't deserve it or haven't earned it ... etcetera. Why? because a bunch of rich power brokers in a room somewhere else didn't appoint our candidates, they are somehow less important or less credible than rich corporate lawyers who have been chosen for us? You had far greater activity and debate on your forum during the past presidential campaign whenever mention was made of Ron Paul or Ralph Nader than when you reprinted tired old AP stories about Obama and McCain. Thats because most truly engaged political activists are opposed to the mainstream and we are a larger group (independents and 3rd party and non-voters) than the two parties are in this county. We are starving for a media that will cover everyone "comparably" (to use Mahoney's own term) and
comparable does not mean a blog entry or two when the balance is 20 stories prominently printed in the actual paper.

I am used to this. It is the norm for the media not to cover my candidates. It is the norm for the media to not include them in debates. It is the norm for the media to marginalize and/or ridicule my candidates and my issues (ones that actually matter to real people). It is the norm for those journalists with conscience to make feeble excuses that never hold water about why they behave in a biased manner. Those of us who fight so hard for political change are very tired of the media's tacit support of the status quo (and I do believe, regardless of your intent, that this is exactly the result of only covering the corporate candidates). I understand fully that, as a newspaper editor, like most American citizens, you have probably never worked on a municipal or state or national campaign and have no idea how terribly biased the whole process is and how undemocratic it has become. That, in itself, should be your paper's job. To uncover the bias and the tyranny evident in this two-party system. All Americans of good conscience can't help but be outraged when they get involved and find out how terribly corrupt the "democratic" process has become. Will you spend your entire career doing nothing to change that or will you alter course and become an engaged citizen/editor? Will you attack this corruption with a similar zeal to that which you apply to teen drinking?

Being shut out of the media is one of the principle reasons why it is so difficult for real human beings to run for office and most papers don't ever cover these battles. I wish that instead of seeing me as your enemy, we could return to a gentler period of time when I was quite civil to you all and was merely asking questions about bias and the selection processes that kept the Post-Star from being the best paper it could be. Failing that, I want you to know that I appreciate the dialogue, however brief it may be.

Peace,
Matt