One more thing. The role of civility is key. Instead of shrill voices
constantly barraging us reference how the "other guy" is horrendously
evil and/or hopelessly inept, we need to re-install the concept of "loyal
opposition" - that we can disagree with folks on key issues yet still
acknowledge their intelligence, good intent, and their ability to be loyal
Americans just as we perceive ourselves to be.
Since good citizenship requires correct information, this may be a good time to
evaluate the credibility of our media sources. There were a few who reported
early on that the administration was lying about Benghazi, and they turned out
to be right. Other news organizations were incurious, or have even been helping
with the cover-up. We get to decide who deserves our attention in the future. If
we keep on paying money for a lousy product, that's what we'll end up
Excellent article! Should be mandatory reading in every news room, school and
government office in America. Is there any question that America is going in the
wrong direction? Peter Drucker said, "Management is doing things right but
leadership is doing the right things". Obama is neither a leader or a
manager and these scandal eruptions and this article delineating the effects
prove it. Next question; can we survive 3 more years?
Mr Sanders,The people who came together into what is loosely described as
the tea party actually followed the four steps you expound (to some success I
note, particularly in the 2010 elections). As a GM at Deseret Digital, you might
find it useful to review how the Deseret News portrayed these tea party minded
citizens, practicing what you preach, from 2010 through the 2012 elections -
particularly during the Utah 2012 primaries. Did you extol them for practicing
good citizenship? Review the coverage, you might get an inkling of why 60% of
people don't trust the media.
The imploding trust of which you speak is exacerbated by, but not caused by
these 'scandals'. This editorial was not written after watergate, for
example, because back then people didn't feel the need to scream at
government for the sake of screaming. These days, we've become too lazy and
short sighted to really allow ourselves thoughtful discourse on government, and
too greedy to let someone else have something without branding it an
entitlement. We sit and bemoan our lot as if these are foundation shaking events
and how can we survive the next three years, etc? We'll do just fine.
It's too bad people will spend so much time yelling about it.
@ Hutterite. You might try living in Cuba. I hear people there are less
"greedy". But on the other hand if you yell at the government and demand
it be accountable, they come and take you away.
The Graph "confidence in public institutions" has incorrect information.
The "average" at the end simply states the "Republican"
responses and not the average of the Republican and Democrat lines. It would be
nice if this could be fixed to give more accurate information.
Distrust, blah blah. Americans have always distrusted their institutions, and
rightly so. Mark Twain said, "America has no native criminal class, except
Congress." And that was 150 years ago.
The history of American distrust of government started only 20 years ago?
Pontius Pilate asked the question, "what is truth?" Jesus was killed
for telling people the truth. Everybody understands 'political
correctness' but in reality it is a euphemism for not telling the truth.
The media values 'freedom of speech', but aren't willing to state
obvious self-evident truths, such as was written in our Declaration of
Independence over 200 years ago. Deseret News has readers who don't
understand the constitution, don't believe in God, believe that Socialism
or communism are superior to Capitalism, support war, promote confiscatory
taxation, demean work, disdain charity, abort babies, and a host of other ills.
How can you educate them through the media? You do it by stating the truth and
not elevating fraudulent arguments as if it is meaningful discussion! If you
want to be trusted, don't be afraid to stand for something. Just standing
for 'freedom of speech' is quite meaningless if we don't have
those in the media who understand the difference between 'freedom of
speech' and someone's right to yell 'fire' in a crowded
theatre. One informs, the other causes fear and panic. Deseret news, inform!
The strength of America’s institutions is not in imperfect individuals who
occupy government office by the will of the people. They come and go as do
detractors and pundits.Imploding trust is neither an accurate or
helpful term in understanding public moods that are more the product of partisan
sentiments than deeper wisdom. America has weathered many such disconcerting
phases that call for cooler heads to prevail. They always seem rise to the
surface just when the shouting is at its loudest.
Implied in some of these comments is the notion that one side (or political
persuasion) has a monopoly on truth. This is ludicrous! We can cherry pick until
the cows come home all the lies, scandals and imperfections found on both
sides… this proves nothing other than we are all flawed creatures.What I find most troubling in our current political environment is how
partisans are so easily credulous and willing to give a pass to those on
“their side” and yet turn-on-a-dime into Sherlock Holmes on
judgmental steroids towards those perceived to be not on their side.A healthy skepticism combined with balance and perspective seems to be in
short supply these days, and that may turn out in the long run to be far more
corrosive than any one scandal.@Twin Lights – well said!
Well said, Tyler D.
Matthew, With one glaring exception, a good article. My business
focuses on trust, so I very much share your concern and interest ni the
subject.The exception: You join the country in condemning the press
– but you are contributing to the problem! Here's what I mean. The AP issue is Big. The IRS issue is NOT. The IRS is charged BY LAW
with deciding whether applicants for 501(c)4 organizations are legitimately
tax-exempt. They are supposed to be for "social welfare," and NOT
political, b/c they can make contributions without naming donors. Hence
they're the perfect way to evade campaign finance limits. Immediately after the Citizens United decision, applications for 501(c)4
status jumped. It so happens that the increase in applications was predominantly
from the right, not the left. It is the IRS's job to ensure that the
designation is valid. Certainly the IRS should not have blindly
targeted anyone, but the sin is much more akin to profiling by cops than what
you suggest. You make it sound like J.Edgar Hoover pulling tax returns for
heightened scrutiny. That, I suggest, is irresponsible journalism
– they very thing you claim to decry. I call foul.
News Flash to liberals and their lap dog media!!! There never was ANY trust in
the this administration from the jump!! Conservatives had this cat figured from
the day he took office and we haven't been wrong. Barack is as corrupt a
man as has ever lived in the White House and it really illustrates his core
political style - the Chicago style - which is do ANYTHING to get elected and do
ANYTHING to pass your legislation and just assume your lying tail will be
covered by your buddies in the media. This arrogant man has become - I think -
reckless and doesn't think he can ever get caught but his luck is running
out. Barack has been used to his silly spin stories to carry the day but Jay
Carney is finding it impossible to run the spin machine with so many irons in
the fire. Nixon was a saint compared to Obama.
I've always been very skeptical of Presidents and usually have found my
skecpticism justified. In my lifetime just about every one has let the country
down at some point in their administration. I may be wrong, but my gut tells me
that some of the posters would be much more critical of this President if he
were a Republican. Republican or Democrat, Obamas record should be seen for
what it is. Namely, medicore at best and damaging to the country at worst.
On June 26, 2011, Lois G. Lerner, Director, Exempt Organizations for the I.R.S.
gave the Barack H Obama Foundation tax exempt status retroactive to April 30,
2008. The "Applicant" was "Roy" Obama, Barack H. Obama's
half-brother. The PDF of that letter is easily found on-line using
DLN (Document Locator Number) 17053152367041.Was it legal to give
tax exempt status retroactively? Was it ethical to give special treatment (less
than thirty-days) to "Roy"?Did "Roy" answer the same
questions asked of conservative groups seeking tax exempt status? Has the
Barack H Obama Foundation been audited by the I.R.S. to show that it complies
100% with the rules and regulations of a 501(c)?Would President
Obama like to explain exactly how his half-brother got such an exemption?Would explain why we should believe a word that he says about "not
Poorly written piece.Sanders states Obama "excused" the IRS
Director, and then in the following sentence says, "The justice department
sought to excuse its brazen, secret gathering." Actually, Obama asked for
the resignation of the IRS Director, but the juxtaposition of the sentences is
confusing. Sanders repeats the false talking points that the
Administration specifically blamed a video for the Benghazi attack, yet they did
not. They blamed the video for the uprising in Cairo and the CIA and others
believed the Cairo uprisings inspired/prompted a spontaneous attack in
Benghazi.There is little truth being reported in DN anymore. Much
of it is mere regurgitation of conservative blather.
@Wastintime -couldn't agree more. It is so frustrating the constant
regurgitation of talking points... very loosely based on facts. It wasn't
until decades after Bay of Pigs and Watergate when documents were declassified
that we came to a better understanding of the truth. We still have very little
on Iran-Contra or the WMD snafus.... we will have to wait until time has passed
enough for those documents to declassify.At this point, anything and
everything is conjecture. I applaud the quest for full disclosure on these...
but because of security reasons answer may be long in coming. What we no about
Libya is part of the attack was on a CIA compound. This being the case, there
is no way we will have the full story there without disclosing the mission there
of that CIA facility. That simply isn't going to happen.So
until that point.... opinions will vary wildly, much based off of half facts and
in some cases totally politically driven rhetoric. The fact that half this
government spends the majority its time trying to discredit the president rather
than the peoples business is most frustrating.A budget would be
@mountainman....."Obama is neither a leader or a manager and these scandal
eruptions and this article delineating the effects prove it. Next question; can
we survive 3 more years?"Did you even look at the charts? Did
you happen to notice when public trust went from trending positive to a negative
free fall? I am guessing by your statements, you completely blow that data off
and only read what you waned to see. take another look... and I know you will
not like when trust was at it highest.We have a huge trust issue in
both our public and private institutions. It used to be that you put in your
years with your company, and the company in turn took care of you. That
contract has been broken for the most point... loyalty is gone.The
encouraging things though is trust in religious leadership is almost the same
regardless of political leanings, and positive."