DEMOCRACY NOW! : BEYOND RETICENCE
Jul 22 2004
(formerly entitled)
THE RETICENCE OF DEMOCRACY NOW!
An Editorial
Clifford E Carnicom
Nov 26 2003
Additional Note on Jul 22, 2004:
This page has now been added to the public record of Official Responses.
Additional Note on Jun 25, 2004:
Numerous additional contact efforts by a variety of independent sources have been made to Ms. Amy Goodman since this editorial was written. They include calls, correspondence, emails and media contacts to the administrative staff of Democracy Now!, KPFK, or to Ms. Goodman directly. No public response from Amy Goodman or from Democracy Now! is known to have occurred from these requests. Citizens are asked to extend this appeal to Democracy Now! and to Ms. Amy Goodman on behalf of the public interest. CEC
Certain news and media organizations, by virtue of their reputation and public service, have assumed a prominent role in investigating the critical issues of our times. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), for example, is accepted by many to provide impartial investigative journalism that has served the public interest well for decades. There are few news organizations that can now rightfully make the claim toward fullfilling journalistic integrity, and many of these have now been branded as the “alternative” media. This so-called “alternative media” now exists as the core of responsible journalism in this country.
One other journalistic service that is known to seek disclosure on critical issues is that of Democracy Now!, with Ms. Amy Goodman as the spearhead journalist.
Democracy Now! (with a personal direct appeal to Ms. Goodman), has been contacted on three occasions during the past few months by two independent parties with a request to investigate the aerosol issue. No response of any kind has followed these appeals. No rationale for refusal of coverage on the aerosol issue has been relayed. No evaluation of the seriousness of the issue has been offered. In short, there is to date, no response.
Democracy Now! certainly maintains the rights and privileges of editorial purview, and these limits are respected. It will be of benefit to the public, however, if Democracy Now! will offer their assessment of the appropriateness of coverage on the aerosol issue. The emphasis upon political subjects within the broadcast of Democracy Now! may be an unknown factor in the reticence that has been exhibited. A thoughtful examination of the aerosol issue, however, will reveal implications that extend far beyond any boundaries of environmental effect alone.
My hope remains that the aerosol issue will be investigated in suitable depth by the staff of this organization, and that appropriate disclosure and discussion on behalf of the public shall occur. In due order, the response (or lack of response) by Democracy Now! will be added to the record. Readers may wish to review a partial list of this history on the page entitled Official Responses.
There remains the hope that the few remaining true journalists will respond with legitimate questions when prompted with a significant body of evidence to support the investigation and coverage of an issue.
Clifford E Carnicom
Nov 26 2003
