Friday, October 17, 2008

Your News, Filtered

[Legislative Ethics] The House Ethics Committee today dismissed all six counts of bribery-related allegations against Rep. Greg Hughes, R-Draper, but bitch-slapped him in writing for his sloppy conduct.

More news on the vote to come. Meanwhile, go here for a story behind the story.

Meanwhile, the real loser in the process was you, the taxpaying constituent/voter.

Why? Because no one in the media could get inside the super-secret, closed hearings to actually cover, first-hand, the story. Reporters had to take what crumbs they could get during the seven days of testimony based on witnesses' and attorneys' spins on the action inside the meeting room.

That's bad for democracy. It's up to you on Nov. 4 whether you'll elect a Legislature that cares about doing your business in the open. (Holly Mullen)


  1. Closed hearings "bad for democracy"? That depends.

    Closed hearings are bad only when we can trust those who report what's going on. But, sadly, accuracy in the media seldom happens these days, especially when political matters are the subject. And that is what is bad for democracy.

    We all lose with today's journalism. Consequently, we're better off keeping the hearings closed.

  2. News is always "filtered", Holly. You're unhappy because you want to be the one who does the filtering.

  3. Wow. So basically Thomas is saying he would rather have his head in the sand than have a reporter tell him anything and Irvin likes his news cooked Fox well done. Any wonder why EVERY state is going to vote for Obama this November?

  4. Who are all these new voter's that have come out of the woodwork? (even in Orem OMG!) The Shhhh! just may backfire here......... Are people tired enough of this shhh? Let's hope so! How about what happened in Sevier County with the people taking action... and getting the community's feelings on the ballot! Hope this trend keeps up! VOTE THEM OUT.

  5. You first two posters are frightening. You would rather have a couple of lawyers who represented the "accused" in this case and a bunch of lobbyists who testified come out of the closed meetings, spin their impressions of what happened inside for the news media and have that reported for you to digest.

    Do you still let your mother chew up your food for you first, or blow on your hot soup before you dare to eat it?

    Better off keeping the hearings closed?

    Wow. You might be better off living in say, Zimbabwe.

  6. To unbelievable: I think it's a yearning to return to the territory of "Deseret" sickness. And yes mommy did blow on the soup, and still does for daddy...

  7. I'm sorry my comment frightened you. Let me put it less darkly.

    When reported through the "filter" of today's journalist, political news is nothing more than unreliable information. It comes to us as biased and without the critical facts necessary to help us understand. Consequently, we are best served by leaving hearings such as these to the judgement of elected representatives who are ultimately answerable to us at the ballot box.

    At least that way we know we are in the dark, but also know that someone who is answerable to us is handling the matter for us; which is clearly preferable to thinking we know what's happening when, in fact, we don't because the storyteller lacks sufficient honesty and integrity to merit our trust and is not answerable to us for his or her mistakes.

  8. Open the hearings up and you can have your choice of which flavor of "unbiased" reporting best suits your palate. Better to have them exposed to the public they're supposed to represent. Blind faith in anything only leaves you blind.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.