We Need "The Rest Of The Story" Media & FEC Deny Us

527's may be necessary for Americans to actually hear about campaign issues.

Broadcasting & Cable reports:

From January-May 2007, only 10% of the 2008-presidential-campaign stories on the network evening newscasts were about issues, while 86% were about the horse race, strategy aspects or personal issues on the candidates like health, marriage and religion.

That’s according to the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy.

Democrat election law advisor Bob Bauer today discusses the tenuous line of reasoning used by critics of 527 organizations’ role in campaigns, “Worrying about 527s, on the Eve of ‘08”:

The [FEC: Federal Elections Commission] standard as written wanders in this direction and the other, noting that context can be considered but only to a "limited" extent; and that it is really a question of how "reasonable minds" would take in a statement that is "unmistakable, unambiguous and suggestive of only one meaning"—when "taken as a whole." And this is a legal test? It’s quite the mouthful, and the parts lack internal consistency: how is it that a statement can be "unmistakable and unambiguous" but also, at the same time, simply "suggestive." And yet a statement subject to this standard must be all three: "unmistakable, unambiguous and suggestive."

Yet, the 527’s are raising campaign issues, something the major media neglects:

Many of these groups will not have ties to one political party or the other. Its founders or members or donors will have been excited by one or the other issue in the campaign—yes, issues in the campaign—and they will want to speak as freely as possibly, expressing their point with the least amount of regulatory engagement with the federal government. Some will find themselves on the First Amendment protected side of the line, reporting their activity as 527s but not having to operate under the thumb of the campaign finance laws, and others will not.

Sure, either stridency or shading facts or disagreement with 527’s views may be distasteful to some, either wonkish purists or advocate opponents. But, so are the candidates’ official or election law sanctioned organizations presenting packaged pablum or distortions.

It’s not for the government to decide who should have free speech or what they should say. And the major media certainly aren’t serving the public’s need to know about issues. It’s for the American citizenry to decide what to hear and ponder. Along with that right is the need for citizens to promptly know who paid for the 527 ads, to consider the source. As Bauer says, “This seems like the best place to start, with improved disclosure: it stands a chance of success, unlike the more extensive regulatory controls…”

There’s, also, much more in the study about the heavy tilt in positive reporting about Democrats compared to negative reporting about Republicans. The Broadcasting & Cable link above has some further info, as does USA Today’s blog, and Newsbusters.

The tilt is similar to the 2004 election:

The Project for Excellence in Journalism has drawn similar conclusions about the media's political coverage in the past. In October 2004 it had this to say:
In the closing weeks of the 2004 presidential race, the period dominated by the debates, President George W. Bush has suffered strikingly more negative press coverage than challenger John Kerry. ...

Again, should we have to rely upon the major media to tell us what it wants us to hear, or do we have the need and right to hear the “rest of the story”?