Melvin B. Miller
Editor & Publisher

“… Pants on fire”

In a hotly contested political race, the candidates are inclined to embellish their resumes. The voters expect that they will have to endure some exaggerations. However, in order to make rational decisions in the voting booth, the voters have to believe that representations made by the candidates are essentially true.

The press has a major role to play in order for the democratic process to work effectively. When a candidate chooses to feed the public lies, it is up to the media to publicize the truth. It ought not be the responsibility of the other politicians to become embroiled in a battle over the veracity of the offending candidate. That would give the appearance of “going negative.”

Hillary Clinton’s blatantly false story about ducking from sniper fire in Bosnia was clearly refuted by the press. After insisting for some time that the story was true, Clinton acknowledged the error when a video of her and her daughter safely on the tarmac in Tuzla, Bosnia ran on television. Clinton’s excuse was that she “misspoke.”

The audacity of Clinton’s story should cause the press to inquire about the truth of other statements. For example, in a Jan. 13, 2008, interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Clinton asserted that she had the experience to be president because she was a close confidante of her husband on every major issue. Then host Tim Russert asked her if she was involved in the pardon of Marc Rich, “someone who had been convicted of tax evasion, fraud and making illegal oil deals with Iran.”

Clinton answered, “No, I didn’t know anything about that.”

Russert later said, “Your two brothers proposed people for pardons and were paid money. One brother, you asked to give the money back.”

Clinton quickly averred, “That’s right. That’s right.”

Russert then asked, “Were you aware your brothers were involved?” To which Clinton answered, “No, I was not.”

Who can believe that President Bill Clinton’s brothers-in-law submitted names for pardons and he never mentioned it to his wife? There is no videotape to prove that her answer was false, but common sense tells the voter all that’s necessary to know.

Sen. Clinton’s mendacity and guile should be a matter of great concern to the voter. Does she really believe that her proposals have any chance of success in Congress? Some senators seem to believe that her compulsory health insurance proposal is dead on arrival.

Never before has the press faced a greater challenge. The blogosphere and YouTube have the capacity to disseminate widely a falsehood in the blink of an eye, and people have the tendency to believe stories they see on television or on their computers. Just think of the shelf life of the rumor that Barack Obama is a Muslim.

The only way the press can counter the enormous technological capacity for the communication of falsehoods is to hold candidates to a higher standard of veracity. Candidates should know that the press will publicize extensively their propensity to lie.

In this campaign, Hillary Clinton has not been held to that high standard.

“Man, she will say just about
anything to get elected.”