Atlanta Journal Constitution Editors: I Expected More
The electronic voting machine story on the front page of today’s Atlanta Journal Constitution speaks in part to the power of the peoples voices on the Internet.
The article itself says:
Computer experts at respected universities have sounded the alarm over the potential for high-tech chicanery. Grass-roots activists, leaders of alternative political parties and others have stoked the flames, mostly via the Web.
I was hoping this six-column-top-of-the-front-page spread would be the definitive story. In fact, I made a prediction on the Atlanta Journal Constitution Op-Ed pages that this paper or another major paper like the New York Times would write the definitive investigative story.
However, todays almost two-page long story was not it. It was more of a he said, she said story. It is a compilation of what anyone following the story has already known.
In this age of so much information, the major newspapers’ role must be to step above the fray and do the definitive investigative story that sheds new light on the back and forth accusations.
Who else can we trust to do this investigation? The government? Hardly. Scientists? Maybe, but even they are not in agreement.
My guess is given that the Atlanta Journal Constitution has waited so long to write even this story that its top editors think the voting machines are secure. But those pesky scientists, grass-roots activists, leaders of alternative political parties and others will not let the issue go away. They keep stoking the flames.
Of course, the unruly masses on the Internet force lots of issues into the public arena that the news organizations deem unworthy of deep investigations. After all, even the big papers and broadcast organizations have only so many resources to cover important stories.
For example, did President Bush go AWOL more than 30 years ago. Or did Monica Lewinsky’s dress have a spot on it? Or did Janet Jackson….well you get the idea.
That was a low blow, but my point is major news organizations have plenty of power and resources. They must decide if they are going to use that power and those resources to do trivial peeping stories or to investigate major questions that trouble a lot of thoughtful people.
I would argue that in this age where we all have our own printing presses at our fingertips, like I do here, the one advantage that major papers, like the Atlanta Journal Constitution, have is their prestige built on solid impartial news gathering and deep investigative power that should translate into reputations for integrity. If they don’t build on that reputation every time they can, then that prestige will fade and they will become irrelevant. Which would be a shame because where else can I turn when a story like the voting machine one leaves me searching for real answers.
I want definitive proof, or at least I want the Atlanta Journal Constitution or the New York Times to give their best effort at providing that definitive proof. Neither has done so yet. However, I still am predicting they will because those reputable scientists and pesky grass-roots activists, leaders of alternative political parties and others (include me in the others category) will not leave it alone.
