A common computer adage is “garbage-in, garbage-out”; i.e. putting bad data in a computer produces bad information. This same rule applies to humans. It doesn’t matter if people are educated, intelligent, and logical. They will make bad choices if fed bad information. This happens frequently in American elections because voters are misled by a continual flow of disinformation. Ask any American which country provides the world’s best health care. Very few can provide an informed guess, yet most will exclaim that the United States has the best health care system. This is far from the truth, yet years of corporate advertising, corporate sponsored news programs, and speeches from corporate sponsored politicians have spread this disinformation. Even educated elderly people will parrot the line that socialized medicine doesn’t work, although they eagerly use the government’s Medicare program.

A frequent example occurs when seemingly intelligent Americans state that the media is "left-wing," as though CBS and CNN are run by hippies living in a flophouse.

The American media is owned and controlled by billionaires, who have many other corporate interests. They have little concern for working Americans. This should be obvious, yet these billionaires hire television and radio commentators to complain the media is "left-wing." It is in their interest to keep viewers ignorant and distracted by threats, like terrorists and liberals. American writer H. L. Mencken recognized this decades ago when he wrote: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."[1]

This problem worsened as the American news media no longer attempts to report facts that disturb viewers in order to boost their ratings. Fox News leads the way by hiring young models to deliver happy news or titillating stories about missing children. Walter Cronkite often notes that there are no anchormen anymore, just news readers. Those attractive faces on television do not write or even edit news stories like he did. They read teleprompter news written by people who are part of network entertainment divisions. News is designed to entertain Americans, not to inform them of things they may find unpleasant. Important topics like a failing health care system, declining incomes and poor education are replaced with emotional and largely unimportant topics like gun control, homosexual marriage and flag burning.

Comedian and popular talk show host Jon Stewart clarified this last year while interviewing a CNN reporter. Polls showed that young Americans voted his show as their best source of news. The CNN reporter asked Stewart if it bothered him that many people mistook his show for a newscast. Stewart replied that it did not since they don’t pretend to be a news show. He then asked: “Does it bother you that some viewers mistake CNN for a news network?”

Most “news” Americans see or read is “fluff” consisting of sports, weather, crime, celebrity follies, and hidden advertisements. Many years ago, major advertisers learned the value of promoting products under the guise of an impartial news story. They now demand news stories about their products as part of contracts for traditional advertising. This is most evident in reporting about the excitement of a major movie release. No one has seen the movie and it is obviously not news, yet this hype helps ensure its success. This can also be seen in “news reports” whenever a new i-Pod or Xbox model is about to hit stores. Reporters don’t like this deceptive type of advertising, but they have no choice since they are assigned stories to cover.

As over a billion dollars are spent on political campaigns this year, one must assume that networks are pressured to avoid negative news about candidates, lest they lose advertising sponsors. For example, two important stories about Senator John McCain receive almost no coverage. No one disputes the fact that as a married 42-year old Navy officer, John McCain pursued an affair with a 24-year old millionaire heiress. He then divorced his wife, who had been crippled in an automobile accident, and quickly remarried. His children refused to attend the wedding, as well as many of his friends.[2] One can debate the importance of this story, but there is no debate since the major media chose to ignore it.

Another story is that McCain insists he is in excellent health at age 72, despite old injuries sustained when his aircraft was shot down in Vietnam and subsequent poor treatment as a POW. However, McCain received $58,358 last year tax-free from his veteran’s 100% disability pension.[3] This is addition to his military retirement pay, senator pay, and social security payments. McCain is multi-millionaire who talks about the need for federal fiscal responsibility, yet he collects four government checks each month.

An inquisitive reporter might ask how McCain served as a Navy officer for eight years after his POW release when he was “disabled.” He passed an intensive flight physical in order to regain pilot status, and reached the 20-year mark needed to receive a Navy retirement check. After retirement, he claimed he was 100% disabled to collect a second pension. McCain went on to serve in the U.S. Senate for many years and now claims to be totally fit to serve as Commander-in-Chief. If he wins, he will collect a fifth monthly federal government check as President, while his Senate pay transforms into a retirement check. McCain may become a “quintuple dipper,” collecting five monthly government checks as a multi-millionaire who needs none of them. Americans would be interested in a debate about a federal system that can pay four government pension checks each month to a full-time government employee earning $400,000 a year as President.

Some may claim that as a former POW, McCain is a war hero who deserves that money, yet he didn’t heroically volunteer to become a POW.  Moreover, disability payments of 100% are for veterans unable to work because of service-related injuries. McCain is one of thousands of fully disabled veterans working full-time, yet these are horribly disfigured or confined to wheelchairs. “Fully disabled” John McCain only complains about shoulder pain, which he asserts does not disqualify him as a future Commander-in-Chief. One can debate the ethics involved and McCain’s physical fitness to serve as President, but only if the public is presented with these facts. If corporate news departments were truly competing for ratings, they would address this interesting issue rather than air hours of daily coverage of each candidate’s insignificant travels and boring canned speeches.

These topics will not appear in the presidential debates. The debates had been organized by the League of Women’s Voters (LWV) for many years; however, they angered the two major party political machines by occasionally including third-party candidates, and sometimes asking tough questions. The LWV stepped aside in 1987 in protest of the major party candidates attempt to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates and issued a dramatic press release:

“The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.”[4]

The Democratic and Republican parties established a new group to coordinate the debates, yet they appoint its members, and candidate teams meet in advance to establish the parameters of debate. McCain’s team will demand there be no mention of McCain’s womanizing or 100% disability. Obama’s team may have a few personal topics they want banned. Neither will discuss the power of lobbyists or important topics like outrageous military spending.

(Part II: Indefensible Spending forthcoming)