A healthy dose of skepticism

The power of the pen is mighty. The power of the airwaves might be even mightier. Indeed, there is a reason that the founding fathers felt the right to free speech was so important. When columns are written (well, maybe not this column) and when words are uttered on CNN, people listen.\nBut those who have public forums also have a responsibility to be fair, accurate and truthful. Certainly, the government does not mandate what you say, but you are not likely to see the IDS or MSNBC give a voice to someone with a history of lying.\nWhy? Several reasons. The one that appeals to me is that when people go on TV, they are influencing viewers' opinions. If I lie to you, you now have false information on which you might base false conclusions. In short, I see it as an issue of responsibility. If you are going to take the time to read these 600 words, I, at the very least, have the responsibility to be truthful and fair.\nYou won't find many books or TV shows that contain blatant lies. But recently I have been troubled by columnists and commentators who misuse their forums to make misleading and unfair claims. \nCase and point is conservative author and columnist Ann Coulter. Coulter recently has come out with a book, "Treason," devoted to telling us why liberals hate America. \nI have read portions of Coulter's book and have seen her frequently on television. I don't know what went on in her childhood, but she is filled with rage. She directs all this rage at, as she says, "liberals." Liberal: spooky word, isn't it? In "Treason," Coulter says things like, "Liberals have a preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason" and "Everyone says liberals love America, too. No, they don't."\nWhat is wrong with such statements is that they group people together in vague ways (care to tell me what makes a liberal?) and say that not only are peoples' actions bad, but their motives are bad, too. \nAs conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan puts it, Coulter has "an hysterical hatred of (her) political opponents and an ability to say anything to advance (her) causes." Sullivan's point speaks volumes about the willingness of some public figures to lie in order to hurt the reputation (and impede upon the political success) of others.\nIt is important to note, though, that Sullivan was not applying that comment to only Ann Coulter. He also applied it to liberal commentator Michael Moore. Moore, who has called George W. Bush the "thief-in-chief" is guilty of many of the charges levied against Coulter. \nThe difference for me is that I agree with many of Michael Moore's political views. However, that fact causes me anguish when I see him make unintelligent and blanket criticisms. It hurts me because I know there is a way that a strong, factual and convincing case can be made against, for example, Bush's policies. But, it's not necessary to impugn Bush's motives to do so.\nPeople like Coulter and, to a lesser degree, Moore, who would bend the facts and make personal attacks just to further their own views, are abusing the public trust. Just as I have a responsibility to be as accurate and fair as possible, so do those who have multi-million dollar book deals.\nWe certainly should not limit anyone's ability to voice opinions. But when you hear outlandish statements like "Liberals (or conservatives) hate America," a healthy dose of skepticism might be good to have.