FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 5, 2000
BUCHANAN DECRIES WASHINGTON POST
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VIENNA, VA - Today Reform Presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan
sent the following letter to Leonard Downie Jr. and Donald Graham,
respectively executive editor and publisher of the Washington Post.
--------
June 5, 2000
Mr. Leonard Downie
Executive Editor
Washington Post
Dear Mr. Downie:
Sunday morning, your newspaper ran on page A7 one of the few stories
that you have carried on my campaign for the Reform Party nomination.
"Buchanan is Meeting Resistance in California," blared the headline, over
the dramatic subhead: "State Reform Party May Break Away." It was a
legitimate and important story about a dissident scheme to derail our
campaign.
So important was it, your reporter-pundit David Broder rushed to his post
on the highly-rated Sunday NBC show, Meet the Press, to gush about
the devastating blow about to fall:
Well, Nader is doing much better...he is running well ahead of Pat
Buchanan in the polls....The other interesting thing with Buchanan is that
he is now for the first time running into real resistance from some
elements in the Reform Party....The California Reform Party is on the
verge of rejecting the Buchanan candidacy. I think our friend Mr.
Buchanan may have some problems within his own party.
Sunday afternoon, however, the Buchanan forces, joined by Reform
allies, rolled back and routed the threat. On Monday, the New York
Times and Washington Times gave extensive coverage to our victory.
The Post, which had trumpeted the threat, ignored our triumph. Not one
word.
Now, this is not another complaint about the anti-Buchanan animus of
the Post. That is not news. This is rather a request that you review the
inherent conflict-of-interest your newspaper, given its bias, has in the
2000 presidential race. Consider:
The Washington Post owns and operates one of the key polls that is
charged with measuring whether our campaign has reached the 15%
threshold for participation in the presidential debates. The Post is also
one of the media companies that will determine whether our campaign is
fully and fairly covered - the only way we have a chance to reach 15%.
In brief, the media companies that control the polls - NBC, CBS, CNN,
Washington Post, etc. - also control our TV and press coverage, the
decisive factor in whether we reach 15%.
To sum up: you have the power to fix the election of 2000; our fate is in
the hands of our Big Media adversaries. You are standing on our
windpipe, Mr. Downie.
Now, this is a lesser problem for Governor Bush. His party stands to
take in $250 million in "soft money" from the corporate buyers of public
policy; and his campaign will get $65 million in federal funds. He will
have the cash to compensate for media bias. But this situation does
represent one hellish problem for us, as our campaign will get only $12.5
million; and I do not take "soft money."
So, we are, to an extraordinary degree, dependent on fair and
comprehensive coverage by Big Media institutions that also own and
operate the polls that will determine if we get that critical 15%.
That, Mr. Downie, is why I am bringing up the transparently one-sided
coverage of that California battle. You may guffaw at the suggestion,
but, to us, a hostile press is the greatest impediment we face to getting
in the debates, which is the only opportunity we will have to get our case
before the American people.
In conclusion, I hope you will reflect on the inherent conflict of interest in
your newspaper's operating one of the polls that will determine whether
we get in the debates, and your newspaper also deciding whether we get
the coverage required to reach the poll threshold. The conflict is as
obvious as is the conflict in having the Commission on Presidential
Debates itself controlled by partisan Democrats and Republicans, with
no Reform Party representation.
In Mexico, all six candidates took part in the first presidential debate.
And whenever U.S. and UN observers go abroad to monitor elections, a
lack of media coverage for challengers is considered a cause for
decertifying that election. Should not the United States try to live up to
election standards that it insists be met in Tadjikistan, Bosnia, and
Peru?
Thank you for considering our concerns,
Patrick J. Buchanan
-------- 30 --------
|
