To the Editor:

The new movie, "The Post," represents an important part of our history about the role our media has played in the past. I hope many young people take the opportunity to see the movie. The Post and New York Times took big risks to make sure the public was informed about what our political leaders had done to mislead us. The truth seemed more important than the way the papers had been obtained. It was a time when we trusted our media. So what has changed?

When another “outlet” published such exposing documents last year about how the DNC and Clinton campaign had conspired to thwart Bernie Sanders’ run for the presidency, the reaction to Wikileaks was a little different. That one has been couched in terms of a crime (which it was) and was (and still is), being portrayed by some politicians and the media as a sitting president colluding with foreigners to interfere in our election. When did the media start defining the truth as interference? What’s the difference between what Wiki did and what the Post did 50 years ago? I don’t think there’s any difference but they sure aren’t being treated the same and the public (at least those of us old enough to remember when) sees that. Hopefully, if the younger generation sees the movie, they’ll finally start asking that question too. What’s changed and why?

Alfred E. 'Sonny' Sanders

Marion

1
0
0
0
0

Load comments