Well, I couldn't put it off any longer. For the past few months both the Democrats and the Republicans have been carpet-bombing us with TV and radio ads. So it makes sense for me to conjure up some observations about the media and the 2004 Elections.

Over at the GRIID cave we have been monitoring the local news for years now and have published multiple reports on local TV & newspaper coverage of elections. This year we decided to spice things up a bit and provide a weekly run-down of local election coverage, paid ads, and provide some regular analysis of that coverage. To follow along just go to our website and click on Election Watch 2004.

First, you can read a summary of how much reporting has been going on in the GR Press and channel's 8, 13 & 17. We also track paid political ads and so far there is consistently more paid ads during any given newscast than election stories. Not surprising since for years TV and radio stations have found paid political ads to be a cash cow. Even WOOD TV 8 station manager admitted recently that "If they (Presidential candidates) keep up this spending week to week, it will be a slugfest, a real dogfight, and the ad buys will continue to increase. Of course it's great. It's a windfall of revenues." (GR Press, May 2) That little statement sort of underscores the real function of TV news departments....MAKE $$$$$$, and lots of it.

Next, click on the little Monopoly game looking dude holding the bag and there you'll find a bunch of TV ads that we have taken apart and put through the shit detector. The law now requires that candidates have to say they approve the ads as part of the ad. I'll bet they are cringing every time they here themselves say "I'm so and so, and I approve this message." Yikes!

Then there are icons of both a newspaper and TV where we provide a reprinting of select stories from each week, with some analysis and links to websites for verification of their claims or to contest the mostly horse-race coverage we have been monitoring. Spending 45 seconds in a TV story explaining to me what the bus comes equipped with that Bush or Kerry is touring around in just doesn't qualify for making me an informed voter. Maybe the reporters are just targeting the RV owner crowd. One thing that I like about the GR Press analysis is that we include the sections of the AP or LA Times stories that the Press omitted. Interestingly enough, these happen to be sections with the most meat on the bones, as my grandmother would say.

If the GRIID fixins aren't enough for you, we have links to all other kinds of efforts surrounding the media and the 2004 Elections. For sites that do what we do on a national scale go to www.factcheck.org or www.campaigndesk.org. Both these sites are updated daily with teams of people making sure that the news stories and political ads aren't just messin' with us. Then there's the Alliance for Better Campaigns, which is trying to improve the amount and quality of election coverage. They are calling for 5 minutes of every newscast to be devoted to election matters. My favorites are www.opensecrets.org and www.publicintegrity.org, both of which follow the money during campaigns. Chuck Lewis, the pres of the Center for Public Integrity released earlier this year his latest book The Buying of the President 2004. It's filled with facts and stories about how money drives this single passenger H2 style voting process in America we call democracy. One person, one vote my ass. Rich people like Dick DeVos and his daughter Betsy, I don't make enough $, DeVos have just a bit more clout than you and I with elected officials when they give $200,000 dollars and we give $20. Even the great "philanthropist" Fred Meijer let it slip recently in the GR Press when he said "Campaign contributions get people to listen to our point of view. If we're not there, legislators could come up with a solution that's harmful to what we do." (GR Press, May 2)

Yes it's true you are detecting a bit of angst in these words, but that?s just because I wish that the folks that run the country would for once be honest about how this system of "democracy" works. I was reading the US Federal Criminal Code the other day (yep, I've got too much time on my hands) and it says "Whoever directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to a public official, with intent to influence any official act...." is guilty of BRIBERY and can spend up to 15 years in prison. Well, here's one occasion where I think prison construction might be justified.

So the system is not perfect and the cards are stacked against us. Does this mean that we shouldn't vote. Not at all. We need to see voting as a tactic in a larger strategy of social change. Voting isn't everything, but it can be a useful tool. I recently read a fun book called How to Get Stupid White Men Out of Office: the anti-politics, un-boring guide to Power. It's a lovely anthology of stories about people making a difference with voting at the local level all over the US. It's written by mostly under 30 folk who don't subscribe to the old-school notion of voting that the Dems and Reps employ. They have fresh and fun ideas about political activism that are sorely needed. They have formed a nationwide group called the League of Pissed Off Voters and are touring the US trying to make a difference in swing states. Their web page is www.indyvoter.org.

Jeff Smith works at the GR Institute for Information Democracy here in Grand Rapids. You can contact him at jsmith@grcmc.org if you are looking for gardening tips.