Reviewing the bidding with one week to go

Keeping in mind Bill Britt's 2011 editorial Responsibilities of the Press, let's see how folks have been doing

I have been making charges in my campaign for three months. My exact choice of words has changed over the three months, but not the substance.

My current choice of words is "something is fundamentally wrong with Congress, which critically needs the attention of the American people and Congress."

The other six candidates have adamantly refused to discuss my charges.

It seems it should be fairly simple for the other candidates to say  "there is nothing fundamentally wrong with Congress that either the candidates or the voters in Alabama 6th Congressional district should give any consideration to in this election," or "there may be something wrong, but other of the nation's problems are much more pressing, and it is inadvisable to distract ourselves with discussion about what is wrong with Congress," or something else which would not be hard for a candidate to come up with to say. (If a candidate picks the second choice, I would have some follow up questions.)

Senators Sessions and Shelby and Representative Bachus have declined to say anything about my charges.

In the media, I don't know of anything that anyone in the media has said, except that Dale Jackson has said Congress is "broke," and this is because  "the electoral process lends itself to the stupidest people being played to, and that has failed us, money or not, and they will always pander to the rubes." See Dale Jackson says. My impression is that Dale's view is there is no way for the American people to fix the "broke" Congress, so let's move on to discuss other things.

Not only has the media not said anything about my charges, to my knowledge no one in the media has asked any of the other candidates to comment on my charges.

Now, let's turn to Bill Britt's editorial. The second paragraph says:

We believe the surest way to guarantee good government is to have a fully and accurately informed citizenry. The purpose of the news organization is to produce honest and accurate reporting that informs, educates, alerts and calls citizens, lawmakers and business leaders to action to insure the people of Alabama are represented by the best government possible.

Concerning the subject of "good government," I think it is fair to say that the substance of what the other six candidates have said is pathetic. If those in the media disagree, they ought to find a way to say so to the voters.

I have put forth extended discussion of my diagnosis of why there is something fundamentally wrong with Congress.

I have put to the Birmingham, Alabama, and U.S. Chambers of Commerce two specific ideas for their consideration that could create "better government" and asked the Chambers what they think. See Request to U.S., Alabama and Birmingham Chambers of Commerce.

This foregoing has all received nada from the media (to my knowledge).

Now, return to Bill Britt's editorial, which says this:

Everyday writers, as well as, editors are faced with decisions as to what is newsworthy, what is in the public interest. While news organizations should strive to make these choices based on wisdom and understanding many are made arbitrarily based on time to complete a story, physical space within the paper and, yes, sometimes, whim or malevolence.

However, when it comes to public trust we all need to take a serious and measured view of what is reported and how it is reported. As an editor, I labor under a great personal weight every time a story concerns matters of public trust.

Now, as to "what is newsworthy," I am at about 1% in the polls, and the media could thereby conclude that nothing coming out of my mouth is newsworthy.

In that regard, I would like to raise this question: Under Bill Britt's "Responsibilities of the Press," should it be a factor if some candidates have large campaign budgets for communicating their messages to the voters, and another candidate has no campaign funding and is extremely limited in getting his message to the voters? Should the media be very circumspect in making its determination about how much the candidate without campaign funding has to offer to the voters about the goal of "good government," and, if someone in the media thinks a great deal is offered for the consideration of the voters, the media, under its "educating" and "alerting" functions, needs to devote special attention to make sure its "educating" and "alerting" are carried out?