To the Editor:
While I am concerned about the monopolization of media, I don鈥檛 believe it has the power to singularly shape government policy, and counter to Tom Schuck鈥檚 assertions last week, I would argue the networks actually helped Donald Trump to be elected.
Early in the campaign, the antics of this shiny new thing did much to boost network ratings. They did not hold him to enough account, didn鈥檛 ask the hard questions, didn鈥檛 challenge his outrageous comments and claims, and provide corresponding evidence to the contrary.
Only when they realized the clown show was for real did they start to do their job and started to challenge his words.
Mr. Schuck also claims the media and others were naive to take Trump鈥檚 words literally. Well, I did, and apparently that was not so naive.
In his first week, the president has indeed called for the wall to be built, refugees deported and Muslims banned, executive orders signed with no grasp of their greater consequences. I wish I had been wrong to take him literally, but why would I not?
Democracy is a fragile thing. And that鈥檚 because its existence is based almost entirely on words: our constitutions, charters, laws, even anthems. Oaths of office and citizenship are sworn, hand on Bible, with the assumption that those taking them believe what they are saying. Democracy hangs together only if we have confidence in the truth and good intention of words spoking during and after political campaigns.
Our courts and parliaments function because we have faith in words, their power upheld by adherence to the principles of freedom of speech, the press and assembly.
Trump was true to his word, every single tweet a display of frightening disregard for context or history or, in many cases, common decency, simple messages that arouse fear and hate instead of actual dialogue.
We don鈥檛 need dissertations, but citizens certainly deserve more than 149 characters explaining economic issues and the complexity of policies around immigration and security.
We risk a great deal by not expecting the words of our leaders to be measured and truthful. We risk a great deal by being too cynical or lazy to care.
And finally, to use words like 鈥渕arginalized鈥� and 鈥渄iscriminated against鈥� in reference to North American Christians is to misuse those words.
Laws that grant rights shaped to reflect current culture may not jive with what some Christians believe about abortion or birth control or how marriage is defined.
But only when Christian churches are fire-bombed and graffiti-sprayed, or young white men are shot for simply walking down the street in a hoodie, or a straight person is beaten up for hanging out with their preferred sexual partner in a public place, or when white men are routinely passed over for jobs because of the colour of their skin, the accent in their voice, or because they are not women, well then you can talk to me about marginalization and discrimination.
Words matter.
Anne Lazurko, Weyburn
