THE PRESS SHOULD BE A WATCHDOG

---

The press has often been called the “Fourth Estate” because it is expected to serve as an independent watchdog over the three branches of government. That description fits—just not here in Jackson County.

Here, our newspapers appear far too comfortable with the politicians they are supposed to scrutinize. Instead of holding power accountable, they too often act like an extension of the political establishment.

Some might describe that as the newspapers “sleeping with the politicians.” I am not making a literal accusation. I am describing a relationship that appears far too close and comfortable to produce the aggressive, independent scrutiny this county needs.

That is why I object when our newspapers find room on the front page for favorable political coverage but fail to give equal attention to consequential votes, missing money, absent audits and government decisions that could affect citizens for years.

A newspaper should not print every allegation as an established fact. It should investigate credible warnings, question everyone involved, examine the records and report what it discovers.

The First Amendment protects the press because an independent press is supposed to act as a watchdog over government—not as its public-relations department.

Linda Isaacs repeatedly told me that I am not one of “our people.” In one limited sense, she may be correct.

If being one of “your people” requires protecting friendships instead of demanding records, accepting the party line without reading legislation or treating election victories as permission to avoid accountability, then I am not one of that group.

I personally warned Shane Gabbard and Paul Hays about omnibus spending bills Hal Rogers supported that continued federal funding streams from which Planned Parenthood benefited. Rogers can cast a highly visible vote against Planned Parenthood when everyone is watching, but then support a massive omnibus package containing funding most voters will never discover because almost nobody reads the entire bill.

In my judgment, that is how politicians protect their public image: they cast the visible vote people expect while voting differently when the inconvenient provisions are buried inside thousands of pages.

I would vote no in both circumstances—when the issue is presented openly and the vote is politically popular, and when the same funding is concealed inside a massive spending package that few legislators or citizens will ever examine.

Paul Hays told me that he attended church every Sunday. But church attendance is not a substitute for reading legislation, confronting uncomfortable facts or holding politicians accountable.

I am not claiming to be morally better than anyone. I am saying that faith should sharpen our conscience—not provide political cover. Going to church every Sunday does not erase a politician’s votes during the week.

If belonging to “your people” means overlooking those votes because a politician carries the correct party label, holds a large Bible or sits in the right church pew, then Linda is correct: I am not part of that group.

Benjamin Franklin’s warning has never been clearer to me. When asked what form of government the Constitutional Convention had created, he reportedly answered, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

I understand those words now more than at any other time in my life. Keeping a republic is not passive. It requires citizens to read legislation, question government, examine political money and defend constitutional limits—even when doing so makes their friends, political party or community uncomfortable.

A republic is not usually lost in one dramatic moment. It is surrendered piece by piece whenever citizens stop reading the bills, excuse hidden provisions, accept government surveillance because they trust today’s officials, or attack the person asking questions instead of demanding answers from the person exercising power.

When political friendships matter more than constitutional principles, when church attendance is treated as a substitute for examining votes, and when party loyalty becomes more important than the truth, we are failing Franklin’s test.

I am questioning these officials because I want us to keep the republic the Founders entrusted to us. I will not remain silent merely to remain inside someone’s political or social circle.

Public money belongs to all of us. Constitutional rights belong to all of us. Elected officials represent all of us—including the citizens who question them.

I am not claiming that campaign contributions prove Congressman Rogers ordered Representative Tim Truett’s vote. I am saying that the contributions establish a documented financial connection deserving investigation—especially when Representative Truett originally benefited from a party structure closely associated with Rogers’ political influence.

Representative Truett can resolve these suspicions by answering the questions and disclosing the relevant communications.

Representative Truett, if you respond again by changing the subject or speaking to me as though I am incapable of understanding the legislation, I will write Part V. Answer the questions directly and respectfully.

Everyone reading this should understand something about me by now: I do not pander for votes, and I am not conducting a popularity contest. I want honest, truthful and accountable government. If demanding that costs me votes, so be it.

Follow the legislation.

Follow the votes.

Follow the money.

Follow the political relationships.

Then follow the communications.

That is how suspicion is either disproved or replaced with documented facts.

Jackson County deserves answers from its elected officials and newspapers willing to report those answers.

That is my Part IV. 🌶️