Dear Editor,

We are making history! It is doubtful that any of our names will be in the history books, but our decisions will be. Therefore, it is important to make the right decisions.

How do we do that? Traditionally, we would first, define the issue or problem. Then, gather related information or facts from several reliable sources. Next, we evaluate the information best suited to the issue and make the decision accordingly.

Sounds easy doesn’t it? However, in today’s environment it is almost impossible to distinguish facts from opinions.

We have “freedom of the press,” but the framers of the Constitution never imagined 24/7 news channels and social media. Under the old system, a journalist gained trust by questioning people and issues to get to the truth. Now, we have an overabundance of journalists creating fierce competition to get big ratings for their networks that will lead to big salaries.

Their editors or mentors encourage them to look for “juicy” stories even if they have to tweak a few facts. There are numerous examples of that “tweaking.” None greater than the 16 year old Nick Sandmann at a Pro Life March. By airing only a piece of video, the main-street media made it look like Sandmann was the aggressor. He was wearing a MAGA hat so he had to be the bad guy, right? Thankfully, another video told the whole truth and CNN and others are paying millions in settlements for their lying.

Where the media has done an absolutely outstanding job is digging up hate for Donald Trump. Once they got the electorate emotionally invested, they could say any outrageous thing about Trump and it would be believed.

How then, can you tell who is a reliable source?

¯ Do your own research! Read and watch the briefings and events in real time. Then you know exactly what was said and in what context. If you only see snippets of these happenings, media can “cherry pick” what they want you to see.

¯ If all the channels say the same thing about a topic using the same verbiage, it is most likely a shared opinion and or a lie. Have you noticed that they all use the exact same adjectives & phrasing in their narrative? For example, “existential” treat to democracy, or climate change is the “existential” threat of this generation. When is the last time you used “existential” in a sentence? I traced that one back to Nancy Pelosi, as the original user in her “Hate Trump” series.

¯ If it is an outrageous sounding smear, it is probably a fabrication. This is an admitted strategy outlined by Pelosi in a video that I have archived to support this premise. Harry Reed used this strategy when he said, “I heard that Mitt Romney hasn’t paid any taxes for 10 years.” Unsubstantiated smear repeated again and again makes it sound like a fact. Romney proved it be untrue, but the uninformed electorate believed it! During an interview after he left the Senate, Reed was asked if he regretted his claim. To which he replied, “He (Romney) didn’t get elected did he?” That makes it right?

Our decisions must be based on truth. As responsible voters, we must check the accuracy of the information that we are fed. I had an entirely different letter ready to hit the “send” button. I fact checked everything, but something made me double check one source.

Another source differed with my premise and I couldn’t disprove it, at least not yet. So, I didn’t submit it. Repeating all of the hate talking points may act as an emotional release like the valve on a pressure cooker, but it contributes nothing to our country’s well being.

Joanne Oviatt,

Pittsfield