Just the Truth

by Gen LaGreca

  Hit pieces began appearing in the news about Reed and his company. They quoted disgruntled former employees, anti-business groups, and anonymous sources. Nothing could be proved, but the media repeated the stories without verification. Reed was a monster to work for, the stories charged. He cheated his stockholders. He failed to pay his taxes. He paid his employees a pittance while he amassed a fortune. Reed was a menace to society. Reed was the fresh meat thrown to the clawed media and fanged politicians who hungered for their next prey.

  Reed had dismissed them the way a thoroughbred with finish lines and wreaths of roses awaiting him would outrun those trying to catch him—until the lawsuit. The Bureau of Fair Trade sought to break up his company, claiming it was a monopoly that stifled its competition, which the government considered to be a crime.

  "Customers choose me over my competitors," Reed had complained to Laura. "Is that what the people who don't accomplish anything can't stand? The success of others?"

  Worst of all, Reed Miller's news division took positions unflattering to those in power. Reed had charged that this was the real reason behind the Bureau's action against him.

  "It's our right at Miller Communications not only to report factually on news stories and events but to give our viewpoint of them," Reed had said in a televised appearance. "It's called free speech."

  An advisor to President Martin who was facing off with Reed had answered, "The good of society is served by a diversity of viewpoints in the public forum."

  "Why should I have to provide them?" Reed replied.

  "A duty to serve the public interest supersedes any right to free speech that a monopolistic businessman thinks he has, especially when that businessman is making huge profits and having an untoward influence on society," Martin's advisor retorted.

  "In other words, I'm effective. I'm persuasive. The picture I paint of those in power ain't pretty, so that's why they've got their pitchforks out for me," Reed responded.

  The media had stoked the controversy, many of them giddy over the widespread attention and boosted ratings that Reed's problems brought to their work.

  The lawsuit was like a hailstorm pelting the sunny grounds of Reed's world. He became introspective and melancholy. Defending himself was expensive, time-consuming, and stress-inducing. It drained his zeal for life that had so appealed to Laura. Through her show, she defended him fiercely, and he needed her more urgently than ever. Their passion for each other grew. Then came the day when Reed gave up the fight, the day he dropped her key on the table and closed the door behind him, leaving her blindsided with the suddenness of his retreat.

  As she sat alone in the conference room after the meeting with her family, she realized that now the pressure was on her to give up. Her family demanded it. In contrast to what she had believed were the unfair charges the government lodged against Reed, her family, now, had legitimate claims against her. She had an obligation to the other members of the family business. She was causing them actual harm. Her crusade was a detriment to their interests, she reasoned. She felt a nerve throbbing at her temple. What should she do?

  She gathered her things and left the conference room.

  Later, as she sat in her office planning the evening's episode of Just the Truth, her thoughts lingered on the man she could not shake.

  For what we once shared, Reed. For what we were, and what I still am . . .

  As Laura waited for her show to begin, an assistant wiped the perspiration across her hairline and powdered over the shine on her nose. Then the assistant dashed off the set. The signal came from the control room. She was on the air.

  "Good evening and welcome to Just the Truth. I'm Laura Taninger. Tonight, we continue to examine the tactics used by shady governments to suppress their critics and to examine whether the Martin administration is guilty of using them. The subject of my Daily Memo tonight is: Tools of Silence: Selective Use of Rules and Regulations to Target Political Enemies.

  "Under the guise of public safety, governments enact an enormous number of rules to regulate businesses. Because they claim that these rules are essential to protect the public, hardly anyone has the temerity to object to them, unless he or she wants to be villainized by the government and its media supporters as being against public safety." She smiled wryly.

  "What happens when reams of these rules are on the books, and there's no way to enforce all of them all the time? Enforcement becomes selective. Enforcement becomes a tool used by unscrupulous governments to crush political opponents. Would the Martin administration employ such a tool to suppress its critics? The answer is yes.

  "The Martin administration recently showed its strong-arm inclinations in a matter involving football. Would anyone think it's fair if a football team were at the one-yard line, about to score, and someone suddenly moved the goal posts farther away, killing any chance of a touchdown? What happens when it's the government that cheats, and there's no one to call them out because the cheater is also the referee?

  "The parent organization of Taninger News also owns the DC Slammers football team. The Slammers didn't expect the government to be its most dangerous opponent, an adversary that doesn't have to play by the rules, but instead can move the goal posts whenever it feels like it, leaving the Slammers no way to score.

  "The agency involved here is the Federal Bureau of Building Safety, which just discovered a regulation on the books that for years had gone unenforced. It's an obscure rule hidden within hundreds of pages of a law having to do with requirements for stadiums.

  "Just days before the opening of the Slammers' new stadium, the seats, which had passed all prior inspections, suddenly were unacceptable to the regulators at the Federal Bureau of Building Safety. It seems that too much of a controlled resource—energy—was expended in manufacturing the stadium's seats, and too little of another controlled resource—recycled plastic—was used. The remedy the agency requires is to have all the seats ripped out and replaced, which means substantially more energy and plastic will be expended in the process. With a remedy that requires more use of the objected to practices and materials, we have to ask: Are these bureaucrats serious? Or is there another motive involved in the action against the Slammers?

  "Can anyone tell me there's no connection between the reporting I've done at Taninger News of suspicious goings on at the Bureau of Elections and the flak over our sister company's stadium seats? Are we not supposed to connect the dots between a regulation against a football stadium and freedom of the press? With the Feds coming down hard on the Slammers for a rule that up to now has been unenforced, I believe they're retaliating in an attempt to silence Just the Truth.

  "With the enormous power that today's government has over business, what's a company to do? Can business owners today afford to be free thinkers anymore? Is the government trying to regulate our stadiums, or our minds?"

  Chapter 12

  Guests in formal dress filled a parlor of the People's Manor. Servers weaving through the crowd with silver trays offered cocktails and hors d'oeuvres. The pinkish light of an approaching September sunset streamed in through the casement windows. Antique drapery, crystal chandeliers, and colonial sideboards completed the elegant setting of a cocktail party hosted by President Martin and his wife.

  Although he was properly dressed in a tuxedo, the Fox looked out of place. He held a wine glass and stood on the margin of the room, observing rather than mingling. Perhaps it was the sunglasses, which he wore indoors, or the faint look of contempt on his face that invited no conversation and kept others at bay.

  He saw Ken Martin, Darcy Egan, and Zack Walker scattered around the room. Martin smiled as he worked the crowd, taking no cocktail or hors d'oeuvres, keeping himself ready for handshakes and pats on the back. Like a tulip without a stem, Darcy looked plump and legless in her floor-length pink gown. Zack managed to look disheveled, even in a tuxedo. His pants, a bit too long, drooped. His bowtie, a bit too loose, tilted. He looked around, then spotted the man he was expec
ting: the Fox.

  Zack approached Ken Martin and took him aside. The Fox observed Zack whispering in the presidential ear and discreetly tilting his head in his direction. Martin looked at the tech guru. The Fox raised his wine glass in greeting. The president did not return the gesture, but instead looked away.

  Zack filtered through the room, taking his time to approach the Fox casually. "Wearing your sunglasses indoors? Did you expect to find skylights on the ceiling?"

  "Why, no. I didn't expect that much transparency."

  "Take them off, dude. You might call attention to yourself. Besides, it's disrespectful to the office of the president."

  "Is it now? And what you, Velvet, and Silk are doing isn't disrespectful to the office of the president?"

  Zack waited, but the glasses remained on.

  "I'll escort you over. He'll have a few words with you. Then you'll leave. Got that?"

  The Fox nodded.

  The men walked to President Martin. No introductions were made, only a wary nod from Martin, which was returned by a grin from the Fox.

  "In two days it'll be fall, Mr. President," said the Fox.

  "That's right," replied Martin.

  "I'd say there's a chill in the air," the Fox continued. "Wouldn't you?"

  "I would," Martin said, trying to hide his perturbation.

  "Time to get out the Topcoat?" asked the Fox.

  There was a pause. The president seemed surprised at the bluntness. Then, he replied, "Yes, it's time."

  "That should protect you from the changing winds and storm clouds."

  "That's the idea," said Martin.

  "So, you're all in on that?" the Fox persisted.

  "I am." The president bowed his head to take leave and walked away.

  Chapter 13

  Kate Taninger sat at her desk in the office of the Collier Voice. Except for the modern computers and printers, the old office with its scuffed desks and dented file cabinets had hardly changed since Clark Taninger's tenure as editor-in-chief of the Voice a generation ago.

  The window in Kate's work area overlooked the campus of Collier University and the streets and buildings of Washington, DC, surrounding it. Like its host city, the campus dated back to early America, but in recent times, it resembled an eclectic painting struggling to find its theme. A neo-classical library with Corinthian columns that resembled the Pantheon stood next to a modern student center, the facade of which included purple-trimmed beams supporting a wall of glass. A bronze statue of a Revolutionary War hero on horseback stood in a campus garden alongside a steel sculpture of what appeared to be construction girders fastened with iron screws. Some said this stylistic variety symbolized the university's diversity, while others said it reflected a trend toward disintegration and confusion. The dean liked to say that at Collier University all architectural and artistic styles were welcome—as were all viewpoints. Or were they? The third Taninger to head the Collier Voice, after Clark and Laura, would soon test that.

  As Kate read an editorial published in the Collier Dispatch, the campus newspaper that competed with hers, the youthful sparkle that defined her—the eager face with the ready grin and lively eyes—vanished, replaced by a disillusioned frown and wary half-closed eyes. Kate suddenly looked older, her idealism wounded.

  The Collier Dispatch titled its editorial, "Elites Don't Want You to Vote."

  Laura Taninger's attacks on President Martin's SafeVote system are not so much about the voting program as they are about her bias against minorities, the poor, and other disadvantaged groups that the new law protects. Ms. Taninger comes from a family of wealth and privilege, so it's not surprising that she's against universal suffrage, wanting to keep the franchise restricted to her own class. Laura Taninger has a commitment to the welfare of only the top few.

  What would Ms. Taninger know about a young mother who is struggling with screaming kids and no hot water in her tenement apartment, who loses the identification card that her state requires for her to vote, or misplaces her proof of citizenship, or forgets when Election Day is, or hasn't managed to sign up to vote, or can't read the ballot because her state refuses to publish it in her native language? What is this poor mother to do when state laws ignore her needs and put impediments in the way of her voting? What is this mother to do when she lives in a state that, in virtue of its requirements, denies her the right to vote? What does Ms. Taninger know about these grievances, hardships, and inequalities?

  The disadvantaged deserve every chance, every reminder, every helping hand to get them to vote. Federal control of the process will remove discriminatory state-imposed obstacles and ensure that all people who choose to vote get to the ballot box and are counted. That's why we support President's Martin's new SafeVote program—and why we call out bigots like Laura Taninger.

  Kate's face reddened with anger as she read the article. As soon as she finished reading, she turned to her computer and began to compose her next Editor's Column, a feature of the Collier Voice. It would be a rebuttal to "Elites Don't Want You to Vote." She titled it, "Bureaucrats Don't Want You to Know."

  Does truth matter? Do facts matter? Does transparency in government matter? My sister, Laura Taninger, thinks so. Taninger News has always thought so. "Find the truth wherever it hides" was my grandfather's motto when he founded the newspaper that bears his name. There's a long tradition at Taninger News of holding the government accountable to the citizens. We believe that a free press protects all of our freedoms by exposing the wrongdoing of elected officials and putting a stop to corruption and unchecked power. My sister's news show, Just the Truth, and her investigative reporting proudly continue this tradition.

  With its hit piece on Laura, "Elites Don't Want You to Vote," the Collier Dispatch is protecting a bureaucracy that hasn't been forthcoming with relevant facts. The Dispatch skirts any attempt to argue the substance of the actual issue but instead stoops to making malicious, false personal attacks on the messenger who's bringing you bad news about your government.

  The Dispatch accuses Laura of being biased against minorities and the poor and against universal suffrage. Has anyone asked the Dispatch for evidence to back up its harsh claims? Has the Dispatch cited even one statement from any of Laura's broadcasts that lends credence to its smears? The Dispatch apparently didn't need any basis for its ugly accusations. It just tries to destroy people like Laura whose ideas it disagrees with, without ever trying to debate the substance of the issue. If Laura were guilty of all that the Dispatch claims, she wouldn't work so hard to protect our rights, including our right to transparency in our elections.

  Let's interject some facts, so we're not left with only the Dispatch's smear campaign. Here's the issue: The federal government is undertaking a complete overhaul of our election system. It's centralizing control of it. This represents a huge departure from the Constitution's intent that voting be controlled by the individual states. Court challenges have failed to stop the Feds, so we're going to have this new voting system, like it or not. At the very least, the federal government should be completely above board in exercising its newfound power, which starts with designing our nation's new voting system.

  Laura Taninger has petitioned documents to see how the money is being spent in developing the new SafeVote system. But the Bureau of Elections has not been forthcoming. Why is this agency evading full disclosure? What is it hiding? The Bureau of Elections can simply release the requested documents as required by law. If all is in order, this would be the end of the matter. The public has a right to know how government agencies are spending its money—especially when it comes to transforming our election system. Everyone should thank Laura Taninger for her efforts to pull back the curtain on a powerful agency that is tasked with such an important assignment.

  And let us not forget that James Spenser, the assistant director of the Bureau of Elections, was killed just moments before he was about to reveal something he believed was suspicious about the new program. The police have yet t
o identify a suspect in his murder.

  Is it important to answer the legitimate concerns about SafeVote and to get justice for James Spenser? Or is it more important to protect the president and his party, which the Dispatch has long supported? Will partisanship at the Dispatch close its mind to the pursuit of truth—and close our minds, as well?

  The skies were clear and there was little wind that late September day when Kate's column appeared in the print and online editions of the Voice. It was a perfect day for the outdoor activity Kate had planned. Walking along the campus in early morning, she carried a poster under her arm and wheeled a suitcase filled with reprints of her commentary. She headed to a display table in an area reserved for students who wanted to promote their causes. She had reserved this table to distribute her opinion piece and explain the issue to students. Her poster displayed a blown-up photo of President Martin with Sandra Frank, the director of the Bureau of Elections, and below it the message, "Stop Withholding Documents. Come Clean about SafeVote."

  The staff of the Voice supported Kate's position and wanted to help, but Kate was hesitant to involve them. Because the matter involved her sister, it was in part personal, and there might be repercussions from students who promoted opposing views, some of whom could get . . . nasty. Thus, Kate published her rebuttal as a personal reflection in her weekly Editor's Column and alone manned the display table.

  Soon after she set up her table, the first group of curious students arrived. They stopped to read her material and speak to her. They nodded thoughtfully and were receptive to her arguments. The young editor's optimism grew. Surely, she could persuade her classmates to see the logic of her position.