Is Kansas represented by a cowardly lion?

Control the message. In an age of anti-social media and nattering network nabobs, it’s the mantra of cowardly politicians, self-serving bureaucrats, and shameless corporate bootlickers.

Requests for interviews are answered by prefabricated statements, carefully crafted to skirt issues and cover them with platitudinous sloganeering. Supposedly public forums are craftily choreographed to ensure that only desirable questions dance their way to whoever is answering them.

We at the newspaper were notified Monday that a prominent elected official would be in the county this week. We can’t tell you who or when or where. The notice said it was for planning purposes only, not for sharing or disseminating to the public.

It told us the town and the time but not specifically the venue where the event would take place. Only if you are among the selected few invited and only after you RSVP to the invitation would you learn the location.

Naturally, we RSVP’d. Any opportunity to ask questions of any prominent official is something any journalist worthy of the name will jump at. Of course, now that I’m writing this, it probably will be our last opportunity with this particular official.

We understand reluctance to encounter unfettered questioning, especially among officials with radicalized, extremist views. They would much rather make pronouncements from the relative safety of cocooned anti-social media or the studios of pandering so-called news networks on cable TV. Actually letting the general public talk might expose them to embarrassment — not the desired outcome for what’s apparently supposed to nothing more than a photo op,

But, come on, folks. This is supposed to be a democracy, where every voice — particularly contrary ones — has an opportunity to be heard. If you can’t take the heat of someone disagreeing with you, stay out of the political kitchen. Don’t insist that every time you step into public the event be as staged as some 1930s fuehrer rally designed by Albert Speer.

Controlling the message lets people speak only to very small core constituencies. It doesn’t result in open exchanges that might lead to compromise or progress. It just reinforces hot-button issues that dangerously divide our democracy and worse yet can create an atmosphere conducive to cronyism in doling out government largess.

Most of all, it’s downright cowardly. If you’re so afraid of different ideas that you actively seek to block their expression, what does that say about the degree of confidence you have in your own ideas?

Democracy flourishes in the sunshine of openness, including willingness to let contrary views be expressed. What’s wrong with our democracy today is that the only things growing are funguses, feeding in darkness off decay and spoiling what otherwise could be the fruits of open dialogue.

Dennis Miller said it best at the end of one of his rants years ago. Of course, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

I’ll probably hear exactly how wrong I am from people writing letters to the editor or reacting to this editorial online. The point is, I and other journalists are willing to risk criticism when we say something. Why anyone too cowardly to do the same deserves our respect or support is beyond me.

— ERIC MEYER