Media freeze out of candidates like Edwards, Paul and Kucinich

[kitty44]

The media non-coverage of certain candidates is well documented. See the Rall article (link below) shows that they are even blatant about it.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12368

In effect, if the media decides not to cover a candidate - which they HAVE in this election cycle - the candidate does not stand a chance.

I know there are watchdogs for the media - FAIR and Media Matters, for example.

We know these groups are watching the media and calling them out to people that are willing to listen.

My question is - what can be done about this problem? What the media is doing is not against the law - but it IS criminal.

Does anyone have any answers to solve this dismal situation??

[Blarch]

1. wait.

the media also froze out Huckabee ...but the people voted for him in Iowa.

It's the people who vote, not the media.

Tell me again how the media chose Huckabee...

[kitty44]

2. Let's look at Edwards coverage, shall we?

Shortly after placing second in Iowa, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that John Edwards received a puny seven percent of national media coverage. Clinton and Obama got between four and five times more; their poll numbers were nowhere close to that much higher than Edwards'.

Please - can you explain THAT?

Please don't tell me that Clinton and Obama's "fight about race" just sells more newspapers.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. I agree with you. Bill Moyers had a very interesting piece on the media.....

... how the media uses our airways for free without having to pay the same royalties to us that other companies do for using our land, how the media instead of giving back by making the air time for candidates FREE so there's no inequality, the media @-holes CEOs are pocketing BILLIONS in candidate money buying air time.

Moyers even mentioned the fact that in debates, they always have a media personality @-hole to "moderate" and make it more like a spectacle than a true, real debate.

Also, WHY is the media allowed to shut out people like Kucinich?? I agree with Kucinich on some things and not on others, but there's no F reason why the media should be ALLOWED to shut him out of a debate.

The airways are OURS, not theirs.

This has got to stop. I swear it has to.

[kitty44]

4. Exactly! Does anyone have any solutions?

Since our elected officials depend on the media to get elected, it seems they are more likely to bow to them than listen to us.

no?

[patrice]

7. Dump Cable TV.

Probably drive the cost of your inernet connection up, but so be it. It would be worth it to choke those fuckers a even little bit.

Have I done this? No. :( I have an invalid in the house, who can no longer read and cable news, boxing, and formula 1 racing are all of the world he has anymore.

So I guess I'm not really proposing a solution if I can't follow it myself, but it is something all of us should consider and do it if possible.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

19. How about boycotting products that advertise on the station that shut Kucinich out for starters? nt

[2rth2pwr]

5. Blarch is right about Huckabee. Exhibit B is McCain, every news organization

declared him dead, kaput, toast, fini. And now ? Well, you know the story.


Face it, Kucinich is a bad candidate, and an even worse campaigner and last but not least,

the organization he can put together couldn't tie their own shoelaces.

[kitty44]

6. Please back up your assertions

Kucinich says:

- make huge changes to America's health care system - let's look at some type of universal health care
- out of Iraq now


Polls show that most Americans support both of these ideas.

How does that make Kucinich "bad"?

[2rth2pwr]

8. I didn't say his proposals were bad, I said that he was a bad candidate.

A poor messenger, a poor advocate. He is not taken seriously.

[kitty44]

11. And why is he not taken seriously when his proposals are sound?

Really - please explain?

Your graphics show that you don't look pass superficial characteristics when judging a person.

Is he not good-looking enough?

Does this make him "bad"?

[Honeycombe8]

9. They cover the candidates that the public wants to see. Face facts.

DK supporters have been whining for months about lack of media coverage. The truth is that he participated in many, many debates. And we've seen DK on TV for years. The public had more than enough exposure to his ideas to make their decision, and they decided against him. His low polling numbers, coupled with his inability to get much money in campaign support, is why the media concentrated more coverage on THOSE CANDIDATES WHO WOULD HAVE AT LEAST SOME SEMBLANCE OF A CHANCE OF WINNING.

Capiche? I knew you would, once you'd thought about it. Though I expect you hate to admit it. I don't understand that, since when I was a Clark supporter, I had to admit that he was terrible at debating and getting his ideas across, and he wasn't experienced as a campaigner, and finally, that he had virtually no chance of winning the nomination.

Time to move on. You know the choices: Clinton, Obama.

[SammyWinstonJack]

13. You are so rude.

Capiche? And take your choice and.....

[kitty44]

16. ummm...what about Edwards?

Is he not in the running?

Or are you drinking the media's kool-aid?

[no name no slogan]

10. Here's another one for your collection:

Clear the Stage
Media have little time, tolerance for ‘second-tier’ candidates

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3148

[kitty44]

15. Beautiful. Nuff Said.

<snip>
"The contrast was striking: The lesser-known (and generally more conservative) Republican candidates were cheered for participating in the process, while the Democratic candidates who represent more progressive ideals were derided for taking up the time of other, more worthy candidates."
</snip>

[THUNDER HANDS]

12. what exactly are you looking for?

Equal coverage, or coverage proportional to their standing in polls, or coverage proportional to their outcomes in states that have held primaries so far?

[kitty44]

17. Edwards placed second in Iowa

Shortly after placing second in Iowa, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that John Edwards received a puny seven percent of national media coverage. Clinton and Obama got between four and five times more; their poll numbers were nowhere close to that much higher than Edwards'.

Of course, at this point, people have been subjected to the media's NON-coverage of Edwards, so polls might place Edwards lower.

So, no, polls should not dictate.

In all honesty, what would be wrong with equal coverage of all candidates until after April 2008?

Would that be so wrong?

[citizen snips]

14. True but Ron Paul is a reactionary hack.

[kitty44]

18. We're not talking about individual candidates

we're talking about why the media doesn't cover all candidates equally.