Corporate Media Has Decided The 2008 Election For Us
No need to think for yourself, the MSM will continue to narrow the candidacy field until we're left with the next president.
It's already become clear that the corporate media is deciding the 2008 presidential election; here's how they're doing it:
- "Popular" candidates are placed toward the center of the stage. The few true liberals and true conservatives are positioned on the outskirts.
So far, it seems that the leading candidates are placed near the center of the stage so that they are the most easily viewed. Whether cameras pan left or right, the center-stage candidates receive the most face-time. Those on the far sides of the stage are often cropped out altogether when questions are being presented.
- The majority of questions, though distributed somewhat evenly, are always guided back to the candidates of choice.
This is easily discernable to those having watched any of the debates up to date. It's also evident in the amount of time alloted to each candidate. The majority of every GOP and Democratic debate can be found on youtube and elsewhere, for a closer look.
- The "popular" candidates are given far more time to speak than all other candidates.
The proof is in the minutes, folks. And Senator Dodd's "Talk Clock" says it all:
There is absolutely no justification for allowing some candidates to speak three times as much as others!
It is unacceptable for the media to decide for all of us who is worth listening to. It's bad enough that these "debates" are not debates at all but merely two-hour Q&A segments of a third-grade level. "Raise your hand if" you've had enough.
Contact CNN. space Contact MSNBC. space Contact Fox.
Digg it! space Reddit!
34 comments:
I agree that this is ridiculous.
But what can we do about it?
That's what I'd like to know.
It goes a lot deeper than this. Here's an article I wrote on this issue a few weeks back.
To answer your question, Joel: I think we need to host our own online debates. Seriously. The mainstream media cannot be trusted so our only recourse is to do an end run around them.
There is a law about allowing equal time in news channels that is not being met at all here. Who among us has the savvy to bring suit on this? Is it the responsibility of the candidates?
What can you do about it? For one thing, you can contact the networks and compain. They do have contact information on their web sites.
"What can you do about it? For one thing, you can contact the networks and compain. They do have contact information on their web sites."
Yeah, and so far that hasn't worked out. In fact, in a recent list of the "top" candidates on MSNBC the section that was used to describe each of the other candidates actually said, "Stop emailing us," next to Ron Paul.
Something needs to be done about this. The media should not be able to control who the voters get to hear from, and who gets shoved out of the way. There is a ton of support for Ron Paul, yet he is systematically silenced at every turn.
Who the heck gives a hoot about people who ARE NOT ELECTABLE ANYWAY!!!
"There is a law about allowing equal time in news channels that is not being met at all here. Who among us has the savvy to bring suit on this? Is it the responsibility of the candidates?"
First of all it was never "true" laws, but FCC rules. Secondly, those rules were struck down as unconstitutional some twenty years ago.
@ Anonymous 1:17
Over 4,000 people have viewed this article so far today. I think it's safe to say that some of them "give a hoot" about the candidates you deem unelectable.
The problem here is not the media but the absolutely terrible voting system. Some sort of ranking voting system (See: Approval voting, instant runoff voting, etc) MUST be implemented in the United States to escape the rampant demogoguery and overpoliticization, and to mix up the 'two party' system.
anon1:17: Who is "unelectable"? I think all of the candidates in the last Dem & Rep debates are all over 35 years old and they are all native-born American citizens. Thus, they are electable.
It's the media that tries to decide who is "unelectable" and who is a "mainstream" candidate. The fact that you perceive some of them as unelectable means that the media has been doing a good job of stealing democracy from the voters.
for what it's worth, the most equal forum is a circle. ie - knights of the round table.
Frankly 'anonymous' mas the most valid point here. While he didn't elaborate, he essentially was saying, "Welcome to the real world."
It's wonderfully idealistic to say that everyone should have equal time, down to the second, but it's also woefully inaccurate.
Time spent talking doesn't equal time spent saying something worthwhile. A 'time-o-graph' of the debates doesn't quantify what was actually said, and politicians are notorious for fluff and nonsense.
'Electability' is a real thing, and it isn't completely media driven. It's also driven by the campaign contributors and lobbying groups and so on...it's way more than 'born in the USA'. We all know 80% of these guys have zero chance of making it through the primary, let alone the White House.
And blaming the media is a cop-out. The real blame lies with us, the people, for not taking the time to read beyond the headlines. We need to imbue a sense of curiosity coupled with skepticism within ourselves before we can escape our country's slow decline.
Idealistic rants on airtime equality achieve little, and even if they did have a stopwatch timer and let each candidate speak for precisely X minutes it wouldn't make a difference. 99.9% of the country isn't watching anyway.
I guess the whole point is that there are ideals and there is reality, and they have never shared the same space in the history of mankind. Use ideals as a compass to guide you, but don't forget to watch where you step...
I don't think you realize just how deep this problem goes. Is anyone here aware of the fact that these so-called "debates" are run by the political parties themselves? This isn't even Big Media at work -- it is a dog and pony show run by each party, NOT by any sort of objective or neutral group at all. Is it any wonder that the questions are fluff, the placement biased and no real issues are ever discussed?
demand the end to the CPD monopoly
God you Americans are morons sometimes. Can't you see how corrupt the system is? Yes? Then WHERE THE FUCK WERE YOU IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DECADES.
This story was posted on a site called, "Think Moderate". That's exactly what the MSM want you to do.
The problem is ingrained people electing the main candidates. The answer is don't. Don't even think about voting for the main candidates. Vote for people like Gravel and RP.
Nothing. Will. Change. Until. You. Become. Less. Spoonfed.
Jimmy Carter came out of nowhere. It can happen. Quite frankly, Clinton came pretty much out of nowhere himself, and won it because of Perot diverting so much of the republican vote. Also, had not Perot shown up on the seen, neither of the two candidates intended to say one word about money, at all -- they had their stock answers and the reporters played ball. But Perot came on and talked about nothing but money, forcing the issue, and for the first time in decades we had people actually talking about something that mattered.
There is no telling what might come down the pike, what changes may come about. Maybe I'm dreaming, but I do think that Loose Change is going to be important, it may be that it forces candidates to talk frankly about that morning, especially if one of them opens up. If one does open up, it damn sure won't be the corporate approved candidates, but it may force the issue.
We'll see it unwind; I think it's going to be fun.
Front-runners don't always make it. Remember how in 2004 Howard Dean was a sure thing?
WEll, I totall agree. As far as what we can do about it, we can either be sheep or not. We still get to vote. There are millions of us and if they choose to ignore us, then screw them. It's not just main stream media either.
http://rmckinney.newsvine.com/_news/2007/06/07/761412-dear-sean-hannity
The internet is the one thing they cannot control, we do. As far us unelectable candidates, I thought it was the voter that got to decide that.
The MSM has too much power in america.
The internet age is exposing this fact daily.
You can thank the congress for limiting our media sources and allowing the MSM to be controlled by too few.
Whether it's rigged votes, blatent lies, special interest cash, or blatant media bias; don't be suprised if your fellow americans fail to take the time to even pay attention to the election race. The apathy of the people speaks louder then even the most popular ignorant political hack or a cheap suit and haircut.
Ron Paul has my attention as the only candidate willing to govern by the principals set forth by our countries founding fathers as written in the US constitution.
Have any of the others taken the time to even read the document??
The majority of MSM believers are baby boomers. When they die off, and the young generation FINALLY grows up, then things will change.
Unless the MSM includes the Internet by then . . .
-Diana
---
Forex Investing
---
Hey, watch out for the "baby boomers" prejudice. I trusted people over 30 -- some of them -- when I was a teen in the '60s, and I hate the MSM. Ageism, man. Just as dumb as classifying people by race.
There is no "fairness doctrine" anymore. It was only an FCC regulation, and it's been gone since Reagan. Result: 9 times more conservatives in talk radio, though liberals and moderates are the majority in the US. Presidential debates used to be held by the League of Women Voters, with strict standards of fairness. If you applauded or booed, you were tossed out. We need a better system of laws for holding elections, because this is a mess. With 8 or 9 candidates on the stage, even the front runners are only getting a few more soundbites than Kucinich. Spreading that thinner is not the answer. We need smaller debates. Choose candidates out of a hat, and have 3 at a time go at it. Have a debate solely on Iraq, another solely on the economy, etc. How'd you like Clinton and Kucinich and Dodd arguing their positions for an hour, then the next three, etc. This format sucks.
But they won't change it, because they're just massive conglomerates. The FCC is allowing more and more concentration of ownership, papers are changing not because they're losing money, they're not, by and large: they're not making AS MUCH money as they want, which is more than the average now of 20% profit.
What happened when we got the right-wing radio, and all those cable "news" channels with all that time to fill? OJ around the clock. Blonde girls disappearing. Sharks. And more OJ. And Britney's panties. And then a debate where they just try to provoke anger, because it's good for ratings. The recent YouTube debate was a disgrace. But it was the highest-rated debate ever. That crap sells.
I don't think they are really trying to manipulate the vote. I think they already have a system to fake the voting results. I believe they chose the next "president" a long time ago, and that the point is to simply put on a one or two year long show that makes it look like there is a campaign going on. The media runs it along the pre-defined rails so that the media consumers believe it is them who are making the decision. Anyone familiar with the art of stage magic & illusion knows that this is a very standard manipulative trick. You have the audience believe they are picking their own card, but in fact you have made sure which one they will pick.
Unfortunately some things have gotten out of hand for them.. Such as the unexpected popularity and fund-raising of Ron Paul. First they said he wasn't first-tier because of his lack of funds. When he got the money, they come up with other reasons. This is because no matter what happens they somehow have to keep the train on the rails so that it appears people actually voted for the person who is already set to be the appointed figurehead.
But hey I'm just a paranoid conspiracy whacko.
I've been saying after the CNN/Youtube Republican debate that these debates are a 2 hour tv advertisement for the top tier candidates.
Thankfully, Fox News is balancing it out.
The equal time rules were done away with by Reagan and Republicans. Thank them for that. Their goal is to dominate and control all media, as that is the ONLY WAY they can win elections.
The Republicans then cheat and steal elections if they cannot do it by controlling and attacking people in as sleazy a manner as possible.
Republicans have fought the equal time rule ever since. Democrats want it back in, as do third parties.
If 'liberals' really do control ALL the airwaves as Neo Cons keep saying, why would Republicans block all attempts at equal time rules?
Saying the equal time rule is Unconstitutional is like saying water is not wet.
What is the problem with democracy, where in a debate or in media announcements or ads, all candidates are given EQUAL TIME, and the public pays for it all, with no donations or lobbying by large corporations allowed?
It would make logical sense that if Republicans are the minority in media air time that they would win more air time if they voted for equal time.
The fact is, Republicans and their corporate owners dominate all of the major mass media, and they want to keep it that way, in order to keep up the propoganda that they are the helpless little pure white sheep that need support against the evil liberals, who are all going to Hell.
Someone who is really in the know on how the internet works, like Google should contact everyone runing and see if they will do an internet debate.
Unbelievable! I find it laughable that people find and espouse these conspiracy theories whenever there's no easy explanation for a complex situation. First of all, the American political parties are not on the extremes, as some one put it earlier. Rather, they are quite close in the right-of-center political climate in the US. Aside from some key issues, they are forced to be fairly moderate on the national level through the argument of electability.
The American system, as with all other two-party systems, is what it is. Candidates like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich don't get the coverage because neither can win in their respective primaries/caucuses. Let me explain a little. Only a handful of people reliably vote in primaries/participate in caucuses. The media tends to follow whomever those participants care about, not random non-primary voters venting their political opinions online. The media knows these people will show up and make their choice known and there is no concern fringe candidates because they never had a chance because the primary tried-and-true voters never gave them a chance. Unless more of you get off your keyboards and into polling booths on your primary/caucus day, I suggest you shut up about being left out of the process, as well as this conception that there is a media conspiracy to deny certain candidates for personal reasons.
There's nothing secret here. You want Ron Paul to get some big news coverage, well give the media a reason to follow his candidacy by giving your physical support and I don't just mean writing random paragraphs.
Remember, the candidates needs to appease their respective bases in the primaries while remaining moderate enough to win the general election. Paul's positions, particularly with regard to the war in Iraq, do not mesh with the majority of Republican primary voters and that's why he doesn't get the coverage you believe is owed to his candidacy. If you want future candidates like him to have a shot, get in the primaries now!
This isn't a "if you give him coverage, they will come" situation. If he held their positions, they would come. Look at Mike Huckabee. Outside of Arkansas, did anyone know who he was? No. His limited media exposure didn't prevent his campaign from taking off.
The problem isn't just the media. It's the people who get interested in politics for 6 months every four years and look to blame everyone but themselves when things don't go their way. You want change? Go actually do something about it in the primary booth.
To the anonymous poster above. You obviously haven't been watching the news or reading internet post.
At these campaign events some candidates don't even show up, let alone their supporters. The person that has been consistent as well as his supporters.
The reason you may not have noticed this is because the media is doing such a fantastic job of diverting the attention to the candidates they want to see in charge.
Re: The Media
Alright, enough of the right-wing/left-wing "who's controlling the media" bullshit arguments. The majority of conservatives who care enough about it to say anything think the flaming liberals are corrupting the media with their pot-smoking rhetoric. The majority of liberals who care enough about it to say anything think the Nazi/KKK card holding conservatives are corrupting the media with hate mongering, ass kissing rhetoric. The point is this: for the most part, conservatives control the media due to the fact that the CEOs of the companies that own theses media sources are tight-fisted conservatives for the most part. On the other hand, the liberals control the media due to the fact that the reporters (and ex-reporters [anchors, etc]) are bleeding heart liberals for the most part. There is no black and white with who controls the media.
On a side note: don't bitch about the shit the media puts out there. The media is controlled by market forces - if you don't want to see news about water skiing squirrels and Britney Spears' underwear and the Olsen twins' crack addictions, DON'T WATCH IT!! In case some people haven't noticed, the reason this shit sells is because AMERICA KEEPS FUCKING SUCKING IT DOWN LIKE THEIR PRECIOUS MCDONALDS BURGERS! We are like little kids with ADD - politicians give us some shocking news stories to distract us from talking about what actually matters! I'm just as pissed about it as the next guy, but I also either don't watch tv, or don't want those channels that have shit for media coverage. If you're looking for a "real" news source - try C-SPAN. That's pretty unbiased - you want to know why? Because there isn't an anchor telling you what to think. Now, hopefully, people can stop arguing about the stupid shit most people are inevitably distracted with and get to the real issues.
"Over 4,000 people have viewed this article so far today. I think it's safe to say that some of them "give a hoot" about the candidates you deem unelectable."
Perhaps they would be electable if given the same amount of coverage and in some cases any coverage at all!
http://familyforest.wordpress.com
Even if you don't feel they are electable the fact that they siphon off votes make the other candidates look at the views of the (unelectable s)therefore inadvertently allowing you to impress upon the remaining candidates your views.
There is a law about allowing equal time in news channels that is not being met at all here.
Thankfully, Fox News is balancing it out.
In the race to the moment of truth people are still deciding who to
vote for as the next most influential person in the world.
In order to make the decision easier, a dutch company called
Kieskompas has developed the Electoral Compass. This voting advice
application is one of a kind. All the important issues are embedded in
the application that makes it easy to see where you fit in the
political compass. To what extent are you progressive (social liberal)
or traditional (social conservative) or left or right in economical
terms. And which candidate do you relate to the most.
If you haven't decided who to vote for than take the test.
www.electoralcompass.com
Post a Comment