"Fringe parties" and the political process

Oliver Kamm writes:

Fringe political parties almost invariably claim that they are disadvantaged by a lack of coverage in the press and broadcasting media. The truth is the opposite: they typically gain from the fact that few people will bother to correct their more extravagant claims.

Personally, I'd rather have outrageous viewpoints from outside the so-called mainstream (including from "fringe political parties") discredited than legitimate points from there ignored.
If such scrutiny hurts the more extreme claims, then so be it. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

In the US, anyways, all major social justice movements in our history have been initiated from outside the framework of two party duopoly.

For example, in the 1840s, the two major parties were the Democrats and the Whigs; the Republicans didn't come into being until 1856. There was a "fringe party" called the Liberty Party, which advocated the then-lunatic idea of abolishing slavery throughout the nation. Within a generation, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution did exactly that.

Heck, even if smaller parties got media coverage comparable to their level of support, it would be an improvement. Ralph Nader got 3% of the vote on the Green line in 2000. Imagine if Greens got anywhere near 3% of the political coverage from 2001-2004. It would be a huge increase.