Earlier this week, John Faso and Eliot Spitzer held a debate. But contrary to popular belief, these are not the only two men running for governor. Green Party candidate Malachy McCourt is also running (or as he would say, standing) for the office. I believe a couple of other smaller party candidates are also on the ballot, though you'd never know it by relying on the mainstream media. Heck, I wouldn't even know McCourt's running if not for friends.
One of the rituals of the corporate media is to intone in their most pompous, self-important voice, "We don't make news. We just report it." However, if the facts are that half a dozen or more people run for most major offices, why does the media almost always report on only two of them?
The local Post-Star has mentioned candidate McCourt only in relation to his recent visit to Glens Falls (watch this space later in the week for a recap). I'm not sure the paper has ever mentioned the other smaller party candidates. They mention Republican Faso and Democrat Spitzer nearly every day. Every Sunday, they run an AP piece which basically give Faso and Spitzer a blank check to say whatever they want on a chosen topic. The wire service can't be bothered to cc: McCourt and the others with their email?
The news media may not consciously manipulate its coverage in order to preserve of the market share of the two major parties, but that's the undisputed effect. If they gave something resembling equal coverage to all candidates, I guarantee the vote of the smaller party candidates would go up. To report objectively means not just to tell the truth, but to tell the WHOLE truth.
But the "We don't make news. We just report it" media unilaterally decides who is a viable candidate instead of just reporting all the candidates' positions and letting the voters decide who's viable. That might require a little more journalism and leave less space for big, cheesy graphics but it's the right thing to do.
These exclusionary debates are pointless partly because not all the candidates are present. If you went to the supermarket and saw six kinds of sliced bread but two of them were heavily featured by the store and those two were the only ones with nutritional information on them, guess which two would sell the most?
The media outlets who broadcast these debates could easily require all candidates be present but they know that in some cases, the major party candidates would get their panties in a twist and boycott, thus depriving the stations of the ratings' drawers. But if the stations stuck to their guns, the major party candidates would come around eventually because they want free exposure too. Instead, the stations stick to the principles, which is ratings not civics.
A great example of this came during the Democratic primary season. Jonathan Tasini was the only challenger to US Sen. Hillary Clinton. NY1 refused to sponsor a Tasini-Clinton debate despite the fact that Tasini was at 14 percent in the polls because the anti-war insurgent hadn't raised enough money, according to the Time-Warner channel. Not surprisingly, Sen. Clinton wouldn't debate him in any other forum.
NY1 DID sponsor a debate between Spitzer and primary challenger Tom Suozzi, despite the fact that Suozzi was only at 8 percent in the polls at the time. Suozzi had raised a lot more money than Tasini so he was considered 'viable,' even though Tasini was higher in the polls despite having less cash. Maybe NY1 only will sponsor candidates with enough money to buy commercial time on... NY1. I don't like to be unduly cynical when the facts lead quite clearly in that direction.... Is it a coincidence that giant media conglomerates are among the most voiciferous opponents of public financing of campaigns and of other campaign funding restrictions?
But these debates are pointless for another reason as well. They are not spontaneous exchanges of information, but glorified commercials. The major party candidates insist it be that way and the mainstream media is complicit in this as well. The questions are tightly controlled to ensure that the two campaigns can advance their themes.
If a media outlet dares ask a truly provocative question, they are shot down by corporate media organizers, who know which side their bread is buttered on. For the recent Faso-Spitzer 'debate,' The Ithaca Journal submitted a trio of very relevant questions, but they were rejected by the debate's corporate media sponsor... none other than the infamous NY1.
The questions related to the 9/11 Commission, mental health housing and clean elections. Three very important topics for the next governor. The two candidates managed to find time to spar about the state comptroller who wasn't even on the stage but couldn't take about mental health programs or the hugely important issue of government accountability.
Thank you NY1! I feel so much more informed now. I'm surprised you didn't ask them about Anna Nicole's son!
To its credit, The Ithaca Journal withdrew from the faux debate. It opined that Maybe Spitzer or Faso will decide that questions from regular people deserve answers. We'd be happy to publish them.
But given Adirondack Almanack's recent piece, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins, Sen. Clinton's most prominent anti-war opponent, has also been excluded from the 'debate' between her and the GOP's pro-war John Spencer. So have all the other smaller party candidates, most of whom are anti-war.
You might as well check out Hawkins' website since the corporate media is hellbent on ignoring the Ralph Nader-endorsed candidate as well as everyone else who's outside the two corporate-controlled parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment