How the media is biased

If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.

This Associated Press commentary (it's not identified as such, but it is) asks if media coverage is favoring presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama. This essentially repeats the old 'liberal media' canard that completely misses the point.

The real bias of the mainstream media is not against Republican Sen. John McCain, or against Obama for that matter. Neither of them are anything close to transformative candidates. Maybe they would have decades ago but these days, but neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would ever nominate one of those.

The real bias is against smaller party and independent candidates that defy simplistic characterization and, more dangerously, offer an iconoclastic message that might resonate with the population if reported.

This bias is manifested not by negative reporting on these candidates, but by virtually no reporting whatsoever.

Ask yourself: when was the last time you saw independent candidate Ralph Nader, Libertarian Bob Barr, Green Cynthia McKinney or any other non-corporate party candidate mentioned in a wire service news article or TV report.

And then ask yourself: how many times a day do you see McCain and Obama quoted extensively in said media?

A recent poll I saw had Ralph Nader at 6 percent and Bob Barr at 3 percent. No other non-Democrat or Republican candidates were mentioned. So I feel comfortable in saying that at least 10 percent of the voters already support a non-corporate party candidate.

Clearly, these poll numbers would be much higher if the corporate media decided to start offering a reasonable amount of coverage to these candidates.

Given that corporate media outlets are businesses, it makes you wonder why these businesses choose to blithely ignore over 10 percent of their customer base?

Oh wait, it goes back to what I said before.

Clearly, these poll numbers would be much higher if the corporate media decided to start offering a reasonable amount of coverage to these iconoclastic candidates.

Smaller party and independent candidates tend to have very little money. Who is the biggest beneficiary of the present campaign finance system of legalized bribery? The corporate media.

Where do the Democrats and Republicans spend the overwhelming majority of the hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign bribes they receive? On ads in the corporate media.

Who is the most vocal opponent of a sane campaign finance system? The corporate media.

Think this is nothing more than hysterical paranoia? Ask yourself this. Who is the only presidential candidate in recent history from outside the two-party duopoly to get any serious coverage from the corporate media? Ross Perot.

The same Ross Perot who had oodles of his own personal money to spend on advertising in that same corporate media.

So when the media engages in these little smokescreens about whether it's too 'liberal' or whether it favors one of the corporate party candidates, don't be distracted.

And when they offer the predictable rationalization that they ignore the smaller party candidates because the public isn't interested (a self-fulfilling prophecy if there ever was one), don't be fooled.