Posted under Bob Barr & Chuck Baldwin & Constitution Party & Media
As if proof was needed. Here is an excellent Baltimore Sun article documenting how the media rigorously ignores third parties. This is a surprisingly good critique from a Professor of Journalism. (It is not surprising that it comes from someone outside the MSM, but surprising they published it.)
While the news media did an effective job this year of covering the presidential campaign between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, the press still has a major blind spot when it comes to writing about third-party contenders.
According to a basic LexisNexis database search of election coverage from Aug. 5 to Nov. 5, The Washington Post and The New York Times published a combined 3,576 news stories, editorials, op-eds, photographs and letters to the editor about Mr. Obama and 3,205 items about Mr. McCain. By contrast, the two dailies published only 36 items about independent Ralph Nader, 22 about Libertarian Bob Barr, five about Green Cynthia McKinney and three about the Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin…
None of these candidates garnered more than 2 percent of the popular vote on Election Day. But how third-party candidates are covered by the news media is an important issue that should be taken more seriously, given that we live in a democratic society that proclaims deference to the First Amendment and honors the notion that we are all better off when a wide range of proposals are aired.
The news media are allowing themselves to be co-opted by the Democrats and Republicans into viewing campaigns solely through the prism of the two-party system. This means that the major parties control which issues are permitted into the debate, thus denying the public a chance to hear proposals that might seem extreme today but could gain traction in the future if only voters had an opportunity to consider them more seriously.
HT: ThirdPartyWatch.
roho on 25 Nov 2008 at 2:12 pm #
If some Corporation sells a product that does not meet the consumer’s standards, they don’t buy it. (Television, Radio, Newspapers, Magazines, Internet, etc.)
Why do we continue to purchase MSM ?……….They depend on “Advertisers” and they in turn monitor circulation and airtime. When circulation and airtime drops, so goes advertisers. Without advertisers they have a failed business!……………..Is this complicated? (The “Big 3 Automakers are in this predicament now.)
THE “BOYCOT” HAS ALWAYS WORKED AS A MARKET TOOL OF DISATISFACTION…………………………………Always!
Watching MSM is like eating at a bad restuarant so one can complain about the quality of the food.
“Obama” is no fool……………And community organizing can work in both directions…………Get Involved!
Weaver on 26 Nov 2008 at 5:10 am #
Roho,
I guess it’s tough to fight the MSM due to the sheer cost of sending out reporters.
At least with the Internet we can potentially hear the rest of a story. Imagine how the War on Terror or the Jena 6 would have gone over without the Internet.
roho on 26 Nov 2008 at 12:57 pm #
Absolutely Weaver!………..I’m old enough to remember the birth of cable programing in the community that I grew up in. It was like $5.00 a month, yet prommised NO COMMERCIALS………And there were none. (About 10 channels with the slogan, “We have no advertisers because you pay for the programing.”)……….Ha-Ha!
ABC, CBS, NBC, and Public Television…….And we trusted them.
Chet Huntly and David Brinkley were the voice of reason on balck & white television……Every NASA rocket launch was an event!…..And Lucy and Dezi were not even allowed to kiss on camera.
And then “They” backed-up the “Gulf Of Tonkin” lie, and the “Tet Offensive” lie in 1968. (America then realized that lies came easy to the NSM)……………Now we untangle the lies with the internet.
Weaver on 27 Nov 2008 at 12:00 am #
Wow, cable news was without commercials?
I guess that’s the rub: it’s a great deal at first until it gains a monopoly. Then it price gouges.
They want something like $50 a month where I live (which might be ~$5 from when you refer), so I said no. A lot of people are surprised to find there’s no cable to watch; they dunno what else to do haha. It’s become a necessity… and a common waster of time.
roho on 28 Nov 2008 at 4:29 pm #
All the elitist screaming “Go Global”, while controling the citizen’s mind with MSM lies, so I did!……The Internet(For Now)allows many perspectives to compare to the MSM propaganda machine.
No greater description of MSM exists that the 1976 movie “Network”, which may not be easy to find nowdays? But, here’s a glimpse of reality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFvT_qEZJF8
Sometimes looking in from the outside with Sky News or Russia Today can cut through some of the MSM Hypnosis?
http://www.russiatoday.com/features/news/33836
Globalism should certainly be an option when seeking the truth from our now controled and manipulated joke of a free press.
roho on 28 Nov 2008 at 4:41 pm #
Make that “Network Movie” link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI
sorry. ;(
Jana Davis on 10 Apr 2010 at 10:19 pm #
Because really Third parties don’t represent the majority of THE PEOPLE. People want a rep that represents them. Third Parties like AI/constitution party only represent a small gorup. Also, their Christian views are sometimes not handled well. Bill Lussenheide candidate for congress ca-45 faces an uphill battle he is not receiving any endorsements, and might as well be invisible compared to Mary Bono mack who will win because she is a republican. Maybe Lussenheide should have ran rep. because from what I have read most people are afraid of some of his conspiracy theories he writes about.