The news media's conspiracy to narrow our choice for president
Why do we only hear about the Democrats and the Republicans in presidential races? Most people aren't aware that there's other choices out there like the third largest political party in this country, The Libertarian Party. by Dave Stancliff
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
While growing up in the fifties I was often told that anybody could be the President of the United States. President Abraham Lincoln was held up as the shining example of what a poor country lad could do in this great country. Then I found out there was no Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, or Easter Bunny laying chocolate eggs. By the time President Nixon hurriedly left the Oval Office on the heels of possible impeachment, I discovered reality in politics. Finding out that Nixon did a lot of bad things wasn’t as troubling as the realization that corporate America decides who the next president will be with the mainstream media’s complicity. They do this by giving their pick for president millions of dollars in donations, and media prime time. The idea that just anyone can run is a myth. Has been and is now. But, and this may come as a surprise to some, even money isn’t enough to assure a candidate an election anymore. The money is step one. Step two is controlling the media. Have you ever wondered why you only hear about two candidates running for president when there are actually numerous candidates? Why do the Democrats and Republicans get away with mass coverage when the rest of the candidates are virtually ignored? I’ve heard many people talk about wishing they had more than two choices, totally unaware that there are some out there. Here’s a list of 2008 nominees, and their party’s, for president: Charles Jay of Florida, was the selection for the Boston Tea Party in June 2008. Chuck Baldwin of Florida, received the presidential nomination for the Constitution Party in April of 2008. Cynthia McKinney (a former Democratic Congresswoman from Georgia) was chosen as the Green Party’s nominee for president in July 2008. The Libertarian Party is backing former Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia.. Gene Amondson of Washington, got the nominee nod from the Prohibition Party in September of 2007. The Reform Party’s candidate is Ted Weill of Mississippi, who was selected during their July 2008 convention. Gloria La Riva of California, is the presidential nominee for the Party for Socialism and Liberation, having been picked as their nominee in their July 2008 Convention. The Socialist Party USA selected anti-war activist Brian Moore of Florida, in October 2007. The nominee for the Socialist Worker’s Party is Nicaraguan/American journalist, Roger Calero of New York. The New American Independent Party picked Frank McNulty in their March 2008 Convention. Ralph Nader is running as an Independent. Now that you know that there are other choices out there you have the opportunity to research them and see what kind’s of political platforms they have, and what their candidates are saying. I strongly believe we should all have this information to consider. If the mainstream media were really doing their jobs then we all would know about these other parties and their nominees. But, how often have you read or seen anything about the "other candidates?" It’s obvious that the mainstream media is in bed with the two ruling parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. All we have to do is look back in other presidential campaigns to see that the mainstream media has had an agenda which involves promoting the Democrats and the Republicans. The first battle of any political campaign is to get name recognition. Experts have found that voters go with the person who gets the most favorable reportage. For example, after receiving less than one percent of the news coverage in 1988, the minor political parties acquired less than one percent of the popular vote. No surprise there. As Americans we have a right to know whose applying for the most important job in the country. The media has a bad track record that shows it bias when it centers on only the Democrat and Republican nominees for president. A third party candidate may not win, or even receive a lot of votes, but if he can force the other candidates to talk about other topics, that’s enough reason for the media to step up and do the right thing. Mainstream media has demonstrated that it ignores candidates with less money and from minority parties, therefore reducing any chances of a choice for voters. This isn’t fair to the candidates or the voters. The thing that the mainstream media needs to do is to give an equal forum to all candidates. When the media doesn’t give equal coverage it threatens the American political system with a future of limited choices. People are becoming discouraged with the two party system that dominates our government offices, but until some parity in reporting happens, it’s all we can look forward to in the future. If the mainstream media continues to ignore the minority parties, it’s just furthers the argument that there is a conspiracy between them and the two ruling parties. Like my grandmother use to say, "The proof is in the pudding." The only way Americans are going to have a real choice for president is for the media to stop force feeding us the two ruling parties and do their job in an equal and fair manner.It seems media executives are not interested in losers, and third party candidates have been labeled that by pretending their not there. As It Stands, the real losers in our presidential selection process are the voters.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 20
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Dave Stancliff only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Dave Stancliff is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
As with any other business, the purpose of owning / operating a media company is to make and maximize profit. Whether that be print, radio, television, internet, or any combination thereof. The most publicly accepted way to maximize profit as a media outlet is to gain a wide audience and hold their attention. The way to hold the attention of a wide audience is to provide them with popular entertaininment that they feel is providing some benefit (tangible or otherwise). The content holds the audience's attention, the ads make the money. It's that simple.
But there is another, lesser known, more common way.......
Start a media company and approach the government with hired advocates (we commonly call them lobbyists), who persuade the government to grant you a monopoly privilege (you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours...). By using government regulations as a barrier to entry, your media company enjoys undeserved profits at the expense of free market competition. But there is a price.......
In order to maintain your privileged position, you must submit to the whims of government intervention. Be "advised" what type of programming content the government "feels" is appropriate for your media company to carry. Not just in terms of common decency, but in many other areas of influence.
In other words, by accepting government largesse, you also accept the yoke of regulation. After many, many years of this arrangement, it is no longer questioned whether this is a "good" arrangement, it is just the way "things work". It becomes ingrained in the industry (not just media) and eventually becomes part of the fabric of society. Do not expect this very lucrative arrangement, for both sides, to change any time soon. Hope this clears it up.