I'm about sick of having to see this election and the candidates the way the media want me to. I am a Democrat, so most of this comes from the Democratic side. The media seem to love Barack, and so they dis everyone else because it gets in the way of a "good story". Barck is good copy, african-american, humble beginnings, articulate, charismatic, he may even be the best choice for President, but we're not getting an even-handed chance to decide.

Hillary is just "old news" compared to Barack, and she gets characterized as such. Every attempt on her part to get traction is dismissed as "old Clinton tactics" or race-based. In short, it gets in the way of the Barack story. New Hampshire was so inconvenient that all the pundits and press seem to feel obliged to find a reason to diminish her win (white folks turned into bigots in the privacy of a polling booth).

As for Edwards (who was my first favorite), well, since he attacks "corporate America" and the media is OWNED by "corporate America", he seems to live in limbo with only a fraction of the coverage given Barack and Hillary and little serious examination of his policies. Also, the media seems to only be able to get its head around a "one on one" contest, and Edwards doesn't fit there.

Also, why has none of the media mentioned the outburst at the Las Vegas debate when the audience member shouted about "race based" questions early on? I was happy to hear it. The questioning troubled me and seemed like it was for agitation to "brew up a fight". It was the most obvious example to me of the media's attempt to set the tone and the agenda fo the debate

They are all 3 great candidates to me, and I think any one of them will be far better than what the Republicans have to offer, but I sure wish I had the luxury of a thorough, objective presentation of them to help my decision.

One should never rely on media for truth.
Z

The media may be manipulating the news?

I'm shocked!

One of the best threads I've ever read, I completely agree

Given the fact that the upcoming election is the first really wide-open election for quite some time (no incumbent or VP around), why does the media virtually ignore SOME of the candidates and concentrate only on two or three from each side? How fair is that kind of reporting which ignores the other's and their platforms?

And then the media, feeling somewhat guilty (or forced to face up to it) reply, we only cover the "newsworthy" candidates. If the others (whom they ignore) had something really important to say, or generated enthusiasm among their followers, we would "of course" cover it. They rest their hands comfortably on their stomachs and say, "we are only following what the majority of voters tell us they consider important." thus do they attempt to explain their arbitrary exclusion of many of the candidates.

Sheer cant and utter doubletalk on their part.
Z

Some excellent points in this thread.

The media has long been guilty of selecting their "chosen ones" in major elections. On the Democratic side, at first, it seemed like Hillary was the annointed one. Now, as you mentioned above, she is old news. Obama is their chosen one....On the Republican side, it seems as though McCain is their chosen one.

And don't think that the media's selections don't have an impact...If someone is undecided, when it comes time to vote, they are going to vote for the person they are most familiar with...the one with the most media coverage. And that doesn't always translate into the best person for the job. The big loser in all of this?....You and I...They would deny it till their dying day but the media is trying to control how we think by telling us who to think about. And this runs both ways, Rep and Dem.

To me, the solution is a major overhaul of campaigns. It is absolutely absurd the amount of money that is spent on these campaigns. There has to be limits on this money. We have our priorities out of balance. When you listen to the radio or television and hear them talking about a candidate, usually the amount of money they have is mentioned. So, whether a person is in the race or not is determined by the amount of money that they have...not the substance of their platform and their campaign....

To me, all of this is inherently wrong. This is not what America is supposed to be about. It is supposed to be about you and I getting an equal opportunity to hear all of the candidates and their platforms and making an informed decision for who we believe is best suited for the job. Not about media darlings and money.

Sorry about the rant. I just feel very strongly about this issue.

Never feel sorry about a rant here Eric. This is part of what this site is about.

I have very strong political views. I express them one-on-one for the most part.

What I might say here in this forum would have little effect on most others in their choice "if" they even vote.
What I am able to convey to another personally usually has more effect.

I'm talking with others about my area daily.

I'd suggest working one's local area first - and then expand from there?

Hear, Hear!

Eric - from Australia, where unfortunately the electioneering seems to be heading towards the American pattern, I have maintained for a long time, and mentioned in another thread, that for any election, every politician is limited to a set amount of campaign money, say $500,000, could even come from the public purse so there is a firm control, which once spent is all they get.

This would hopefully have the effect of making them spend their time wisely, with real planning for the future, supported by facts, to get their message over within the limits of their promotion expenditure. Also that any kind of media promotion is terminated at least one week before the actual election, to give people a chance to review and assess what they've been told.

It must be possible to organise and police such a situation, with some brain power in the oversight committee being spent in making sure that no "back door" shonkies are worked - 'cos bet your boots, pollies being what they are, will do their damndest to ge round any such restrictions!

Good Day Everyone,

I have been curious about something lately that probably fits in this thread. Presently, it is my understanding that media outlets lease their air waves, etc from our government (which is an analog system right?)is this true? If so, what does it mean to the public when in January 2009 everything goes digital?

Does anyone hear know how this new system is suppose to work for the average person?
Respectfully
Jo4Peace

Jo4Peace, the only difference is the frequencies used for transmission---all the current rules, regulations, etc., will still apply. One is told that the reception will be clearer, high-definition, and include additional channels.
Z

Re: "One should never rely on media for truth".

Sadly, so so true. Last time we had the big election a survey of about 100,000 people were asked how they make their decision. And nearly all said by reading newspapers and watching news on television. But who can blame them for finding the 'truth' in so many different slants is wearying indeed.

A poor man will never be a leader of our Country. And until there is a true limit set for what can be spent by each candidate, it often seems the one with the most money/financial backing will be the winnder. Sigh.

I recently had a class in Mass Media which discussed the airwaves. When the FCC was established, based on the laws created, airwaves are property of the public. The FCC monitors the airwaves for the public and establishes guidelines for what is put onto the public domain. The user pays a fee and is also required to broadcast a specified number of hours of programming that is deemed "for the public good." We did not discuss everything about going digital, so I do not know the answer to your question.

We did discuss that there was a push in Congress to hold cable channels to the same "public good" standards as traditional broadcasters. Naturally, the cable broadcast networks are fighting this as that type of broadcasting typically has very poor ratings which will mean a decline in advertising dollars for that company. And for companies that own multiple networks, they would be required to have that programming on each channel they own.

TV News, under ER Morrow or W Cronkite was journalism in an hour format. Now it is as much entertainment for a half-hour. Consider, as a symptom, the reduction in the major network's coverage of both party conventions from gavel-to-gavel (as a public service and worthy of being available to citizens interested in understanding the complete process) to only major speeches and votes.
Z

Good Day everyone,

I was asking would any of the rules and regulations would be different since it seems every change our government seems to make lately involve privatizing some portion of our public works. And one of the assumptions I have is that one of the rules/regulations of cable media have to offer a portion of their broadcasting to 'common good', programming like c-span. What prompted the question is my cynicism toward our government with their seemingly close partnership with corporate interest and lately some representative on c-span reminding us viewers that the service is offered not required. I just dont have any recent memory of this reminder. And wondering if this new system of digital didn't also come with a privatized air wave.
Jo4Peace