2008 Woodie Awards
SectionsOur View
The Standard Editorial Staff
Issue date: 10/26/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
There is a debate going on in newsrooms across the country that we do not approve of. If many media organizations had their way, they would limit presidential candidate coverage to only the most popular.
Many news organizations would have already made some coverage cuts if they knew they could get away with it. As it is, many would be accused of playing favorites. For some reason though, slashing the presidential pool is accepted later on.
With a political climate such that a leading candidate is thrown out after screaming "Beeyaw," we think it is important to keep voters' options open.
They say they are doing it for the good of the American voter. If there are fewer people in the debate, it is easier to discuss more issues and highlight more differences. We see the logic but we believe democracy could be better served. A democratic form of government works because it lets all people participate.
At our best, only half of the country actually votes. Half of those votes are for the winner. So, in an ideal situation, 25 percent of Americans get their guy (or gal) for president. A majority rule is an illusion that most Americans are OK with. They are just happy they have a say.
So what else happens when the media narrows the field of "likely" candidates? Many things. For one, the supporters of these candidates are heartbroken. The issues that they ran on receive less, if any, attention. And the popular candidates can rule the debate.
The media has already limited the playing field by effectively removing third party candidates from the public eye.
This is one of the many ways that media can have a direct effect on democracy. It is a vital role to play, and playing fair is the highest priority.
Many news organizations would have already made some coverage cuts if they knew they could get away with it. As it is, many would be accused of playing favorites. For some reason though, slashing the presidential pool is accepted later on.
With a political climate such that a leading candidate is thrown out after screaming "Beeyaw," we think it is important to keep voters' options open.
They say they are doing it for the good of the American voter. If there are fewer people in the debate, it is easier to discuss more issues and highlight more differences. We see the logic but we believe democracy could be better served. A democratic form of government works because it lets all people participate.
At our best, only half of the country actually votes. Half of those votes are for the winner. So, in an ideal situation, 25 percent of Americans get their guy (or gal) for president. A majority rule is an illusion that most Americans are OK with. They are just happy they have a say.
So what else happens when the media narrows the field of "likely" candidates? Many things. For one, the supporters of these candidates are heartbroken. The issues that they ran on receive less, if any, attention. And the popular candidates can rule the debate.
The media has already limited the playing field by effectively removing third party candidates from the public eye.
This is one of the many ways that media can have a direct effect on democracy. It is a vital role to play, and playing fair is the highest priority.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Nathan
posted 10/25/07 @ 10:34 PM CST
Exactly!
Mike Gravel is being censored by NBC! He's not being invited to the Oct. 31 debate a Drexel University. You can read more about it by searching "Gravel Huffington NBC" on Google. (Continued…)
Post a Comment