More than a two person race

// added October 22, 2008 // 31 comments //
Image...
JanforGore

more from News and Politics:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3631

While the major-party race for the White House has been the subject of broad media attention for more than a year, the corporate media have mostly ignored at least four substantial third-party and independent candidates for the presidency.

Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney and Libertarian candidate Bob Barr are both former congressmembers from the state of Georgia. Their presence in the White House race, along with independent candidate Ralph Nader and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, would seem to present an interesting counterpoint to the major-party race between Barack Obama and John McCain. While the corporate press has apparently decided that the differences between Obama and McCain are more or less the only political opinions worth exploring this election season, the third-party and independent candidates take positions on issues like drug war policy, Israel-Palestine, civil liberties and military intervention that differ markedly from the views of either major-party candidate.

According to a Nexis news database search of the major network newscasts, McKinney's name has never been mentioned this year on the networks' news programs, while Barr and Nader's candidacies have garnered a total of only 31 mentions between them (15 times on ABC, 12 times on NBC and 4 on CBS). Including the Fox network-- which airs Fox News Sunday on its broadcast affiliates--yields one passing mention of Nader, and an interview with Barr (6/29/08). PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer offered passing mentions of Nader and Barr when they announcements as candidates (2/25/08, 5/12/08); more recently, the show has interviewed each of them one-on-one (10/14/08, 10/20/08).

The context in which Barr and Nader have been covered is worth examining; by FAIR's count, many of the references to the candidates dealt primarily with the potential effect on the fortunes of the major-party candidates--i.e., whether a third-party candidate would be a "spoiler." That accounted for 11 mentions of Barr and Nader.

Passing mentions of Nader or Barr accounted for another 13 mentions; four of these were joking or mocking references to Nader. (ABC's This Week includes humor clips from late-night talkshows, two of which included Nader as a punch line.)

A March 4 report on ABC's Good Morning America discussed the presidential election with a panel of children, one of whom asked, "There's like another thing, there's a guy named something Nader…. I think he's either running for the Green Party or the independents." ABC correspondent Chris Cuomo misinformed the children by saying "Green Party."

Actual interviews with the candidates were somewhat rare, but Nader has appeared on NBC's Meet the Press (2/24/08) and Nightly News (10/20/08), ABC's This Week (6/29/08) and the CBS Early Show (2/25/08). Barr has appeared on ABC's This Week (7/16/08).

The main question media tend to pose about third-party candidates is whether or not they will impact the outcome of the election. This is not at all surprising, given corporate media's preference for focusing on the horserace aspect of politics. The lesser-known candidates' generally low standing in the polls appears to make it less likely that they will play a decisive role on Election Day, but the media's refusal to open up the political conversation makes this outcome more or less a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  1. groups:
    News and Politics,   Politics,   Election 2008
  2. tags:
    News and Politics,  Politics,  Current TV,  Barack Obama,  10 more

31 comments // More than a two person race

  • maasanova
  • wholefreespirit
    • 0
      wholefreespirit  
    • Image...

    • Howard Zinn: You're not going to break the paralysis of the two-party system within the party system. In other words, you're not going to break it in the electoral system by putting up a third-party candidate whose showing will inevitably be pitiful and will therefore only be a demonstration of the weakness of the movement outside of the electoral arena. If you choose to go into the electoral arena, you'd better go in with strength. If you're going with weakness, you are not doing a progressive movement any good.

      taken from interview with Howard Zinn

      http://current.com/items/89443553_zinn_bailout_is_trickle_down_theory_magnified

    • 1 year ago
  • futuregen
  • twodee
  • ninepounds6
  • futuregen
  • futuregen
    • 0
      futuregen  
    • Image...

    • Mental retardation, decreased intellectual ability, birth defects, hypothyroidism, abnormal blood clotting and pre-mature aging have all been associated with radiation exposure, as have other diseases such as arthritis, heart disease, and diabetes. Radiation can cause cancers of the bone, digestive tract, brain, lung, thyroid, breast, stomach, central nervous system, lymph system, blood or skin. The radiation -related leukemias are the acute myeloblastic, acute lymphoblastic, and chronic myelocytic forms.

      Why would they name a cerebral palsy unit after Ray "Radiation" LaHood? They say he has brought a lot of money to the area. Yes, and his policies have created many new patients. Nuclear power is good business if you are in the health care industry and want to ensure you have lots of patients in the future (There is a children's cancer hospital here in Peoria and a toxic waste dump over the aquifer). This is the level of intelligence in Illinois and they are about to elect another corporate nuclear power lover.

    • 1 year ago
  • futuregen
    • 0
      futuregen  

    • This is another example of what is going on in central Illinois, home of Rep. Ray "Radiation" LaHood, and Caterpillar. They are touting this seminar on the radio as a "sustainable energy seminar". There is a non-stop push for nuclear power here. Few people understand.

    • 1 year ago
  • futuregen
    • 0
      futuregen  
    • Image...

    • The Illinois legislators are actively trying to overturn the present Illinois moratorium on nuclear power plants. The moratorium states new nuclear plants cannot be built until there is a viable solution to the high level nuclear waste issue.

      "Given the text of the resolution (SJR0101) creating the Task Force, NEIS is very skeptical of the Task Force's mandate and intentions. With such a short timeline, minimal resources for the public to participate, and heavy political make-up, as well as some of the initial language, it appears the Task Force has already made up its mind about continuing nuclear power, and is on a fishing expedition for convenient rationalizations to expand nuclear power in Illinois.

      NEIS has attempted to get someone in State government to answer fundamental questions about how the Task Force would operate, when and where meetings would be held, how would it be funded, and what role the public would be allowed to play. So far, no one has responded to the NEIS letter of inquiry.

      Will this be a study to 'know', or a study to 'show'? So far, the State's actions point to the latter. But the State's draft schedule leaves us no time to ponder -- meetings/hearings are scheduled to begin October 8th tentatively to be held at the College of Lake County."

      The dates of the hearings are not posted on this website but I know there have already been 1-2 meetings. People do not know what is going on. These are all of Exelon's buddies pushing for new nukes. Unfortunately both Obama and McCain are pro-nuclear. We must look to a third party candidate to save this planet.

    • 1 year ago
  • current89
    • 0
      current89  

    • Truthfully, i expect bias in the reporting i listen to. The fact of the matter is that no one in the media is UNBIASED (that idea is a complete load of crap). Objectivity truly doesn't exist when it comes to reporting(or anything else for that matter).

      Why would i say such a horrible thing you ask? Well as I'm sure you all know a person sees the world through there own reality, not my reality, not your reality, not Sarah Palin's (un)reality. It's a reality there own mind filters and creates.

      So before ya all go off on me and start typing on your keyboards, i would like to point out for that very reason we have societal norms (including "morals", "laws", and yes political parties). Groups and thought processes like those help us develop a semi-common consensus, something that affirms our reality in a way.

      The supposed unfair corporate media is just fulfilling what most people want, an affirmation of there reality.

      As to the subject of Nader, Barr, McKinney and Baldwin. To place it plainly in my subjective point of view they failed because they do not represent the norms of American society( this however does not make them superior to Obama or McCain though), to blame corporate media is just scapegoating. If you must place the blame somewhere give it to the American people and the human mind.

      I could go on to how Obama and other democrats have had to pander because of such norms even though they probably are more reasonable then there pandering would imply but I won't.

      So maybe I should conclude, that yes, in the eyes of the vast majority of the American people this is just a two ticket race and to many more there's nothing wrong with that. And that is what matters

      "A country is only as good as it's people".

    • 1 year ago
  • HolyCity2012
  • current89
    • 0
      current89  
    • current89:

      What a very inarticulate response, I'm not saying it's "right" that there isn't an amazing amount of political discourse in this country. I'm saying it's up to the people to educate themselves, change their social norms and then take responsibility. As to objectivity, that objectivity is decided by the social norms people create.

      I've read a lot of your posts and i tend to agree with you on many things from politics to religion however, your much to "black and white". But then again I can be the same way.

    • 1 year ago
  • twodee
  • current89
    • 0
      current89  
    • current89:

      No, I don't think it would be a good thing. It's okay to have certain positions that aren't shakeable (like that climate change is real or the theory of evolution is fairly accurate) but those examples are based off of empirical, proven evidence.

      If it's something like "oh the corporate media is the problem" or "that politician should agree with me otherwise he's a [fill in the blank]". Then I think we need to compromise or rethink our beliefs, it's important that we find out how were alike then how were different.

    • 1 year ago
  • HolyCity2012
  • animalia_libero
    • 0
      animalia_libero  

    • This is a huge problem with the system. The truth is, many people voting for a democrat or republican will often find someone they agree with far more in a green or libertarian candidate. However, because of the media and our culture, people fear those votes don't count. I hear it all the time.

      Technically, no ONE person's vote will swing the election. So, why not vote for the candidate you agree with?

    • 1 year ago
  • needu
    • 0
      needu  

    • Twodee, dont you think that maybe the two go hand in hand? Of course they are not going to pull as many votes, because most people never heard of them! I know that the people I talk to dont know what Nader has already done for this country. And the ones that do, dont know much. They think "he did something with cars, right?" They dont know how many fights he has fought for us, or how many lives he has saved. Or how smart he is. People originally went for Obama because he SAID he was for "change". To me that says that we the people want to change how things are done in Washington. That they are tired of all the game playing and want to actually DO something. Which means that they are tired of the whole "you wash my back...." that has gone on for years. Politicians that are bought and paid for turning a blind eye so their buddies that hand them money can make more money. How about a president that actually cares about us for a "change"? But without being able to hear about other candidates we are forced into choosing the best of the worst. "well, I know I dont want HIM to win!" We dont even get to vote for who we think will do the best job, we get to vote against the one we think is the worst. Even on this site, every time I have asked questions about Obama and what he actually has done and will do I will get the old "do you think McCain is better?" So that is what we are left with. I'm sorry but I cant do that. If people can look at the record of Nader and tell me that they honestly dont think he deserves to be there, then I am ready for that discussion, but if you want to tell me that he doesnt deserve to be there when you know nothing about him, then I guess I get what Gore was saying about the loss of "reason" in this country. I for one think that the addition of Nader to the debates can only make them more worth watching because these pre-planned pre-set up scripted events are boring the crap out of me! I have already heard those speaches!

    • 1 year ago
  • twodee
    • 0
      twodee  
    • needu:

      your comment assumes that people who vote for Obama are not interested in change in Washington. I am all for change in Washington so your assumption is false. The other false assumption is that Obama is just "saying" he is for change. I cannot agree with you there. Hi "is" for change. If you actually think that putting Nader in the debate would change things you are mistaken. Remember the Primaries? Remember Kucinich and Paul ? Those Debates didn't look or sound much different. If you want change you can get there by starting with what you are given and change that. If you want to start over you are changing nothing. Just starting something else. More division. THing is.... we agree that we must take back our government from the corporate and media powers. Just have different ways of doing that.

    • 1 year ago
  • needu
    • 0
      needu  
    • needu:

      No, you misread my statement. I said the reason people were originally FOR Obama is because he SAID he was for change. Which means that they were FOR him BECAUSE they WANT change. The reason I said he "SAID" he was for change is not to imply that he isnt, only that he SAID it without any evidence that backs up that statement. He very well may be for change, but what has he actually DONE to change anything? You say that YOU are interested in change, but the fact is, you cant do the exact same thing the exact same way and expect a different outcome. I have read your posts in the past, and I know that you are for a change in the auto industry. Then why are you accepting a promise for so little change? 2040? Come on now! You say you want electric cars but are willing to wait that long for it? By those standards we would still be waiting for seatbelts! You say that you want change in Washington but you support a candidate that makes a promise to the American people to change how elections are financed, and then breaks that promise, not out of necessity, but just because he wanted to? That sounds like more of the same to me. Say one thing and do another! You mentioned the debates that included Paul and Kucinich and say that it sounded the same to you, maybe it is because they were all from the same party, just different personalities, not different ideas. Why would adding in somebody that isnt a career politician, who hasnt been paid by corporations, who doesnt have to vote along party lines hurt anything? If people are confident in their candidate then why be afraid of some candid question and answers. Wouldnt you rather see your guy being challenged instead of scripted?

    • 1 year ago
  • twodee
    • 0
      twodee  
    • needu:

      If you you "SAY" you are going to eat a cow tongue sandwich tomorrow how I can I trust that you will. I think throwing a blanket over what politicians say and what they will do can be very misleading in BOTH directions for sure. And Nader is also a politician. He will do and say differently as well. That is the nature of our political system and NO person can just walk in and do it as differently as you propose ans actually get elected into a position and make the broad seeping changes you and I hope for. That is a nice dream and worth keeping. Sure there is much reason to mistrust what politicians say but at the same time it is worthwhile having a little faith in someone who is in the system. If you are going to mistrust politicians across the board you must also mistrust Nader. I am going to guess you trust him so I am going to guess you know how to have faith in a politician. Many of those who trust Obama are not trusting him on blind faith. Many see that he is the only one who has said this "change" he speaks about is not about him changing America. It is about everyone changing America. That is where you and I come in. How can I start changing the auto industry? I own and electric truck and a hybrid. That is a small start and a very concrete action. How can I change the energy industry? Solar thermal heats my house and Solar PV powers my electric and charges my car. That is a small and very real change that I can do right now. Many people will not consider doing these things because they are busy complaining to government and industry to make it easy and cost effective. And many of these same people are far better off financially than I am. When I talk about change I do it. Ya know...."be the change you want to see in the world." Who is doing the exact same thing in the exact same way? You ask: Why would adding in somebody that isn't a career politician, who hasn't been paid by corporations, who doesn't have to vote along party lines hurt anything? That would not hurt anything. It just would be overlooked and not amount to much at this point in our election process. I am all for considering outsiders to any system of thought but there is a time when those voices get heard and a time when they just get buried. If Nader and his supporters and any other voice wants to make a difference they would do well to get on Obama's case when he is in office as well as get on the case of every local politician. Think global act local. Start in your own home. Start in your own body. Start in your own soul. When we know how to make changes we will know how to ask for changes.

    • 1 year ago
  • needu
    • 0
      needu  
    • needu:

      If you have seen me eat a tongue sandwich many times in the past, then you CAN trust when I say I am going to do it again. But if you have NEVER seen me eat one, then you would be right to question if I really will. That IS the whole point!
      Nader is not a politician in the same sense as the other two candidates. For one, he is not on the same payroll. You say I trust him? I dont know that I would use that terminology, but I will say that his record speaks for itself.
      There is only so much you can do as an individual to change this country, that is the whole purpose for having a government. And while I am willing to make changes in my own life, we have already seen how far the whole "turn your thermostats down to 65" has done for us, while they are allowing corporations to destroy our whole earth.
      As for your view on the two party system being the ONLY way, that doesnt sound very much like democracy to me. People used to feel that way about womens rights too.

    • 1 year ago
  • rainbowryan420
    • 0
      rainbowryan420  

    • the only way democracy could be actually be successful

      is if we become

      SSA
      separated states of America

      this commercial demonstrates democracy perfectly
      if you replace the words job search sites with the word democracy

    • 1 year ago
  • fauxsherrrr
  • Wesnology61
  • krush_productions
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • The thing is, many know this and still support the system we have. As long as that is how it is played we won't see any amendments to the constitution.

    • 1 year ago
  • klaing
    • 0
      klaing  

    • I agree that the two-party system that exists here in the US doesn't provide enough choice for voters. But unfortunately campaign finance reform and more comprehensive media coverage (two things that are each easier said than done) aren't even enough to really change the system.

      The actually rules about how votes are counted have created this two-party structure (which our forefathers like George Washington warned against). Unlike in other countries where multiple parties thrive, here in the US we have a Winner-Take-All method of counting votes from the municipal level to the federal. If 51% of a county votes one way, then 100% of that county's votes go to that candidate, instead of a proportional 51%. So, clearly, voters are drawn to parties that are "more likely to win" because otherwise their votes are completely ignored. This depletes varied choice, creates deeper, more entrenched polarization, while at the same time forcing everyone more to the center.

      Also, in this country we (ostensibly) vote for a candidate and not the party. Whereas in some countries, people vote for parties, each party makes a long list of candidates, and depending on how much they win, they go down the list to see which lucky candidates actually get put in office. Kind of First-Come, First-Served.

      These voting rules are in the Constitution and would take constitutional amendments to change. But, if we want to give third (or fourth, fifth, sixth etc.) parties a real chance, that's the only way.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Unfair and undemocratic.

      "but the media's refusal to open up the political conversation..."

      What are people afraid of? That if they give others a voice their pick may not look as good? The MSM's refusal to allow all voices in the political debate simply because they don't wallow in money is exactly what Americans should be working for as that "change" certain people keep talking about.

    • 1 year ago
  • twodee
    • 0
      twodee  

    • "The lesser-known candidates' generally low standing in the polls appears to make it less likely that they will play a decisive role on Election Day, but the media's refusal to open up the political conversation makes this outcome more or less a self-fulfilling prophecy."

      ...or just simple common sense says they play very little of a role in this election. Sure they will pull some votes from here and there. But mostly just ignored this time around.

      maybe next time....

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Yet, even those supporting one of the two moneyed candidates who state media is unfair and that this country has lost its sense of fairness and democracy will state that third parties are useless and don't need coverage, thus emulating the very MSM they claim to deplore.That doesn't speak democracy to me. Even here on CURRENT TV third party candidates have been essentially shut out of its politics coverage and pages with no mention of their platforms or ideas. So much for being a station that stands apart from the MSM. Even if I were not going to vote third party it is simply democratic and right to cover all of the candiates running. Our forefathers would also expect nothing less.

    • 1 year ago
  • Hawkmang
    • 0
      Hawkmang  
    • JanforGore:

      Well said. :-) Did you happen to catch the 3rd party debate tonight on CSPAN2? It was a refreshing and interesting change. Too bad it was only Nader and Baldwin but it was still nice to hear their positions. Would've been neat to have them all involved, including the Republicratic candidates.

    • 1 year ago

Add your comment

most popular
videos on current tv

current videos