we live in a corporate dictatorship

farfromglorified wrote:

By being a Republican senator running for president.



He doesn't "deserve" any coverage. The media is granting him coverage because they believe granting that coverage puts them at a competitive advantage as a news provider.

So the amount of coverage they are giving the mainstream candidates has nothing to do with merit then?

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

So the amount of coverage they are giving the mainstream candidates has nothing to do with merit then?

Often times, not at all, if by "merit" you mean their own personal ideologies, speaking styles, or other individual characteristics. The media here is operating no differently than the typical voter -- they fixate on the major-party candidates, regardless of the merit of those candidates or their opponents.

In terms of national elections, the media is going to focus more on the candidates that already have a large base of support. This makes perfect sense from their perspective and should shock no one. In the event that an unknown candidate gets a swell of support, however, the media will tend to follow to an extent. Perot got heavy coverage during the 92 election after people started gravitating to him in large numbers. We saw a similar dynamic with Ron Paul in this election cycle -- once he started making waves with an unexpected minority of voters, he started getting coverage.

Third party candidates like Nader or Barr are likely to get absolutely no coverage in a close election because, frankly, the vast majority of the voters don't care about anything outside the Dem/Rep match-up. I'm sure they might say they care, but if you put a Keith Olbermann commentary about McCain v Obama against a Charlie Rose interview with Ralph Nader, the Olbermann piece will trounce the Rose interview.

farfromglorified wrote:

Often times, not at all, if by "merit" you mean their own personal ideologies, speaking styles, or other individual characteristics. The media here is operating no differently than the typical voter -- they fixate on the major-party candidates, regardless of the merit of those candidates or their opponents.

In terms of national elections, the media is going to focus more on the candidates that already have a large base of support. This makes perfect sense from their perspective and should shock no one. In the event that an unknown candidate gets a swell of support, however, the media will tend to follow to an extent. Perot got heavy coverage during the 92 election after people started gravitating to him in large numbers. We saw a similar dynamic with Ron Paul in this election cycle -- once he started making waves with an unexpected minority of voters, he started getting coverage.

Third party candidates like Nader or Barr are likely to get absolutely no coverage in a close election because, frankly, the vast majority of the voters don't care about anything outside the Dem/Rep match-up. I'm sure they might say they care, but if you put a Keith Olbermann commentary about McCain v Obama against a Charlie Rose interview with Ralph Nader, the Olbermann piece will trounce the Rose interview.

Oh I agree and am certainly not shocked.

I just find it rather amusing at times, sad at others, how people continue to perpetuate this cycle even after decades of the same awful result....then have the audacity to criticize and incessantly complain about the outcome of their own actions.

'Boy, this sure sucks...let's keep it going!'


also: Perot had tons of money and Paul has been quite clever to use the internet as he has...and he still only gets mentions as being some fringe thinker with no chance.

baraka wrote:

Sadly, I think it has to do more with the bottom line (ratings), how many viewers they get and being 'cutting edge'. More viewers and prestige.....who is happens to have the 'it' factor, to maintain their audience. This as far as the media's perspective.

I think it is important to have a charismatic front man for your cause, because of the above factors. That might be Nader's problem. Probably why Paul had problems. Sadly, these are things that need to be considered..............now, that Gonzales guy has a little bit of flair, but Nader?

Yeah, I know! Gonzalez seems a bit shy sometimes, though....he really needs to get out there and be bold and vocal more often. I could definitely stand seeing more of him.

Nader is definitely not going to win the popularity contest. And the popular guys often don't have the all the smarts and intellect that we need in leadership roles but the dry, nerdy types do.
It's a paradox.

farfromglorified wrote:

And I was pleasantly surprised that he got a number of chances at giving long interviews during which, unfortunately, he often demonstrated that he was not really up to the task of engaging a large portion of the populace.

I think he did what was needed...he put ideas out their in people's minds that weren't there before. It would be nice if the media didn't have to put their spin on it...calling him unelectable when that's up to the people to decide come November. How can the media know who people will vote for? What if the people decided they shared Paul's or Nader's views and wanted to support them? What's keeping people from voting for them then? Could it be the line they are fed all the time via the media about how their vote would be 'wasted'? I cetainly know I've heard it enough here and actually received a pm last night stating the same line of reasoning.

Perot's money got him more exposure. Why do you think candidate's raise all the money for their campaigns?

farfromglorified wrote:

There is simply not enough laughter in my body to adequately respond to this post.

Do you not understand what you're saying here? If your primary standard as a consumer is the "LOW PRICE", why are you then surprised when the market responds to your standard and, even more importantly, how can you not see your role in this???

Nike's profit margin on a shoe is not 300%. It is 14%. However, you're not buying Nikes at a "supermarket" anyway. The profit margins on the things you are buying there is likely far less than 14%, and the cost of those things is being driven by consumers like yourself who foolishly demand LOW PRICES and HIGH COSTS at the same time.

Maybe it was the lack of a paragraph separation that triggered the laughter.

What I said is when I go to a supermarket I SHOP AROUND FOR THE LOWEST PRICE. If the market was responding to not only my standards but many others all across America, then the STANDARD MARKET PRICE would reflect that fact I brought a product on sale and in some cases used a coupon which brought the product price down even further. Thus, wholesale price of that product should be reduce, allowing the supermarket to make its base price reduce, which in turn would reduce the regular price of the product to the consumer.

I truly don't understand what you mean or how you see that I'm demanding Low Prices and High costs at the same time.

What I don't appreciate as a consumer is greed. Greed is where corporations like Nike come into play. Your bright, you knew I was making a point on two different matters, why try to dummy it down. Nike is only one example, when it comes to profit. Here are some interesting statistics, you can view at your convenience.

http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1369

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I think he did what was needed...he put ideas out their in people's minds that weren't there before. It would be nice if the media didn't have to put their spin on it...calling him unelectable when that's up to the people to decide come November. How can the media know who people will vote for? What if the people decided they shared Paul's or Nader's views and wanted to support them? What's keeping people from voting for them then? Could it be the line they are fed all the time via the media about how their vote would be 'wasted'? I cetainly know I've heard it enough here and actually received a pm last night stating the same line of reasoning.

Basically what you're saying here is that it would be nice if the media was objective. I absolutely agree! However, the people in the media have as much of a right as you or I to be subjective blowhards spouting their opinions. Those of us who don't like it need to look elsewhere, plain and simple.

The fact of the matter is that objective media and hard reporting are not what the majority of people are interested in. They want media that agrees with them, gets their blood going, or, for whatever reason, scares the shit out of them. It is what it is and I have a tough time blaming the mainstream media for giving people what they're asking for.

Perot's money got him more exposure. Why do you think candidate's raise all the money for their campaigns?

Candidates raise money to campaign. They need money to travel, to hire staff, to buy ads, and do all sorts of things. Media exposure is not really a product of a candidate's money. Rather, media exposure is a byproduct of what campaigns are using their money for -- establishing a base of interested voters. If you get that support, you'll get your coverage.

If the media started devoting attention to third parties, certainly third parties would likely see an upswing in support. But that upswing might carry their 2% to 5%. Meanwhile, the ratings of the media would swing down precipitously. So it's tough to blame the media for not giving Ralph Nader lots of airtime when the effect of that would be to simply push voters to a talking head on another network talking about "war" this or "crisis" that.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I agree.

Well said

farfromglorified wrote:

Basically what you're saying here is that it would be nice if the media was objective. I absolutely agree! However, the people in the media have as much of a right as you or I to be subjective blowhards spouting their opinions. Those of us who don't like it need to look elsewhere, plain and simple.

The fact of the matter is that objective media and hard reporting are not what the majority of people are interested in. They want media that agrees with them, gets their blood going, or, for whatever reason, scares the shit out of them. It is what it is and I have a tough time blaming the mainstream media for giving people what they're asking for.



Candidates raise money to campaign. They need money to travel, to hire staff, to buy ads, and do all sorts of things. Media exposure is not really a product of a candidate's money. Rather, media exposure is a byproduct of what campaigns are using their money for -- establishing a base of interested voters. If you get that support, you'll get your coverage.

If the media started devoting attention to third parties, certainly third parties would likely see an upswing in support. But that upswing might carry their 2% to 5%. Meanwhile, the ratings of the media would swing down precipitously. So it's tough to blame the media for not giving Ralph Nader lots of airtime when the effect of that would be to simply push voters to a talking head on another network talking about "war" this or "crisis" that.

And I agree with you, too actually. But I have a problem with the 'news' media representing itself as objective and presenting all sides when they clearly don't....they cover things, as you said, that boosts their ratings and leave people in the dark about so many topics and ideas and flat out mislead them about others. So, it's not really news or current events but rather entertainment. I'm not sure too many people understand that at all....even here.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

And I agree with you, too actually. But I have a problem with the 'news' media representing itself as objective and presenting all sides when they clearly don't....they cover things, as you said, that boosts their ratings and leave people in the dark about so many topics and ideas and flat out mislead them about others. So, it's not really news or current events but rather entertainment. I'm not sure too many people understand that at all....even here.

I completely agree.