Who Decides Who’ll Be Allowed on TV Debates?
The Nevada Supreme Court’s ruling allowing a cable network to exclude Rep. Dennis Kucinich from a Democratic presidential debate was barely a blip on the media radar screen, quickly forgotten in the reporting of the caucus victories by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Gov. Mitt Romney and the squabble over voting in casinos.
But in the long term, the court decision might prove to be as significant as any of the political events in the Nevada campaign. It constituted the strongest judicial statement yet of news organizations’ near-absolute power to control participation in pre-election forums - including the debates scheduled in California next week in advance of the state’s Feb. 5 primary.
Broadcasters’ right to exclude candidates they consider marginal has been established at least since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a 1998 case involving a state-owned television station in Arkansas that had excluded a congressional candidate from a debate.
The court said the public station couldn’t factor candidates’ viewpoints into its decisions - a constitutional restriction on government conduct that probably wouldn’t apply to a private broadcaster - but could bar a candidate with little public support on journalistic grounds.
Kucinich, the Ohio congressman who polls in the low single digits but has a fervent following among his party’s anti-war base, presented a different argument to challenge his exclusion from MSNBC’s Jan. 15 debate in Nevada: that the cable channel had promised to let him in when he met its standards, then abruptly changed those standards to keep him out.
MSNBC said initially that the debate was open to Democrats who placed in the top four in a national poll. It invited Kucinich on Jan. 9 after a Gallup Poll a few days earlier ranked him fourth. But two days later, after New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson dropped out of the race, the channel narrowed its criteria to the top three candidates and withdrew Kucinich’s invitation.
The day before the debate, a Nevada judge ordered MSNBC to let Kucinich participate, saying the cable operator had entered into a binding contract that it couldn’t rescind once the candidate accepted. The state’s high court quickly granted review and, an hour before the debate, ruled 7-0 in the cable channel’s favor.
In a terse, five-page decision, the court said MSBNC hadn’t made a contractual promise to Kucinich, just an invitation that it was free to withdraw. It said that courts have no power to require broadcasters to grant equal access to diverse viewpoints and that the judge’s threat to cancel the debate if Kucinich were excluded would amount to an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of the press.
The bottom line: Debates, the public’s sole opportunity to see competing candidates in a neutral setting, are the prerogative of the sponsoring organizations - typically, these days, the news media - which set the criteria and have free rein to alter them.
In California, where debates are scheduled next Wednesday for Republicans and Jan. 31 for Democrats, the sponsors - the Los Angeles Times, CNN and Politico.com - have said they will invite any candidate who has finished in the top four in another state and draws at least 5 percent support in a January poll.
Those standards appear to be within reach for Kucinich’s Republican counterpart, Rep. Ron Paul, the Texas libertarian and anti-war candidate who has been excluded from several Republican debates but finished second in Nevada.
Kucinich hasn’t been allowed into a debate in any state since Christmas, and it’s unclear whether he can meet the 5 percent threshold. Campaign spokesman Tom Staudter said he’s confident Kucinich will be allowed to debate unless the sponsors change the rules.
Staudter was equally optimistic that the Nevada ruling, and the system it ratified, would be undone by the court of public opinion. “There’ll be legislation by 2012 ending big-media control” of campaign debates, he predicted.
The Nevada ruling drew varying assessments from legal analysts contacted by The Chronicle.
Richard Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who runs a widely viewed Web site on election law, electionlawblog.org, said the decision made sense both legally and as public policy.
MSNBC’s invitation to Kucinich wasn’t binding, Hasen said, because the candidate hadn’t left for Nevada before the cable channel pulled the offer. He also said sponsors can reasonably decide to include less-prominent candidates in early debates, then winnow the field in later events so voters won’t be “distracted by those who may have interesting viewpoints but little chance.”
But Eric Talley, a law professor who teaches contracts at UC Berkeley, said MSNBC’s offer may have become legally binding when Kucinich started making arrangements to come to Nevada, telling his staff and posting information about the debate on his campaign Web site. Talley also said the timing of MSNBC’s decision was suspicious and suggested political motivation.
“If there’s any point in the life of a democracy where (diversity of) viewpoints matters, it’s in the run-up to a national election,” Talley said. “You’d think you’d want to put a thumb on the scale in favor of inclusion.”
In court papers, Donald Campbell, lawyer for the cable operator’s parent company, NBC, said MSNBC had narrowed its criteria for debate participation “in light of the dwindling number of candidates” and not because of Kucinich’s views.
Legally, “the selection of debate participants is entirely within the reasonable journalistic judgment of the presenter,” Campbell said. If the station was bound by its initial invitation to Kucinich, he said, “news organizations would be forbidden from making timely decisions about who or what to feature in their programming based on daily developments in news.”
Kucinich, for his part, drew a connection between his political views and his exclusion by an affiliate of NBC, whose chief owner, General Electric, is one of the nation’s largest weapons manufacturers.
During the debate, for example, the three Democratic candidates - Sens. Clinton and Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards - all pledged vigorous enforcement of a law cutting off federal funds to any university that denied full access to military recruiters. Kucinich, asked the same question a day later in a simulated debate on Pacifica Radio’s “Democracy Now,” denounced the law, saying that “our society is being militarized” and that “NBC is really promoting war here.”
But most legal analysts said they thought the Nevada court’s conclusion - that it couldn’t dictate the terms of a televised debate - would be shared by other courts, though the ruling is not binding in other states.
“I understand the frustration of less-known candidates who can’t get attention,” said William McGeveran, a University of Minnesota professor of information law, said in a posting on the info/law blog (blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw). “Nonetheless, we need to let news organizations make their own decisions about what information deserves our attention.”
“It’s possible that (Kucinich) has a decent claim for breach of contract,” said Jesse Choper, a constitutional law professor at UC Berkeley. But a court order to a network to let a candidate debate would be “the government telling them who they have to put on TV,” which would raise constitutional problems, he said.
Media lawyer Terry Francke, founder of an open-government organization called Californians Aware, said other courts may well treat decisions like MSNBC’s as “a legitimate exercise of editorial discretion” and refrain from ordering changes in debates.
But he said media organizations are doing themselves no favors with an already skeptical public when they announce pre-debate criteria and then reshuffle them at the last minute.
“My guess is, even most people who really don’t miss Kucinich’s voice that much are going to be inclined to be more cynical than they are now about the media in seeing how easily they’re willing to change the rules,” Francke said.
Online resources
To read the Nevada Supreme Court ruling and related documents, go to:
links.sfgate.com/ZCFY
A transcript of the simulated debate that includes Kucinich is available at:
links.sfgate.com/ZCEW
California debates
The Republican presidential candidates will debate from 5 to 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley.
The Democratic presidential debate will be held from 5 to 7 p.m. Jan. 31 at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood. Both debates will be carried live on CNN.
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
© 2008 The San Francisco Chronicle
Corporate Media will do this until they perceive a cost in doing so. Thus far “Media Reform Movement”–if it in fact exists– has failed to present such a cost to the Corporate Media.
Any emphasis on “alternative media” alone is not really an alternative. It only enhances the M in MSM.
When will we present a cost to the Corporate Media by becoming a “fly in the ointment”; by VISIBLY contesting the bias of the big Corporate Media?
Things we do on the internet can never reach the critical mass of the the Corporate Media, no matter how much the viewership of the latter is down. This is because it is too divided among a million sites.
WILL THE REAL MEDIA REFORM MOVEMENT PLEASE STEP-FORWARD– PERHAPS IN A MARCH BETWEEN TV NETWORKS DURING RUSHHOUR, PERHAPS IN IN A NOMINATION OF A STUFFED PINATA OF woLF BLITZKRIEG FOR BIPARTISAN CORPORATE WAR PRESDIENT IN FRONT OF LARGE CROWDS THAT ARE DUMB AND SMART ENOUGH NOT TO GO ON THE INTERNET THINKING THAT THAT IS WHERE YOU CONFRONT POWER.
Sorry about the caps, but I am getting impatient with the media reform movement. Perhaps they are paralyzed between foundation grants who only want them to chat among the highly cafinated middle classes?
Proving that this culture is more prejudiced against and fearful of the holy revelations of the 5′7, 135 crowd ( Marx Bros, Beatles, Dylan, etc. ) than any matter of race and gender.
The Darwinians out there are not going to allow the implied threat of size to disappear from this culture’s toxic framework.
There you have it. Six powerful corporations, one of them a war profiteer (GE), deciding who the public will vote for to be President. Technically of course, we are still a free country, but in reality, we are only allowed to hear about the candidates these six corporations preapprove. Way to go. Still feel free?
kathyodat
By the way, Hillary fully supports stifling of dissent.
kathyodat
Remember, “‘they’ hate us for our ‘freedoms’!!”
What a bizarre country we live in.
Freedom of the press and public ownership of the media has been downsized to where a clear free speech infringement has to be argued under contract law.
The selling of of public land and oil to the oil companies can only be fought by the Endangered Species Act.
The secrecy of the government can only be challenged by the FOIA, and not the obvious constitutional claim that a country cannot be a democracy without open government.
Your employer can fire you at will, unless you can prove that he did it because he discriminated against you in certain limited ways.
It’s like when a house burns down, and there are fragments left. That’s our country and our democracy.
Anyone who believes that we live in a democracy is seriously deluded.
Nathaniel H: It’s a bit (a lot) difficult for any media reformers in or outside of Congress to effect change until the current White House occupants are tossed out, preferably by impeachment, trial and imprisonment.
Debates should be broadcast on Public TV and moderated by truly neutral persons.
Allow into the debates, both primaries and later, those candidates whose poll numbers are within 3 points of the percentage of media coverage they have received.
Any person who has met the requirements to be on the ballot should be allowed to participate in all public debates. Under no circumstances should a for-profit corporation have the right to make the rules that keep any qualified candidate from participating in a public forum.
Political parties should ensure that all of their candidates who are on the ballot (in even one state in the country) should have the right to appear in all public forums. Other candidates should not participate in debates where a for-profit corporation has barred any candidate on the ballot from participating. To do so condones the right of massive media corporations to decide who can participate.
I hold the networks, the Democratic Party and all three candidates who participated in the Nevada debate directly responsible for this affront to democracy. This is not about Dennis Kucinich; this is about ensuring the integrity of the electoral process and the people’s right to hear from all candidates on the ballot.
Corporations do not and should not have inherent rights. Corporations are granted their charters by the American people. It is the American people who can decide what rights corporations can and cannot have. We should demand of all media that they respect the integrity of our electoral processes or they will lose their charter. Democracy and the rights of the American people should always take precedence over commercial enterprises.
The only meaningful votes 99% of the population casts are the votes we cast in the marketplace. In other words…who we give our dollars to.
If you want to make a difference, boycott GE (NBC owner), AARP (they excluded Kucinich from a debate late last year), and other outfits that are enabling fascism.
Shame on all the other Democratic candidates for not supporting Kucinich’s right to speak to the Nevada electorate. That a corporation (let alone a war-profiteering one) can decide who’s a “legitimate” candidate is an insult to democracy.
And shame on the American electorate itself for not seeing how its democracy is being steadily degraded. As H.L. Mencken observed, “A democracy is that form of government in which the people get what they want–good and hard.”
“I understand the frustration of less-known candidates who can’t get attention,” said William McGeveran, a University of Minnesota professor of information law…. Nonetheless, we need to let news organizations make their own decisions about what information deserves our attention.”
Right. And about the 935 lies that led up to the Iraq War and their constant repetition in the various news organizations: “You’re doing a heckuva job, NEWS ORGANIZATIONS!”
‘let news organizations make decisions about what information deserves our attention’
By all means, profits are at stake, don’t let Dennis offend any sponsors.
Corporations decide which candidates and issues are best for the general population. We get to choose between the candidates offering the most similar views and ideas. Who is most viable…Ron Paul has beaten Gulianni in nearly every single primary and caucus, yet who do we see in the press on a daily basis? Who is on every Sunday talk show with nothing to say? Not Ron Paul.
The airwaves supposedly belong to the citizens, as does the government. In no way should moneyed interests dictate whom we get to see and hear before an election. No third party candidate will ever appear in a Presidential debate as they are run by the Rep. and Dem. parties. If an unwanted candidate were to get onto the ballot the electoral college will override our votes. Or the courts as seen in 2000!
The United States of Amerika is NOT a Democracy!
It is all a show, We the people no longer matter…
“I understand the frustration of less-known candidates who can’t get attention,” said William McGeveran, a University of Minnesota professor of information law, said in a posting on the info/law blog (blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw). “Nonetheless, we need to let news organizations make their own decisions about what information deserves our attention.”
My dear William, NEWS ORGANIZATIONS DO NOT OWN THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES, THEREFORE THEY CANNOT DECIDE WHAT DESERVES OUR ATTENTION.
What a bunch of BS
I like the photo on this article.
But the irony is the Media has the public by a leash, like a dog. But in the public’s case, they’re completely oblivious.
I put the blame for excluding candidates on the party they are running with.
The Democratic party could have as a rule that they will only have debates in forums where all Democratic candidates running for that office are allowed to participate.
The Republican party could have the same rules.
Those candidates actually running for President could also unite together and refuse to be in a debate where their fellow party members are excluded.
The truth is the Republicans and Democrats are happy to exclude Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul and they are the ones to blame for this.
The court’s decision was the right one. Many people believe corporations shouldn’t have any rights or shouldn’t have free speech rights. This belief is flaws because corporations are composed of individuals.
Denying corporations the right to decide who they put on their video broadcasts inherently denies the individuals composing that company from having the right to decide who they put in their broadcasts, a clear violation of their free speech rights.
If it weren’t for Republican and Democratic complicity in excluding their fellow party members this story wouldn’t even exist because MSNBC wouldn’t have excluded him in the first place.
P.S. If MSNBC used the public airwaves this would be a different issue but MSNBC doesn’t use them, their video stream is carried on various private cable and satellite TV networks (though one could argue that satellite uses the public airwaves as well).
mastershake, the irony is that the dog has the owner on a leash. Aren’t we, the public, the owner of the airwaves? Aren’t we the ones supposed to be writing the rules for them? It’s too bad Americans don’t even know their own rights, what few are left to them.
kathyodat
rfrancis, you are in error. It’s not the individuals in corporations the courts are giving free speech rights to, it’s the corporations themselves. And erroneously so. Corporate personhood was fraudulently obtained and then upheld not by a Supreme Court ruling but by a headnote inserted under fraudulent circumstances. With thunderous consequences.
kathyodat
GO TO http://www.pdla.org and sign the petition that the Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles passed unanimously at our last meeting. It’s a “gopetition” link that is on our website. We are requesting that the Democratic National Committee take the lead and REQUIRE that all nationally televised debates include ALL the candidates as a matter of allowing all viewpoints to be heard.
Because we are a Democratic group, we have focused on our own party. This could apply equally to Republicans, and I welcome one of their organizations to step forward and sponsor one for their candidates.
I had sent it in to the commondreams news wire, but it hasn’t been put up to my knowledge. We had over 120 original signatures co-sponsor within a few hours from our small circle of contacts. Many more have joined from across the country after it was posted.
###
I understand the YouTube debate was a flop. I watched most of it, and it was the same M$M debate, with the windowdressing of public participation.
Will the progressive community create their own ‘YouTube’ debate next cycle?
I would like the following format (all you tech-savy people please stand up):
Have a running Wiki-style formulation of questions. You can group the questions by interest-group, state or all. Then have online voting for each question- yes you would have to register, and the number of questions would be more than a MSM debate, but obviously there would have to be a limit.
All candidates who are on a ballot can respond to those questions, and can respond to other candidates’ responses and son on. The viewer can click through the videos, or can select the candates and issues they want to see and their personalized format will come to view. Have ratemycandidate and nielson ratings on the site.
A ‘produced’ live streamed broadcast would cover the more interesting bits. Have multiple productions- meaning the viewer could pick their viewing style preference (think a choice between Jon Stewart, Bill O’Reilly, Ralph Nader, john Bon Jovi, whatever).
Broadcast online that’s for sure, but also try to get every radio, tv, cable and web outlet to broadcast on of the live feeds (or make their own). If webtv producing editing stuff is easy enough for interests groups (AARP, NRA, ACLU, etc) encourage them to make their own.
How do you deal with many questions and answers to those from many people, all in a format that people will watch (to get exposed to more viewpoints rather than just clicking through the ones they already know?) And how do you sell M$M on broadcasting a format that they would view as a threat.
Or- another way- have some set questions, everyone on a ballot gets to answer, when their time runs up their feed gets cut, then everyone gets a follow-up.
Want ideas for “taking back” the media? Check out the documentary, “Un poquito de tanta verdad” (A Little Bit of So Much Truth). You can see clips of it on YouTube as well. It’s directed by Jill Freidberg, who also directed “This Is What Democracy Looks Like.”
Here’s a blurb from the movie’s website:
“A Little Bit of So Much Truth” captures the unprecedented media phenomenon that emerged when tens of thousands of school teachers, housewives, indigenous communities, health workers, farmers, and students took 14 radio stations and one TV station into their own hands, using them to organize, mobilize, and ultimately defend their grassroots struggle for social, cultural, and economic justice.
The San Francisco Chronicle addresses a key issue by asking the wrong question, thereby creating a false public confidence in itself and mainstream media generally. The confidence stems from the SF Chronicle addressing the issue. The falseness stems from the Chronicle asking the wrong question.
WHO DECIDES is not debatable. WHO DECIDES is non-negotiable. WHO DECIDES is the public will, on every issue, always, no exceptions, no conditions. GOT IT? GOOD. Now it’s time to vote our progressive principles in the elections and in our general exchange/association, and let’s put the corporations, including Hearst, in the cage in the corner, where they will stay quiet while the town hall meeting commences. CORPORATIONS IN THE CAGE.
Can someone direct me to the polls in which Kucinich scores in the low single digits? In many online polls he wins hands down.
Try the New Hampshire, Nevada and Michigan primaries
Good one thinkingmom! Whatever your intentions, I couldn’t stop laughing.
Excellent!
Of course, (to include Richardson) were they going by primary results or by polls (or by the, he’s from NM so we gotta include him)?
“But a court order to a network to let a candidate debate would be “the government telling them who they have to put on TV,” which would raise constitutional problems, he said.
BUT IT DOESN’T RAISE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS BY ALLOWING THEM TO CHOOSE WHO THEY KEEP OFF TV???? ANYONE DOING SOMETHING DARING OR WEIRD CAN BE ON REALITY SHOWS. THE DEBATES ARE REALITY! TO MANIPULATE, CENSOR AND CONTROL THEM ILLUSTRATES WHAT WILL OCCUR SHOULD THE ACTUAL ELECTION NOT GO THEIR CHOSEN WAY. LET KUCHINICH DEBATE!!! ENOUGH OF JUST HILLARY VS. OBAMA IN THE SANDBOX WITH ONLY JOHN EDWARDS TRYING TO DISCUSS ISSUES.
Staudter was equally optimistic that the Nevada ruling, and the system it ratified, would be undone by the court of public opinion. “There’ll be legislation by 2012 ending big-media control” of campaign debates, he predicted.
Wishful thinking. Who’s going to pass that legislation? Certainly not all the people in Congress or the White House who wouldn’t be where they are without being sELECTED by the media companies. You think HRC or Obama will sign such a law into effect, especially after the media companies have effectively railroaded and marginalized Edwards.
It’s especially troubling that so many of the lawyers frame it as a free-speech issue for the CORPORATIONS but not for Kucinich or his supporters. And don’t forget, those are OUR airwaves.
There is no doubt in my mind that Kucinich was excluded for his views. While the situation is legally murky, MSNBC is in the wrong. These are public airwaves we’re talking about. It’s not like these people discovered a frequency with their own money and used some industrious can-do to make a profit. Instead, there are owners and advertisers who pay money to propagate their message. Exclusion of opposing viewpoints is only natural. It’s not bad enough that Kucinich is unmentioned in the media (except to make fun). No, that media isolation translates into less support, less campaign funds, etc., which translates into exclusion from these debates. It’s an ugly cycle, and as Planet B so eloquently wrote, it’s not likely to be fixed anytime soon. Media concentration sucks, and I truly believe it is another step towards fascism in the US.
I’m waiting to see if there is a fenced-in “Free Speech Zone” at this year’s Democratic Convention like the one in Boston in 2004. Willing to bet there will be.
Did any of you see John Edwards’s new commercial “Native Son: The Movie” yet? It is a good plan in that it resembles commercials for movies a bit and, in a concise way, highlights John Edwards’s major policies.
There is one problem with it. “Native Son” resembles an earlier Air Farce Spoof called “Kerry Promo” a John Kerry election commercial based loosely on the movie Carrie.
If you don’t believe me, see for yourself!
Native Son: The Movie
http://www.johnedwards.com/sc/video/native-son-movie/
Kerry Promo (near middle)
http://www.airfarce.com/video/041015.html
RE: - There is no doubt in my mind that Kucinich was excluded for his views.
You are right not to doubt. Hey, they are trying to exclude Edwards because he holds similar beliefs.
As usual, the Democrats are trying to avoid admitting they have any power to do anything.
Of course, the party could easily set some groundrules and say that any broadcaster that wants to have a debate amongst Dem party candidates must follow them. The real threat would be that you’d need the candidates to agree not to appear if the rules are broken. And given the scum that rises to the top in that party, that might be difficult. After all, we just saw Hillary break that same sort of rule by putting her name on the Michigan ballot.
But, if the Democratic Party wasn’t completely corporate controlled and dedicated to having only very corporate friendly candidates for all federal offices, they could have a big impact on this.
For instance, in the Nevada case, picture what the publicity for MSNBC would have been like had Chairman Dean been very public and forceful about insisting Kucinich be included in that debate. If Chairman Dean was going on to every other network criticizing MSNBC for trying to exclude certain views from the debates, he could have made a very nasty PR problem for MSNBC.
The only reason this could happen was the deafening silence from the Dem party and their leading candidates. Like I said, scum rises to the top of that party.
“I’m waiting to see if there is a fenced-in “Free Speech Zone” at this year’s Democratic Convention like the one in Boston in 2004. Willing to bet there will be.”
I haven’t heard anything official yet. But then again I just missed a meeting last weekend. But I think the general plan is for something similar. The exact details of how much its fenced in or exactly how many hundreds of miles they want to push it away from the Pepsi Center it will be I think are still undetermined. But, the Dems seem to be pretty much calling the shots for this, with Denver city council and government just giving them what they want. So I’m expecting it to be similar or worse than last time.
BTW, there’s an answer to this. Lets get so many people here in Denver that no matter where they put the fences, there’ll be so many voices that are so loud that’s it can still be heard in the ‘Tin Can’. I’m guessing if there’s a million or so protesters here for the convention, we’ll be heard!!!!!!!!
Please come to Denver next August!!!!!
“Can someone direct me to the polls in which Kucinich scores in the low single digits? In many online polls he wins hands down.”
How many do you need? Here’s a list of what looks to be hundreds.
http://www.presidentpolls2008.com/Issues/Candidates/Democratic-Presidential-Hopefuls/Representative-Dennis-Kucinich-of-Ohio.html
Online polls are garbage. They are easily susceptible to ballot
box stuffing. Most of the time one person can sit on an online
poll and just keep pressing the same button over and over. I would
never use an ‘online poll’ as anything like a real gauge of public
opinion.
I know the Kucinich-nicks all seem to live in a fantasy-land where
they think there’s big reservoir of support for the man, but he’s
been doing this for six years now and on any contested race he’s
consistenly down in the single-digits. The polls and the ballots
agree. And also event like the party caucuses that are open and
transparent and unhackable. Everyone in the room can see how many
people support each candidate, and Kucinich never gets the 15%
threshold. The only times he ever got above single-digits was when he
was the last name on the ballot other than Kerry in 2004. And
that wasn’t really support for Kucinich personally, just protest
votes from people who could already tell Kerry was a lousy
nominee.
Its really about time for even the Kool-aid drinking
cultists that support Kucinich to admit the whole thing’s been
a huge waste of time, energy and resources. I wish all that effort
had gone into building the Green Party or some other independent
party.
It would be really helpful if experts in constitutional law, judges, justices and other experts would give their party affiliation along with their comments.
“I understand the frustration of less-known candidates who can’t get attention,” said William McGeveran, a University of Minnesota professor of information law, said in a posting on the info/law blog (blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw). “Nonetheless, we need to let news organizations make their own decisions about what information deserves our attention.”
Really? Would such a statement also justify a news organization’s decision to “eliminate” information from our “attention” so that we-the-people would support the insane foreign policies of this country and invade a country that was no immediate threat to us or any other country?
I’ve heard a lot of BS in my lifetime, but the “deserving attention” statement really takes the cake!
The MSNBC case was a bit different in that they invited Kucinich and then uninvited him.
Even in Canada, the media makes up reasons for excluding smaller parties from televised debates and, except for the three bigger parties, the only place you see party leadership races is on CPAC, if that. You note that you never see the leader of the Marijuana party during the Leaders’ debate. And you never see on TV how the Marijuana party chooses its leader.
As far as Candidates running for a particular party, you don’t exclude them until they drop out in Canada. But it is different as well since even the Leader of a party is beholden to the policies decided at Convention. The desire to exclude Kucinich (completely) or Edwards (as much as possible) is based, in part, that the leadership hopefuls are not beholden to what is decided at Convention but, in a very real sense, is attempting to shape what the party stands for.
MSM dictating policy is a threat to our security and future.
I urge everyone to caution their cable and satellite service that
we citizens will not tolerate MSM manipulating us and dictating
else we will cancel the service . . . nor buy products advertised.
MSM must be held accountable for constantly spreading fear and
mistrust among citizens, not to forget LIES . . . all of which
contributes to our apprehension and ultimately security.
COmarc–the reason Kucinich doesn’t register much in polls is precisely because he was excluded from debates and marginalized and ridiculed in the media. Most of America either never heard of him or thought he was an oddball. His views were NEVER given a fair hearing. Even so-called progressives are guilty in this regard.
As far as the Green Party goes, it didn’t work out too well in 2000 did it? And I voted Nader.
Ok–Here’s the complete TAKE BACK the MEDIA petition that I mentioned earlier. Obviously with Dennis pushed out of the race largely through the media blackout, this will not apply to him anymore. And I’m really NOT ok with the argument that the Kos guys use that it’s a CABLE station, and therefore, ok to choose whomever they want on their channel. The DEMOCRACY is in DEEP TROUBLE with the corporations totally controlling what the people see and hear. They gained their power to do this through the politicians. And they benefit from all the multitude of taxbreaks that American taxpayers subsidize. If you want the airwaves, and the cables, to give access to all the candidates, join our petition. Thank you.
Dear Friends of a Free Media,
Well, if not free, at least allowing all opinions to be heard in a presidential race.
The impetus for this movement was the exclusion of candidates from the recent MSNBC debate in Nevada. MSNBC, owned by GE, used its legal muscle to overturn a judge’s order to INCLUDE all the candidates. What’s pathetic is that there even was an order in the first place.
The AIR WAVES, for those who remember the distant past, are supposed to be owned by the public. The corporations who run the television networks have definitely FORGOTTEN that and allege that as “private entities” they have the right to limit the voices and viewpoints you hear on these air waves.
Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles disagrees and unanimously passed the following resolution which requests our Democratic National Party to REQUIRE the inclusion in all candidates in nationally televised debates. We will be forwarding this to them and to state party officials in charge of the California debate. However, this issue transcends the present presidential campaign and needs to be in place for ALL FUTURE DEBATES. Because we are a Democratic club, we are directing this to our own party.
If you wish to SIGN ON to this resolution,
PLEASE GO TO http://www.gopetition.com/online/16488.html
And, PLEASE FORWARD this to your contacts so that they can be included. Thank you all!!
Resolution in favor of ALL CANDIDATES
of the major parties being included in nationally broadcast debates
Whereas the democracy of our country is dependent on the free and open exchange of ideas and information,
And, whereas the media conglomerates and corporate interests, driven by shareholder profits, are using the public air waves to limit access and monopolize the broadcasting commons,
And whereas these media conglomerates and corporate interests are undermining the public interest to be fully informed about critical issues, thus declaring themselves to be private entities who can limit debate through arbitrarily set conditions for participation ,
Be it resolved that Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles shall support this resolution to request that the Democratic National Committee REQUIRE that the broadcasting networks who use the public air waves include all presidential candidates in all nationally televised debates.
Co-sponsored by:
1. Linda Sutton, 41st AD Delegate, PDLA- Endorsements, Progressive Caucus- Media
2. Dr. Bill Honigman, PDA California State Coordinator
3. Marcy Winograd, Pres., PDLA; Exec Bd. Member, California Democratic Party (41st AD)
4. Brad Parker, Officer, Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party
5. Lila Garrett, KPFK Host of “Connect the Dots”
6. Judy Alter, Dir, Protect California Ballots, Delegate-At-Lg, Election Defense Alliance
7. William Floyd, President, Santa Monica Peace Club
8. Dorothy Reik, President, Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mts.
9. Barbara Gluck, Director, Global Light Network
10. Peter Thottam, Esq., Executive Director, Los Angeles Impeachment Center
11. Robin Gibson, Co-Founder, L.A. Election Protection Taskforce
12. Ann Hiller, Treasurer, PDLA
13. Barbara Levin, Secretary PDLA and Founder of PDA-CA34 Chapter
14. Mervis Reissig, PDLA Endorsement Chair, PDA National Coord Congressional Districts
15. Michael Jay, Delegate, 42nd AD, PDLA
16. Lauren Steiner, SoCalGrassroots, PDLA
17. Lillian Laskin, Democratic Club of Westside Progressives,PLDA Endorsements
18. Maureen Cruise, 41st AD Delegate, Pacific Palisades Dems, LA County DP Alt, PDLA
18. Ahjamu Makalani, Progressive Caucus, PDLA
19. Bruce Campbell, West LA Democratic Club, PDLA-Chair Environment/GlobalWarming
20. Marilyn Noyes, PDLA
21. Michael Millman
22. Tom Williams, PDLA
23. Laurette Healey, PDLA
24. Kim Kaufman, PDLA
25. Margery Epstein, PDLA
26. Sylvia Moore, PDLA
27. Rochelle Laur, PDLA
28. Susan B. Haskell, Delegate, 41st AD, Pacific Palisades Democratic Club
29. Margie Murray, PDLA, Valley Democrats United, 41st AD delegate
30. David Swanson, PDA National Board Member
31. Alicia Morgan, PDLA
32. Christine Rowe, Valley West Democrats, Valley Grassroots for Democracy
33. Marr Nealon, NELA Democratic Club
34. Michael Butler, West LA Democratic Club
35. Flo A Weber, PDA Ventura County,Valley Democrats United, Valley West Dem Club
36. Maureen Louise O’Connell, PDLA
37. Laurel Burik, Progressive Democrat boycotting major media, DCCC, voting Kucinich
38. Wayne Williams, CDP Elected Delegate from 41st AD, PDA Advisory Board, VDU Board
39. Charles Coleman Jr., Teacher, PDLA, CA Delegate, 39th AD
40. Patricia Graczyk
41. John Azevedo, declined to state
42. Wendy Block, Valley Democrats United
43. Sharon Jimenez, President, Icon Imaging PR
44. Lisa Miller, Democrat
45. Ulis Williams, Pacific Palisades Democratic Club, PDLA
46. Sandra Sunshine Williams, PDLA
47. Alice Lynn, Delegate, 41st A.D., Vice President, Pacific Palisades Democratic Club
48. Scot Albert, PDA Foothill District
49. Jody Lozon - Los Angeles (50)
50. Annette St. John Lawrence,Corres. Sec. Valley Democrats United, Progressive Caucus
51. Carol Hirshfield, Ph.D., PDLA
52. Babette Wieland, Progressive Democrat
53. Mary Pallant, Delegate, 41st AD, PDA/VC
54. Tobi Dragert, Los Angeles, CA
55. Anthony Saidy, PDLA
56. Lydia Cornell
57. Paul Hayeland
58. Jack Mulholland
59. Rosalind Wolf, PDLA, Pacific Palisades Democratic Club
60. Paul Newman, PDLA, Santa Monica
61. David Villar PDLA
62. Rebecca Freese, PDLA
63. Pennie Dobkin
64. Sharon M. Klein, PDLA
65. Suzanne Benning, PDLA
66. Jamshid Ebrahimzadeh,PDLA
67. Arlene Nilsson, PDLA, WLA
68. Vinayak, PDLA
69. Susan K. Baritell, Progressive Dems Sonoma Cty, Secretary/Steering Committee
Alternate, Sonoma County Democratic Central Committee
70. Ellis Perlman, PDLA, Santa Monica Democratic Club, 41st AD delegate
71. Ruth H. Strauss MD
72. Daniel L. Sutton, CPF
73. Dr. Jean Ottina, concerned Democratic voter
74. Bob Handy, Director Region10, California Democratic Party
75. Michael Stabile, Hubert H. Humphrey Democratic Club, 56 AD, Delegate 39th CD
76. William Crain, Co-State Coordinator PDA Montana
77. Terry Johnson
78. Ruth Hull-Richter, Chairman, Patrick Henry Democratic Club of America
79. Alexandar Hull-Richter, Director, Chief- Western Affairs, National Youth Rights Assoc.
80. Natasha Hull-Richter, President, National Youth Rights Association-Orange County.
81. Mark Hull-Richter, Executive Director, Patrick Henry Democratic Club of America
82. Gay Lannon
83. Tighe Barry, Delegate 41st AD, member CodePink Women For Peace
84. Anna Weldon, American Citizen
85. Deborah Studer-Teal, Democratic
86. Susan Kopicki, Democracy for America - Orange County
87. Carlos Richardson III, San Diego Metro PDA
88. Cindy Asner, CA Delegate 42nd AD
89. Gail Wirth, Pacific Palisades Democratic Club
90. Mary Jacobs, PDLA
91. Dinah Mason, PDSB, organizer Santa Barbara Impeach Bush-Cheney Townhall Meetup
92. Mark Lipman, artist/activist
93. Gary Krasnoff Santa Barbara, Veterans for Peace, Democrat
94. Juanita Chatham Santa Barbara Democrat
95. Tania Anderson, Reseda, CA D-27
96. Colleen Fernald, PDA, PD Sonoma County, Progressive Caucus
97. Susan Smiley, Activist for PDA and HCA
98. William Smiley, Activist for PDA and HCA
99. Shirley Howland, Lake County Peace Action and PDA
100. Nancy Knipe, 28th Assembly District
101. Dr. Gilberto Robledo, Santa Barbara Progressive Democrats
102. Joy Robledo, Santa Barbara Progressive Democrats
103. Brian Levy, member PDA Ventura County & Simi Valley/Moorpark Democratic Club
104. Janis McQuain, PDA, Alliance for Democracy, World Can’t Wait, Topanga Peace All.
105. JoAnn Saccato, Clearlake, CA
106. Ralph Erickson, LA County Central Committee., PDLA
107. Judith Iam
108. Margaret Koren RN, Dept of Peace Team leader for CA Congressional District 1
109. James Evans, PDA, Lake County Peace Action, Dem Club, Democratic Central Cmte.
110. Joye Swan, Ph.D., 42nd AD Delegate CDP, President, PDA-SFV
111. Luette Forrest
112. Jill Daskalakis
113. David Sonneborn, National and Orange County PDA, So Cal Grassroots, DPOC
Central Committee and E board, 71st AD delegate
114. Richard Wizensky, PGPSCC Sonoma County Green Party
115. Sandra Macneill, PDA, PD Sonoma County
116. Margie Murray, PDLA, Valley Democrats United, 41st AD delegate
117. Joan Hudson-Miller, PDLA, Democratic Club of Westside Progressives
118. Michelle Weiner
119. Ed Pitzer, PDA 36TH Chapter
120. Anita Fieldman, Chair, Progressive Democrats of Marin
Additional supporters are on the gopetition website.
###
Gotta love this crap! In Orwellian New Speak allowing Kucinich to debate would be a restraint on freedom of the press. It would be laughable if it weren’t so sad. I thought “we the people” owned the airwaves.
“…then winnow the field in later events so voters won’t be “distracted by those who may have interesting viewpoints but little chance.”
What garbage! How would the voters be harmed or distracted by listening to Kucinich? He has an important message that actually represents well over half the population that want the war ended NOW!
Apparently Clinton, Obama and Edwards weren’t bothered much by this blatant usurpation of the peoples right to listen to a non-status quo, non-pro-war and non pro-big business candidate.
Regarding William McGeveran’s statement quoted by Egelko: “Nonetheless, we need to let news organizations make their own decisions about what information deserves our attention.”
There are two major problems with this quote - “news organization” and “information”.
Here’s what McGeveran is really saying: “Nonetheless, we need to let (General Electric) make its own decisions about what (presidential candidates) deserve our attention.”
Folks, it used to be “a chicken in every pot”, but now it’s “a fox in every hen house”.
Who can speak on debates? Corporate talking heads, aka the “frontrunners.” DK would actually speak the truth and upset the apple cart; which is why he was silenced. At least he didn’t meet the fate like RFK or MLK. Meanwhile, chearleaders like William Kristol at NY Times get a voice in the so call “liberal press.”
Man this just pisses me off. NBC has a vested interest. Being owned by GE one of the biggest [hogs at the trough] military contractors. You don’t have to be much of a genious to see that Kucinich’s anti war stance would hurt their bottom line.
It’s like having the judge be the one that is charged with the crime. Hello Fascicm. Down with NBC and GE.
TAIL CAP — ¿ What kind of a respectful American would ever permit mere
_ I N D I V I D U A L _ rights to trump gold crested
CORPORATE RIGHTS of their true and free expression ?
TJOAD — You perplexedly wonder what “… deserves our attention” ?
Well the answer is right there,
what D E-S E R V E S our attention ?
Obviously the best way not to serve our attention
is to provide useless dribbles, smoke, and giggles.
If the US were a true democracy - which it isn’t - it would not be necessary to ask this question.
We are obviously living in an age where censorship by the media is the norm. This used to be the preserve of communist countries or tinpot dictatorships - Amin, Mugabe, Galtieri etc. The top “news” stories in the UK at the moment are about the writers guild strikes in LA, Amy Winehouse going into rehab, Britney Spears doing whatever she does. There is no mention of the crisis in Gaza, nothing about Iraq, Pakistan or Afghanistan, although we sometimes hear about British troops being killed.
Even Yahoo news carried the story about the lies leading up to the Iraq war, but not the British mainstream media - it has not caused a ripple.
We need politicians like Kucinch to be heard, their views are important, because they are the only hope we have for any kind of peace.
Has everybody forgotten what a nut-cake Kucinich has always been?
What the hell are we going to do? Should the government pass a law stating all air-wave owners need to be a non-profit organizations? Or maybe severely restrict the amount of airwaves any one company can have–even though they continue to let them have a greater concentration? We certainly don’t want the government controlling the airwaves! It just seems so hopeless, we need some really smart and dedicated people to come up with a good,persuasive,realistic, and dynamic media reform bill.
I keep hearing people make comments about this not being a democracy–but the sad fact is, we do live in a democracy–this is what a grown, or growing democracy looks like. It was a great system when people cared and were moral, that is not the case today. Collectively we are to blame for this mess–and just like the drug-addict or alcoholic that cant change their ways until they hit bottom, I’m afraid neither will America.
Best thing you can do is withdraw your support of NBC and all its parent and sibling companies and any corporations that marketed their products during that debate.
This country needs much more public supported broadcasting of these debates where no candidate is excluded.
Now the media makes up our minds for us? In a manner of speaking (or I should say; listening) the media pretty much decides who wins the presidency? This is a democracy? According to the media it is.
This ought not to be decided on whether or not MSNBC had a contract with Kucinich. A private media company ought not have the right to set criteria for allowing any legal presidential candidate to debate: if the individual is a formal candidate on state primary ballots, he/she should be included in debates.
TWO BLUE — Compared to Wolf_fitz & bu$h!t,
RE: - Kucinich looks like Mother Theresa to me.
He is not that old, wrinkled or suffering from the loss of breathing. Kucinich has a lot of good ideas an policies. Who out of the three remaining in the race is most apt to get some of Kucinich’s agenda through?
Make sure Kucinich maintains his Congress seat - we need more people like him, if not in the White House, at least in Congress.
RE: - This ought not to be decided on whether or not MSNBC had a contract with Kucinich.
Yeah it should, MSNBC invited Kucinich and that constitutes a contract! Corporate personhood doesn’t give one the right to break contracts.
Oh, a few minutes ago, someone they are interviewing on Newsworld compared Obama to Don Cherry! I guess that would make Edwards Ron MacLean, the smart one.
Seems that the New York Times is backing Clinton and McCain and CNN is backing Obama.
VAUDREE — C L A R I F I C A T I O N
He looks __ m e t a p h o r i c a l l y __ as much of a (per TWO BLUE) “nutcase”, as Mother T, compared to Paul Wolf_fitz & Geo bu$h!t.
This is Don Cherry so you can decide for yourself whether he and Obama have the same hogging of attention larger than life thing going for them or not:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAJWUI8cBLo
Edwards is a threat to corporate America including the MSM. Who owns the MSM?
http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/
What is the most powerful lobby in Washington…AIPAC. Do you get the picture now?
That is what I like about Edwards.
Didn’t Naomi Klein’s grandfather strike against Disney? Wasn’t Naomi Klein’s grandfather-in-law and the second leader of the NDP, David Lewis, the originator of the phrase “corporate welfare bums”? Didn’t David Lewis’s son Stephen Lewis also promote the policies that we associate with John Edwards before deciding to eradicate AIDs in Africa.
Isn’t Henry Morgentaler the big reason why abortion is legal?
Steven Page, from the Barenaked Ladies is a staunch NDP supporter.
Judy Rebick, who wrote an article decrying racism in Israel which appeared on rabble on September 10, 2001 (if you wish to look it up)
Fred Rose, who was jailed in the 1930’s for organizing the unemployed.
And then there is David Orlikow - the personification of everything John Edwards stands for:
I recall in his last week of life he was still researching material on the impact of smoking and the potential lawsuits the governments should take, the national and provincial governments should take against tobacco companies to reinvest in the health care system in Canada. He was doing a considerable amount of work in research on tobacco products. As a former sponsor of the nonsmoking bill of rights and a person who has supported the government in previous initiatives, I found quite a lot of comfort from his research and advice from the work he had been doing. I know that Judy Wasylycia-Leis, our former member for St. Johns and the health critic of our federal party, was using David’s expertise continually.
He read so much. He read the Scientific American and talked about what the impact of early childhood intervention programs could be on the lives and poverty of children. He would supply that to you. He read about health care alternatives. He read the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, as I say, Scientific American. He was always researching reading material, passing on articles, passing on advice. We truly miss his intellectual capacity for researching and formulating policies that we must use to deal with some of our challenges into the 21st Century.
David was an inspirational person. He was very passionate. He was very articulate about his passions. Working people and their families were his passion. The principles and policies that affected the livelihood of average working people, organized workers and nonorganized workers were always front and centre on his mind. He would often be involved in campaigns to help organize workers into unions. He would be involved in campaigns to ensure unions got first contracts.
In fact, I am advised that he was one of the first people up in Thompson helping to organize the steel workers’ local when Inco first moved into Thompson years ago. He was tenting in northern Manitoba, signing cards and establishing the first union local in that area, and of course, something that obviously later today continues to be a success in representing the families of northern Manitoba.
(scroll down to “Orlikow”)
http://www.gov.mb.ca/legislature/hansard/4th-36th/vol_071b/h071b_9.html
Politics and the pursuit of social justice were David Orlikow’s life work. He served in public life for 43 years and he served at all levels of government: school trustee, alderperson, member of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly and member of Parliament for Winnipeg North between 1962 and 1988.
David Orlikow died on January 19, a few months short of his 80th birthday, fighting to the very end. He was, as we always knew him, a fighter for social justice, always demanding fair policies when it came to immigration policies, refugee policies, workers rights, always associated with the labour movement and free collective bargaining and a very important part of our party as a founding member of the New Democratic Party and a lifetime member of the CCF and the NDP.
I am sure there is not a person in this Chamber who knew David and worked with him or received one of his many phone calls who did not end up feeling a great sense of admiration and respect for David Orlikow.
We remember David Orlikow for his devotion to the people he was elected to serve, the priority he gave to constituency concerns and problem solving, his determination to achieve fairness one case at a time, his tenacious, unapologetic, no frills approach to getting the job done and his dogged persistence to pursue any injustice or any issue he felt was important. Just look at his record.
I did a quick count of all his House of Commons entries between 1962 and 1988 and came up with a staggering total of 2,906, and he did it all without a lot of fanfare and not much media attention. However, when he did get a headline we knew what David stood for. We knew how he saw his purpose as a member of Parliament. Speaking out against poverty, standing up for equality and fighting the banks, that was David Orlikow. Imagine what he would be saying today about the proposed bank merger.
That fighting spirit came through right to the end. He had conversations with several of us, including the member for Burnaby—Douglas, just days before he died about the need to convince the Canadian government to extend compensation to all the families of the victims of the Allan Institute and the CIA brainwashing experiments.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?pub=hansard&mee=52&parl=36&ses=1&language=E