Published on
by

Learning the Downsides of Candidates Is a Big Upside of Modern Media

The possibility of picking nominees based on who can best serve the interests of voters rather than donors is really one of the most positive developments in modern politics

In the past, we knew very little about these transactions, because the powerful also owned and/or funded almost all the outlets we got our information from. (Photo: Screenshot)

In the past, we knew very little about these transactions, because the powerful also owned and/or funded almost all the outlets we got our information from. (Photo: Screenshot)

You’ve probably noticed that we live in a society where some people have a great deal of power, and most people have very little. And that this works out well for the few and not so well for the many.

This plays out in the political realm with the few using their power to support candidates who would maintain that power. In the past, we knew very little about these transactions, because the powerful also owned and/or funded almost all the outlets we got our information from. As a result, those outlets told us very little about which candidates were beholden to whose interests. When they did talk about candidates’ funding, such reports were inconspicuously placed and seldom amplified via commentary—thereby ensuring that few people outside the donor class were aware of who was doing the donating.

A funny thing happened in the 21st century: The development of digital technologies made it much cheaper to create and distribute information, via email, blogs, podcasts and social media. Though these technologies were largely developed by for-profit corporations for their own profit-seeking ends, they also enabled horizontal communication on a scale never before possible.

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

BOLD VISION. SMART POLICY. THE COURAGE TO ACT.

Make no mistake. Change is coming. And we've got it covered.

Please choose a donation method:



And this ability allows us to have conversations about politics that we’ve always needed and never have had until now. Part of the point of these conversations is that we can talk about the candidates we want to talk about, rather than the candidates corporate media have decided we should talk about. And another benefit of these conversations is that we can talk about the hitherto hidden transactions that would determine which candidates were “viable” and “electable.”

These discussions of candidates’ financial and policy histories can look like negativity—because it’s seldom good news when a line can be drawn between where politicians gets their resources and how they do their jobs. But the possibility of picking nominees based on who can best serve the interests of voters rather than donors is really one of the most positive developments in modern politics.

This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We don't survive on clicks. We don't want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do. Without Your Support We Won't Exist.



Jim Naureckas

Jim Naureckas

Jim Naureckas is editor of EXTRA! Magazine at FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). He is the co-author of Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error, and co-editor of The FAIR Reader. He is also the co-manager of FAIR's website.

Share This Article