http://newssnobbery.blogspot.com/2007/03/dennis-kucinich-we-hardly-knew-ye.html Dennis Kucinich. Do you know him? Yes, neither did I. Or at least, I didn't know him well. I heard his name in passing--perhaps in a newspaper article or on TV. But wherever I heard it, you can be sure it didn't stick in my mind, not like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. And just who is Dennis Kucinich? He is the U.S. Representative for the 10th District of Ohio. He's also running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, which he also did in 2004. With all the excitement over Obama and Hill, there hasn't been much room in the spotlight for anyone else. So, why aren't people familiar with lesser-known candidates like Kucinich? Well, that's the subject of this post.
I mentioned in a previous post that I was reading a book called Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy. In this book, the authors (John Nichols and Robert McChesney) talk at length about the 2004 election. One point they make is that before the primaries, the media made a point of giving favorable coverage to those candidates they thought had a shot at the Democratic nomination and either ignoring or covering negatively the candidates they felt were long shots--Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Rev. Al Sharpton and former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun. In fact, Nichols and McChesney reported that ABC decided to "cut back on its already scant coverage of Kucinich, Sharpton and Braun" after a debate in Durham, New Hampshire, hosted by ABC's Ted Koppel (former anchorman of ABC's Nightline). Koppel had previously made comments such as, "How did Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun get into this thing?" and "Nobody seems to know. Some candidates who are perceived as serious are gasping for air and what little oxygen there is on the stage will be taken up by one-third of the people who do not have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the nomination." (See here for more information.)
Nichols and McChesney maintain that the media policed the 2004 election, from the primaries to the general election. And looking back at 2004, I have to admit that I didn't think Sharpton and Braun had a chance in hell of winning the nomination, and I don't even remember Kucinich. Where I once thought former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean might be a good choice, media coverage of his "I-Have-A-Scream" speech and other gaffes changed my mind. I ended up voting for Sen. John Kerry because I thought he was the only one who had a chance against Bush. I was wrong, and after reading Nichols and McChesney's book, I regret being so narrow minded.
So, here we are again. The 2008 election isn't that far off, and the candidates are all scrambling for a place in the spotlight. The difference this time around is that now the media has to focus on candidates vying for both parties' nominations. Already, I'm seeing articles about "front runners." Rest assured, Kucinich isn't one of them. A search on the Chicago Tribune site showed that he had only been mentioned in a few articles over the past month, and those mentions were very small, usually about how he is low in the polls. It should be noted here that Kucinich's stance on media reform is certainly not one favored by the media, which might be a reason why they aren't too interested in seeing him win the nomination. Kucinich's media reform plan is outlined here.
Now, I'm not saying I'm a Kucinich supporter. But I think he's getting a bad rap, and somewhat unnecessarily. What is also bothersome is that this bad rap is coming from the media, either because they report negatively on Kucinich or just ignore him altogether. And this goes for any candidate for the presidential nomination, whether Republican or Democrat, who is treated in the same way by the media. I was particularly surprised by a post by Sabrina Eaton that appeared on a politics blog on the Cleveland Plain Dealer Web site that linked to a post by Moulitsas Zuniga, author of the blog Daily Kos. In the post, Zuniga states why he says "ugh" to Kucinich. Easton says "
he entry lists a number of reasons why Moulitsas thinks Kucinich isn't ready for the Oval Office, including his flip-flop on abortion, his new-agey rhetoric, and his ranking as the nation's 7th worst mayor in the 1999 book The American Mayor by Melvin G. Holli." Zuniga's post is quite negative toward Kucinich, and while that is his right as a blogger, to express his opinion, the Cleveland Plain Dealer then took that opinion and passed it onto their readers. And if you read the comments left by Daily Kos readers, you'll see that Zuniga isn't totally correct in his statements.
So the Cleveland Plain Dealer is doing what many other media organizations are doing, and also did back in 2004--trying to put an end to the campaigns of the long shots like Kucinich. Cover the media darlings like Obama and Clinton, and let the rest fade away. Again, this post is not my attempt to get anyone to vote for Kucinich. In fact, I've been proudly wearing my Obama '08 t-shirt around town. But part of the problem with our political system is that there isn't any true competition. There are a few candidates that are considered viable, and the rest, including candidates running from third parties like the Green Party, are treated as outcasts. I don't think having a two-party system is good for America, and I think we would be better off if we had third-party candidates who could really give the Republicans and Democrats a run for their money. So, I am thoroughly disappointed in the media for participating in the practice of relegating "long shot" candidates to the back of the theater while giving candidates like Clinton, Obama, McCain, Romney and Guiliani front row seats. Shouldn't the media be informing us about the candidates we will be voting on instead of making the decision for us?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
