This "Top Tier" thing... Is it new this year? I don't remember this way

[Bonobo]

of the media marginilizing our candidates before they even had a chance to be voted for...

Is it new?

[Skinner]

1. This happens every presidential election. (nt)

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. It has always happened. It used to be...

It used to be that the media would flat-out ignore those candidates it deemed irrelevant. Nowadays, they insult them with terms like "second tier."

Whatever it takes to keep the hoi-polloi from thinking there is real choice at the polls, I guess. :shrug:

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. They can't just ignore them this time, cuz they keep saying things

that make too much sense.

And that's where the "top tier" eventually get all their ideas.

[wyldwolf]

3. A constant in elections

[Bonobo]

4. But they didn't used to be so obvious about it, did they?

I mean... saying "top tier" is pretty "
bald, isn't it?

They used to at least pretend like they weren't calling the shots.

[wyldwolf]

6. they've ALWAYS been this obvious about it. Here's a link from 2003-2004

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=Dean&num=10&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=top+tier&as_oq=&as_eq=&ned=us&as_ldate=2003&as_hdate=2004&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=

[MonkeyFunk]

7. I remember it...

in the past. It's pretty common.

[penguin7]

8. I don't think it was there in 1992.

Jerry Brown certainly was not top tier, if they had such a thing then, and he was competitive well into the primarys.

[FrenchieCat]

9. During the 2003 Primaries, there was only one candidate in the "top tier", aka, "frontrunner"

As that is what one sole candidate was called then.......and that placement belonged to Howard Dean until Iowa.

Even the good general who was polling in double digits for most of the fall second only to Dean wasn't part of the media discussion apart from being called the possible "anti-Dean" (The general was reported on quite a bit in the month of September right before and right after the General announced....and then he was promptly "let go") because the press had decided to only deal with the label "frontrunner".

It appears that the press decides who gets the coverage, how many "Frontrunners/top tier" there will be, who is worthy, etc.....

[Bonobo]

10. If it's been done every election, how come a google search of Dukakis, Mondale

or anyone else fails to bring up anything that regards a pre-2004 election?

I say it is new to the extent that it has been taken for granted that it is the media's place to do it. A further eroding of the free democracy.

Anyway, google away. You will NOT find "top tier" referring to candidates pre-2004. That is my guess. Certainly nothing before 2000, and that is just 7 years ago! Hardly been around "every election"!

Why hasn't it been around? Cause it is, prima facie, incompatible with democracy.

[wyldwolf]

13. "google away. You will NOT find "top tier" referring to candidates pre-2004." YES you will

"the third contender in the top tier, Dukakis, has tried to steer clear of the Gephardt-Simon fray And has been playing down his own caucus expectations. ... "

Dallas Morning News

"ON the Democratic side, Dukakis is ahead with 38 percent, followed by Illinois Sen. ... must end up IN the top tier to survive and go ON to Super Tuesday. ... "

Sacramento Bee

"THE top tier of candidates appears TO be Gephardt, former Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, and DUKAKIS."

Boston Globe

Much more...

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=Dukakis&num=10&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=top+tier&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ldate=1987&as_hdate=1988&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=

[MonkeyFunk]

19. well

you're just less likely to find on-line articles written prior to the internet becoming popular.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

11. The media might not have always used the linguistic item "top tier,"

but deciding who is newsworthy and who is not is something, at least in the modern era, they have always done.

If they only showed coverage of Obama, Clinton, Romney, Rudy, and Freddy without referring to them as "top tier candidates," the effect would be the same.

[Bonobo]

12. Yeah, but it isn't insignificant that they are now so bald about their position of influence.

It is unseemly for them to boast of such influence when, if we were well informed about the need for boundaries, we would not stand for such media behavior.

[wyldwolf]

14. except they did.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

16. ?

[wyldwolf]

17. I keep posting links and they're ignored. (sigh!)

Choose your election year (at least an election year in the voting history of the OP) and the term "top tier" is used.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

20. My point is that, even if they didn't use that language

and instead the only people they covered were those individuals whom they perceived as "top tier," they effect would be the same.

When people only see coverage of HRC, Edwards, Obama, Romney, Rudy, Freddy, and McCain, they assume those are the candidates from which they are to choose.

[wyldwolf]

21. my point is, the media has used that language since at least 1988.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

22. k.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. Maybe not in those words, but they've always publicized the

most bland candidates and ridiculed or ignored the ones who might rock the boat.

The MSM began referring to Kucinich as a "minor" candidate before a single vote had been cast in 2004.

The MSM base their classifications of "major" and "minor" candidates on who can raise the most money from corporate interests. That's it.

In 1988, they dissed ALL the Democratic candidates by referring to the first round contenders as "the Seven Dwarfs."

[AnotherGreenWorld]

18. Yeah.

And they don't even need to use language like "major" and "minor." When they simply don't cover someone like Dennis Kucinich it has the same effect. People don't know who he is. Obviously he's not going to poll well.

[Bonobo]

24. I guess you're all right.... Shitty, isn't it.

[rucky]

23. That's why there's polling. n/t

[onenote]

25. Not new. Just faulty memory.

The distinction between candidates as "top tier" and second tier or "bottom" candidates is nothing new. Here are some examples from 2003-04:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-01-05-candidates-cover_x.htm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/07/16/MN75663.DTL

Here's one from the 2000 race delineating who is a "top tier" candidate among the repubs.