Stupid talking point being sold by none other than Thom Hartmann.

[BuyingThyme]

One of the most ridiculous corporate-media talking points this season has to do with how much coverage the candidates tend to get from the mass "news" media.

We're asked to believe -- by everybody from Ed Schultz to Thom Hartmann -- that the reason sub-tier candidates can't get any "news" coverage has to do with their lack of funds. The "logic" goes something like this: The mass media outlets concentrate on the top-tier candidates because they know the top-tier candidates will tend to reciprocate by spending their advertising dollars with those very same mass media outlets.

Makes sense, right? Umm...no, not at all. There's absolutely no logic being applied there. This is what we call a lie.

Why the hell would somebody be more inclined to spend money to advertise when they're already getting the coverage for free? Wouldn't it make more sense to spend that money elsewhere, perhaps locally?

And how the hell does limiting the customer base (limiting the pool of candidates) result in higher gross sales for the media outlets? You'd think there would be some big bucks to be made in an environment where more candidates were competing for our attention on a level playing field.

I would make an Economics 1A joke, but I think a lemonade-stand analogy would be more appropriate.

Why do you think so many people are buying and selling this lie? Do you suppose the corporate media have anything to gain (or lose) besides advertising dollars?


DISCLAIMER: I'm not taking a shot at Thom Hartmann here. I'm just disappointed that he, of all people, would fall for this nonsense. He's supposed to be the smart one.

[tired_old_fireman]

1. That was part of Thom Hartman's argument for their lack of coverage

It wasn't his whole argument. The candidates do spend a large chunk of money on tv commercials. I don't know what is wrong with that assumption.