I think this has been commented on here and there but it's worth amplifying. The mainstream media is already beginning to play its role: deciding who is a "credible" candidate in the 2008 races and who is not. The coverage for some candidates is far more prominent than others--almost regardless of their positions.
I'll actually start with Republicans. Sen. Sam Brownback and Rep. Duncan Hunter announced that they are running for president--except you really wouldn't know they were running unless you found the small mentions in the back pages of The New York Times. This is true of the other main papers. Yet, the mainstream media is awash in stories about John McCain--even though I think he is tanking very quickly with his embrace of the Iraq escalation plan, which is hated even by large number of Republicans. My point is this: why shouldn't the voters actually get a full, broad range of coverage about the positions of Brownback and Hunter? I shudder to think of a country under the leadership of either one--but it's the voters who should decide that. And that's hard when they are marginalized.
The same is true of the Democrats. Dennis Kucinich is running--though you'd barely know it. The entire focus has become celebrity-driven: the "rock stars" dominate...need I mention those names. Sad state of affairs again when it comes to full public debate about issues.
Edwards was the first to announce his candidacy and you would hardly know that he is running as well!!!
Posted by: John Foster | February 02, 2007 at 10:17 AM