Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Why should ABC and Fox get to decide who is a viable candidate for president?

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Should Big Media Choose Our Candidates?

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted January 2, 2008.


Why should ABC and Fox get to decide who is a viable candidate for president?
Advertisement

Should Big Media decide for the rest of us who is -- and more importantly who is not -- a viable candidate for president? It's bad enough that thus far the reporting of this year's quadrennial presidential pursuit has been even more insubstantial than ever, focused on the horse race, the fundraising, the polls, the pundits, the haircuts and assorted other bits of silliness -- anything other than actual issues of concern to voters and importance to the world.

Now we find Big Media, (specifically its Fox/ABC News wing,) determined to narrow the field of presidential candidates before any of us, other than a handful of white people in Iowa, even get a chance to vote!

Both television networks plan to winnow out presidential candidates they deem unacceptable and prevent them from participating in important debates to be held this weekend -- just before the crucial New Hampshire primary.

Fox has invited just five of the seven remaining Republican candidates to a forum with Chris Wallace scheduled for Sunday in the Granite State -- only two days before the nation's first presidential primary. Although Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and even the barely breathing Fred Thompson were all invited, two current candidates, both current Members of Congress, were not -- Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul.

The Fox excuse? "Space is limited" in the "souped-up bus" that is serving as a mobile studio. As a result, Fox executives say that, for space reasons, they decided only to invite those candidates who had received double-digit support in recent polls. Forget the fact that Ron Paul actually is ahead of Thompson (6 percent to 4 percent) among all New Hampshire voters in the most recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, or that the two were tied with the support of 4 percent of likely voters ...

Forget as well the fact that Paul recently shattered the record for online fundraising in a single day, raising nearly $6 million in 24 hours -- a little more than a month after he amazed the pollsters, pundits and political professionals by hauling in $4.3 million during the same time span. (Not bad considering that on the day that John Kerry accepted the 2004 Democratic nomination, he raised $5.7 million on the Internet -- the biggest online fundraising day on record until the supposedly non-viable Ron Paul surpassed it.)

But consider at least these facts: in just the last three months, Paul collected more than $19.5 million, bringing his total for the year to more than $25 million. More than 130,000 contributors gave to Paul during the fourth quarter, including more than 107,000 new donors.

"This is exciting. It's crazy. I can't imagine any other Republican raising this kind of money this quarter. This means Ron Paul's message is really resonating with people," Jim Forsythe, who leads Paul's New Hampshire MeetUp group, told the Washington Post.

But Big Media doesn't seem as impressed -- at least now. Remember just a few months ago, however, when how much money a candidate was able to raise was the Big Media imprimatur of viability? Now that Ron Paul has vaulted near the top of the fundraisers, it seems the bar is being moved, and is set a little higher for him.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: fox, election08, debates, ron paul, abc, election coverage, iowa primary

Filmmaker and journalist Rory O'Connor is now completing AlterNet’s first-ever book, which is on the subject of right-wing radio talkers like O’Reilly, and will be available early in 2008. O'Connor also writes the Media Is A Plural blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The message
Posted by: snowhound on Jan 2, 2008 6:12 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the media promoted Ron Paul's message to the masses, there is no doubt he would be leading in the polls. If the typical American realized how close their country is to an economic collapse, they would be running into the streets to promote Ron Paul. Powerful nations in our history collapsed due to ecomnomiic collapse not by military invasion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Rune Posted by: FreedomJunkie
» RE: une Posted by: JSquercia
media censorship
Posted by: Saul Tanner on Jan 2, 2008 6:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article, and I've been calling Fox all day, this is completely unacceptable behavior!

Further, I'm shocked that Saint Anselm college would allow this, it's a complete betrayal of their stated beliefs on their website.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mainstream media losing credibility fast
Posted by: mketcher on Jan 2, 2008 8:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The mainstream media has tried to marginalize Ron Paul in the past -- and failed. This attempt will fail, as well. He'll get a huge amount of publicity for it, introducing his common-sense ideas to thousands more people. His current supporters will be further galvanized and energized. And the mainstream media, especially Fox, will continue to lose credibility, viewers, and advertisers.

For a great satire on the president, the mainstream media, and the war on terror, see this YouTube music video from the international award-winning zombie musical feature film, "Song of the Dead." It' stars horror movie veteran Reggie Bannister (Phantasm, Wishmaster, Bubba Ho-tep) as the president of the U.S. The filmmaker, Chip Gubera, is giving a share of his profits from DVD sales to the Ron Paul campaign. Go to:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qQmkkoxSKYw

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

John Galt
Posted by: Johh Galt on Jan 2, 2008 7:53 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Folks, they will write history books about the events of today. As the dollar is sinking some are talking about National Health Care. As the war goes on, we pass 35,000 new laws in the U.S. taking our freedoms away. We have 85% of all the attorneys in the WORLD, and someone is has filed suit against an 8 year old for snow sking. Ron Paul, your my only hope left...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MSM is a propaganda organization.
Posted by: mickrussom on Jan 2, 2008 10:04 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The media.

Yellow journalists who are minions for the military industrial complex.

They are radical gun grabbers, authoritarians and mindless minions of the machine.

They grind out advertisements for companies that poison us with substandard product and farm our manufacturing to autocratic countries like china, or enslave humanity for profit.

The lame stream media stands for authoritarianism, for slavery, for profit, for mis and disinformation.

Ron Paul, 2008. Last chance for freedom and liberty to exist on earth. You can make the choice, to live free or plunge us into darkness forever.

The MSM is deprecated, we all know its a pack of disinformation and lies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iowa
Posted by: mentalgongfu on Jan 2, 2008 10:20 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an aside to the general theme of the article, which I find agreeable, I was quite annoyed by the phrase "other than a handful of white people in Iowa."

Iowa bashing is always popular in January every four years, usually by people who know absolutely nothing about the state. GET OVER IT! So we're not as populated as California, big freakin' deal. So we're a majority white population - so what? We're not allowed to have valid political views unless we have the correct percentage of hispanics and blacks amongs us? Enough of this elitist bi-coastal bullcrap. Iowa ain't the Garden of Eden, but neither is New York City (which elected Rudy Guliani, btw) or Los Angeles, and I suspect the racial problems in those areas are much worse than they are here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Iowa Posted by: mickrussom
RON PAUL and FOX NEWS, Media in General
Posted by: Billy B on Jan 2, 2008 10:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I for one would vote Ron Paul.

I am trying to find out where to complain to fox news by email, blog or forum to get my message to them lound and clear that they shouldn't be the ones to decide what we hear and what we shouldn't and that I dissaprove of their actions. I do believe as well that there would be as signficantly different outcome if there was a fair reporting by the news networks to each candidate involved and not just a selected few! Fox News website isn't set up very well and I am not sure where everyone goes....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No to Ron Paul
Posted by: georgiaorwell on Jan 2, 2008 11:22 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I first read of Ron Paul's stance on many issues, I was impressed with his independent thinking compared to other candidates - that is until I became aware that he would set women's reproductive rights back to the Dark Ages. I don't really know any women who are pro-abortion; the real issue is for women to have a choice about their own bodies, not be arbitrarily governed about their bodies by any of the fundamentalist, conservative male groups in power. That one issue alone absolutely negates any interest I would ever have in Ron Paul as a candidate - for anything.

It's tempting to get behind a candidate who wants to toss out the IRS and the Federal Reserve, etc., but his anti-choice stance reveals, in my opinion, a blatant chauvinist unworthy of my support now or ever. Why are we, as a people, so willing to support someone who wants to take away yet another one of our rights or freedoms - the ability for women to choose and to be educated about reproductive health. For this reason alone, I would have to say No to Ron Paul.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No to Ron Paul Posted by: Solomon Void
» RE: No to Ron Paul Posted by: thirty3na3rd
» RE: No to Ron Paul Posted by: noragreen
» RE: No to Ron Paul Posted by: donl51
ABC?
Posted by: thirty3na3rd on Jan 3, 2008 3:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fox News has certainly discriminated against Ron Paul because of his foreign policy standard of non-intervention, but I'm not aware that ABC has yet excluded Paul from the January 5th debate. They did propose inclusion criteria, but I think that Paul meets them. ABC should not be put in the same classification as Fox News because throughout the past several week ABC, CNN and PBS (NewsHour) have been posting several relatively balanced reports about the progress of Paul's and others' campaigns, whereas Fox News, CBS, and NBC have tended to air inaccurate, marginalizing, and smearing stories about Paul.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Larry King
Posted by: thirty3na3rd on Jan 3, 2008 3:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Supposedly, Ron Paul was scheduled to be interviewed by Larry King the night before the Iowa Caucus. It was even on the Ron Paul campaign website calendar. For some mysterious reason, Suze Orman the liberal financial advisor was on instead (and "endorsed" Rudy Giuliani by saying he was the best Republican running). Did it cost Dr. Paul valuable last day campaigning time to tape an interview eith King that was not aired?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Larry King Posted by: BreakYourChains
What the heck is internet money?
Posted by: lamar on Jan 3, 2008 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bill O'Reilly dismisses Ron Paul's fundraising by saying, "yeah, so what, we all know he raises a lot of money on the internet."

Why does money raised through the internet not count? Because big corporations don't give small, anonymous donations. They give big, attention grabbing, winking, donations with all the fanfare they can muster. And somehow, that's better than "internet money."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dammit
Posted by: dammit on Jan 3, 2008 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please don't let the manure spreaders of the world such as FOX,ABC,
NBC etc. the Bush family of corruption, the U.N. or any one else that block Ron Paul's message of hope for America. We all need to hear the message because it is the only one with merit.
We don't want to hear about the international criminal court (ICC)
(i.e.) the law of the sea treaty. Our system of laws and balances while
not perfect works just fine. I like my rights why would I want to trade my freedoms for the very reasons the pilgrims left Europe in the first place..........Ron Paul is our last chance DONT'Y BLOW IT!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks for the coverage of Ron Paul, but...
Posted by: Philalethes on Jan 3, 2008 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's been many years since I visited Iowa, but I haven't heard that all non-"white" people have been run out of that state, or barred from voting there. So why the "handful of white people in Iowa" remark? Could you please can it with the racism?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Left And Ron Paul
Posted by: bcgirl125 on Jan 3, 2008 11:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article about Ron Paul by Jeff Taylor on Counterpunch website:
http://www.counterpunch.org/
taylor01022008.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Big Media Owns The Elections
Posted by: John Carey on Jan 3, 2008 12:24 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Kennedy was assasinated, the agreement the conspirators made with the media to win their support was that the media would control the voting process. The veracity of this statement can be easily verified by googling Voters News Service, owned by the large media corporations, set up in 1964, that "counts" all the votes in all national elections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who watches cable anymore?
Posted by: bill bruford on Jan 3, 2008 12:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is the solution to this problem.. As a Ron Paul supporter who believes in personal responsibility I cant see why anyone would pay for television in the first place. Who watches FOX, CNN and the others? Why not just get rid of your direct TV or cable service forever and your life almost improves overnight. I guarantee it! Then Chris Wallace will have no significance what so ever...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I remember when
Posted by: ItsTime on Jan 3, 2008 3:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember when we pointed our democratic finger at Saddam when he won his election by 99% and yet the media herding that is going on is essentially the same, just more subtle. That way people are given the impression that they actually had a choice. One thing worth mentioning is that Huckabee tried to duplicate Paul's fund raising day. Makes sense to me, I mean he's way up there in those Scientific Polls. His 24 hour fund raising campaign raised a whopping 89k.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why would we even listen ??
Posted by: donl51 on Jan 4, 2008 10:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do we not have minds of our own?I certainly do,I like many others listen to commentators ,and read what I can but my choices are my choices..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

americans are brainwashed
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS on Jan 6, 2008 7:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we havent had areal media in our lifetimes ... media should be in thousands of hands... not 3 or 4

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fine by me.
Posted by: davescott on Jan 15, 2008 2:38 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ron Paul is a fruitcake.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]