The standard argument for keeping the field open is that doing so is a way to put a more diverse set of issues and viewpoints on the agenda. It’s a good argument. But the right approach, at this point in the campaign, is not to worry about how to be fair to the also-rans, but how to use them to find out more about the leading candidates. While, yes, the voting remains to be done, it’s safe to say that neither Republican primary voters nor other politically engaged individuals need exhaustive coverage of Santorum’s take on every issue at this point. But it would be interesting to know how Mitt Romney (and other serious candidates, if any emerge) responds to Santorum’s case for manufacturing-based industrial policy, or Paul’s stance on foreign affairs, or Jon Huntsman’s views on trade with China, or—to cite a candidate who really has been frozen out of the debate—Buddy Roemer’s take on campaign finance. And who knows? Maybe there’s a good reason to work Bachmann in here, too.
Campaign Desk
02:39 PM - November 14, 2011
It Wasn’t ‘Liberal Media’ That Froze Out Bachmann
And why the press is right to focus on the front-runners
‘See you on the other side’ - Meet Jessica Lum, a terminally ill 25-year-old who chose to spend what little time she had practicing journalism
#Realtalk: This is the best moment to be in journalism - The old stuff isn’t coming back, but that’s okay
Streams of consciousness - Millennials expect a steady diet of quick-hit, social-media-mediated bits and bytes. What does that mean for journalism?
Sticking with the truth - How ‘balanced’ coverage helped sustain the bogus claim that childhood vaccines can cause autism
An ink-stained stretch - Can Aaron Kushner save the Orange County Register—and the newspaper industry?
This is the best moment to be in journalism (25)
The WSJ editorial page hits rock bottom (19)
A backgrounder for understanding the storm that hit Moore, Oklahoma
Is the ‘chilling effect’ real?
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113219/doj-seizure-ap-records-raises-question-chilling-effect-real
One year ago four journalists were brutally murdered in the bloodiest attack on the press in Mexico’s drug war. For those left behind the pain — and the threats — continue
50 years of foreign reporting from the NYRB
CJR's Guide to Online News Startups
Uptown Messenger – Hyperlocal news for a neighborhood in New Orleans
Who Owns What
The Business of Digital Journalism
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.
To be filed under the category: Ignoring marginal candidates is good, except when we like them.
The discourse in this country—as reflected in our political campaigns—is so scripted and safe that it is hard to imagine how a genuinely new idea could survive. Media organizations that cover, air, and co-sponsor debates should be working to broaden this discourse rather than abet its further narrowing.
The defenders of the “objective” media say their job isn’t to judge, but rather to report the facts and let readers and viewers decide. Excluding someone like Gravel (or the long-forgotten Larry Agran) is essentially judging what he has to say as unworthy of the American public. These broadcasts are one of the few times voters get to hear from national politicians who are outside of party power centers, giving voice to unpopular or untested ideas.
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Mon 14 Nov 2011 at 02:58 PM
Thanks for telling me that Ron Paul has no chance of winning the nomination. Never mind that he has won more straw polls than any other candidate and he routinely places 3rd in the behind closed doors phone polls.
This article just emphasizes that the media thinks that they should pick the candidate. Get a life Mr. Marx.
#2 Posted by Eddy, CJR on Mon 14 Nov 2011 at 03:18 PM
@Mike H,
Thanks for flagging that old post; it's before my time here and I hadn't known about it! (And Clint, who edited my post, didn't send it to me.) But I think a better category heading might be, "CJR writers sometimes come to different conclusions."
@Eddy,
I think the post was clear about this, especially if you clicked on the relevant link, but I think the party (not "the media," though some media outlets are closely aligned with a particular party) picks the candidate. And no matter how many third-place poll results he gets or straw polls he wins, I think it's pretty clear that the Republican Party is not going to pick Ron Paul as its nominee for president.
#3 Posted by Greg Marx, CJR on Mon 14 Nov 2011 at 04:00 PM
"Thanks for telling me that Ron Paul has no chance of winning the nomination. Never mind that he has won more straw polls than any other candidate and he routinely places 3rd in the behind closed doors phone polls. "
... and nothing says "I'm gonna win this thing" better than routinely placing 3rd in the polls.
#4 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Mon 14 Nov 2011 at 05:04 PM
So, let me get this straight. You conisder it appropriate that in a "debate", CBS decides to give Romney 5 times the coverage of Ron Paul. (1262 words to 258 words, per Mediaite).
For context, recall that Cain was a nothing and then jumped up, tripling his polling numbers overnight. And Perry did the same thng, and crashed nearly as quickly. All while nobody yet knew much of anything about their proclaimed policy, nor about their credibility. But these rises and falls, with Gingrich most recent, came from the very debates you are claiming should be handed over to the frontrunner. Truly, your flawed reasoning could not be more circular.
Put another way, in your view, absolutely foolish and uninformed popularity, measured through polling, should decide who gets to be heard in "debates". Despite the fact that the claimed purpose of being heard in those "debates" is to allow voters to learn who they'd like to vote for. Cir-cu-lar.
Even worse, this mentality of yours basically defaults to pre-campaign popularity. Before anyone had even uttered a word at the outset of debate season, Romney led on name-recognition alone. By your logic, that was reason to largely ignore everyone else from the gun.
Nevermind that despite the huge tailwind from media, Romney has been shown to have stubborn resistance within the party voting base. No matter how much the press decides Romney is the a-priori winner and grants him time at 2-5 times others, the voters are not lapping it up.
No doubt one could make a case that the establishment GOP has been freezing out Ron Paul and Bachmann. But that would suggest all the more reason for the "press" to inquire why, comparing and contrasting what the establishment pushes versus that which it fears and shuns. An honorable press would shine the light on such conflicts between establishment and grassroots movements within the parties. It would broadcast, for all to consider, that Ron Paul's donations are on average one tenth the size of Perry's or Romney's, coming from five times as many contributors. An honorable press would expose such things for public consideration.
Instead, your shameful piece suggests that it's right for the press to do the exact same thing as the establishment hacks within a party. It is only fitting how much 'fait accompli' shares with 'accomplice.' "Stong press, strong democracy" my foot.
#5 Posted by Just MC, CJR on Mon 14 Nov 2011 at 06:55 PM
"An email from a CBS producer who predicted that Bachmann would not receive many questions from moderators Scott Pelley and Major Garrett."
The email is not a "supposed smoking gun" It proves that CBS intended their anti-Bachmann bias to do what they in fact did: ask Bachmann fewer (60%) questions than asked of Romney and Gingrich.
When you predict what in fact you do, then it proves intent, in this case intent of bias. CBS is a Team Obama member.
#6 Posted by Derek Wain, CJR on Mon 14 Nov 2011 at 08:47 PM
"An email from a CBS producer who predicted that Bachmann would not receive many questions from moderators Scott Pelley and Major Garrett."
The email is not a "supposed smoking gun" It proves that CBS intended their anti-Bachmann bias to do what they in fact did: ask Bachmann fewer (60%) questions than asked of Romney and Gingrich.
When you predict what in fact you do, then it proves intent, in this case intent of bias.
#7 Posted by Derek Wain, CJR on Mon 14 Nov 2011 at 08:49 PM
Establishment-biased polls give the MSM a convenient rationale for marginalizing Ron Paul. According to our (rigged) polls, he's not likely to get nominated; so, we continue to ignore him, minimize his importance, distort his positions, lie, etc.
The NYT, the AP, CBS, CJR, and the like are terrified of a Ron Paul nomination not just because of his economic and constitutional positions but because he would take the civil liberty vote, anti-war vote, and anti-corporatism vote away from Obama and rout him in debates.
#8 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Mon 14 Nov 2011 at 11:12 PM
Contrary to the whitewash from Team Obama member Greg Marx, the statistics show that Bachmann was shortchanged by CBS.
"An email from a CBS producer who predicted that Bachmann would not receive many questions from moderators Scott Pelley and Major Garrett."
The email is not a "supposed smoking gun" It proves that CBS intended their anti-Bachmann bias to do what they in fact did: ask Bachmann fewer (60%) questions than asked of Romney and Gingrich.
When you predict what in fact you do, then it proves intent, in this case intent of bias, typical of the Team Obama media jackals like Greg Mars..
A recent SmartPolitics analysis found that former Massachusetts governor and front-runner for the nomination Mitt Romney has spoken for over 73 minutes in the last 5 debates, more than any other candidate. Texas Governor Rick Perry came in second in terms of speaking time at 54 minutes, followed by Bachmann at 41.
#9 Posted by Derek Wain, CJR on Tue 15 Nov 2011 at 09:53 AM
Just a thought, do you people ever think that the network is trying to help the GOP by minimizing Bachmann?
I don't know if you know this, but much of the American public thinks she's unelectably crazy as is. The more she talks, the more the crazy impression sticks.
I don't remember Dennis Kucinich getting much attention either. This is something the press does, but it's something they do in service to their own bias/corporate bias, not because they're pro-Obama.
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 15 Nov 2011 at 10:33 AM
I don't remember Dennis Kucinich getting much attention either
It must have been a conspiracy between the corporate media and the MIC to block Dennis Kucinich’s valiant and courageous fight against space based mind control weapons and chemtrails. So always remember, Michelle Bachmann is the crazy one.
#11 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 15 Nov 2011 at 11:05 AM