Opinion: Our Local Media is Killing Our Democracy
by Editorial Staff
The election for the 20th Congressional District is about 40 days away. Three candidates have announced. Our local news is ignoring one of them - it's as simple as that - and now they've been so brazen as to tell us why.
NCPR's political reporter Brian Mann ran a story entitled "Lightning-fast 20th race pits experienced Republican against a fresh-faced Democrat" - no mention of the other candidate, or links to his website, although the other two are linked. Then he told us on his blog:My job is to reflect reality in my stories. So I will be covering Mr. Sundwall, though I'll generally treat him as an "issue" or a "protest" candidate. How much coverage he receives will depend on a) how interesting, thoughtful and compelling he turns out to be; and b) the degree to which his ideas influence the campaign debate.
The Glens Falls Post Star's managing editor Ken Tingley posted to his blog this week that "With two new candidates from last fall’s election, we want give our readers a chance to get to know the candidates. We are planning on doing personality profiles on each of the candidates."
When it was pointed out to Tingley that there were three candidates, not two, he replied:Right now there are only two candidates on the ballot. If a third candidate makes the ballot that has a legitimate chance or seems like an interesting candidate, we would always consider doing a profile on them as well.
Tingley went on to say that talking about a conspiracy against third-part candidates is "ridiculous" and "hard to take... seriously."
So there you have it - plain and simple bias. Two local media figures - one using public owned airwaves - who are defining who our candidates are, and are not.
The reasons this is bad are laid out at the blogs I've pointed to fairly succinctly (and here at MoFYC), but I guess there's a need to say it one more time.
- There are three candidates right now, not two. If Eric Sundwall fails to get on the ballot, then there will be two candidates.
- The third candidate has more history in politics then the Democratic candidate. He also lives in the District - the Republican candidate does not.
- It's ass-backwards to say a candidate doesn't have a chance in winning and then use that statement as a reason to exclude them from coverage. If our local media only covered Sundwall favorably and the others unfavorably - he would probably win, particularly in this political climate.
- The idea that people aren't interested in third party candidates is wrong, according to a Zogby poll. It is also patently ridiculous and not the basis for media reports. How many articles in the local news are of direct interest to only a few readers/watchers/listeners? Why is reporting the bridge results more important that a candidate for the 20th CD?
Finally, just so we're clear that what these folks are doing is unethical political bigotry, I'll excerpt the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics, which tells journalists to:- Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
It's not a lot for citizens to ask.
- Examine your own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
- Avoid stereotyping by... social status.
- Support the open exchange of views, even views you find repugnant.
- Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
8 Comments:
I think I’ll send a note along to NCPR explaining that I’ve contributed to Mr. Sundwall so his candidacy may become more of an “issue“…and regrettably will not be able to assist in future NCPR fund raising efforts.
Seems like this would be a great place to help publicize Sundwall's positions. You know, sort of as a counter to the "overbearing media".
He's only listing 4 issues, so it shouldn't take up too much space. Here's my take:
1. Foreign Policy. Yeah right.
2. Privacy. I like it, but I like to be alive too.
3. National Debt. Pay as you go. Not realistic for large purchases, but a worthy goal.
4. Federal Reserve. No subsidies or bailouts. YES!
For me, this is not about Sundwall. It's about the consistent undermining of democracy by our local press.
Political bigotry is exactly what this sort of bias is. This is made all the more pointed by the fact that it's really not that hard to give "third party" candidates coverage... if there was actually will to do so. You call up Tedisco and Murphy to ask their positions on agriculture or stimulus or whatever. Is it really that earth-shatteringly difficult to call up Sundwall and ask his opinion? These apologists act like contacting third party candidates requires the sending of a carrier pigeon followed by a national search for someone to translate the response from Ancient Basque into English. Or at least that's rationalization they offer, an incredibly transparent one.
The media establishment acts like it's completely unreasonable to give smaller party and independent candidates the same amount of coverage (or anything more than insulting token) as Republicans and Democrats. But smaller party and independent voters represent something like a third of registered voters (with Dems and the GOP each representing about a third each). So why SHOULDN'T their candidates get a comparable amount of press coverage?
For what it's worth, perhaps our vigilance did make an impression on Brian Mann. His latest piece on the race did include Sundwall's opinion on the stimulus (including Sundwall's actual voice). A small part of the overall piece but a baby step in the right direction.
What's also interesting is that reporters themselves often register as small-i independents as a demonstration of neutrality.
Hi folks,
Just a quick FYI, I did have an interview with Mr. Mann last week. I did not see it anywhere subsequently.
Maury Thompson has agreed to sit down with me for an in depth interview next time I'm that way.
I was on WGY with Al Roney for close to two hours today. The media will be coming and I talk about that in the Roney piece.
It may not be as bad as it seems. Right now the Times Union and WMHT have not given us an answer about being included in their debate . . .
The media are touchy souls, be nice to them and they come around. Stay tuned.
Thanks all,
Eric Sundwall
In the 20th district the 70,000 active voter registration edge enjoyed by Republicans over Democrats is frequently reported (actually 67,456 as of last November, according to the NY State Board of Elections). The size of this gap is put into perspective when compared to the 105,059 voters who are registered but not affiliated with any party. This figure is seldom reported.
Political races in the north country are won and lost over this this unaffiliated 24% "margin" of the electorate. When nearly a quarter of the voters are up for grabs, no election should be considered a two-party race.
Hi folks:
An FYI that my interview with Mr. Sundwall will air Thursday morning (tomorrow) on NCPR.
I've expressed my views at length on NCPR's blog, but I'll say again briefly:
In my view, politicians do have a responsibility to be either relevant (i.e. electable) or interesting before they can expect equal footing in media coverage.
Mr. Sundwall comes from a political tradition that should be viable in the North Country, especially given that many Republicans have embraced "big-government conservatism."
I don't think it's the media's fault that Libertarians aren't more active and successful.
What's more, I'm convinced that alternative political movements rely too heavily on the media.
Our job is not to promote causes or messages. This is an election, not a protest rally.
If you want Mr. Sundwall to succeed, donate money to him or volunteer for his campaign.
If enough of you do so, that will certainly draw mainstream media attention.
Until a movement can demonstrate some kind of relevance (a good example would be environmental groups or the resurgent Democratic Party) the media will focus the bulk of its reporting elsewhere.
Best,
Brian
NCPR
Post a Comment