Re; Fairness Doctrine?

["Aaron 'Bishop' Read" <aread@speakeasy.net>]

At 02:29 PM 11/5/2002, Joseph Pappalardo wrote:
>I would think the newspapers could do more in this regard...as they seem to
>have the room/inventory.  And people who are interested will read the
>stories that grab them.  However, in the electronic media, time/inventory is
>short.  Again, it's not radio & TV's job to make the candidate popular.

Oh no?   Then why is it that Romney's use of the word "unbecoming" against 
O'Brien got nearly a week's worth of news coverage?  Because O'Brien said 
it was sexist?  I don't think so...if Howell had said that Johnson sounded 
like a asylum escapee at the last debate, and Johnson protested, it barely 
would've made a mention on page 23 of the Globe.   Why wouldn't that get 
major news coverage?  O'Brien and Romney got the coverage because the media 
has, on the whole, decided that O'Brien and Romney are the only two 
candidates worth covering.   Mr. Faneuf pointed that out with the blatantly 
editorialized comment he heard on Channel 5 last week.

Your argument that "it's not radio & TV's job to make the candidate 
popular" is, IMO, very short-sighted.  It's like saying that US Senators 
make all their own decisions entirely on their own.  While technically the 
words "yea" or "nay" come out of their own mouths,  in reality most 
Senators (and most elected officials above the local level) don't know 
squat about the things they're voting on.  They depend on their staff to 
filter the info for them because they face so many wide-ranging decisions 
on a daily basis it's impossible for them to make personal informed 
decisions on everything.  There just aren't enough hours in the day for 
that...they rely on their staff to make judgement calls for them on a lot 
of things.

So much like how various interest groups depend on Senators' staffs to make 
their desires known to the Senators themselves, candidates in an election 
depend on the media to make their stances known to the voting public.

It's a good analogy since in both cases, the group with the most money gets 
the most access to the desired target.

For that matter, if it's not the media's job to make someone popular, is it 
their job to block them from becoming popular?  Do you honestly believe 
that a candidate can become popular without media coverage?   If the media 
wants to say with a straight face that they're not biased, then equal time 
should be given to all candidates on the ballot, period.  That includes 
debates, news coverage, and political ads.  Bring back the Fairness Doctrine!

- Aaron

P.S. Anyone who says that political ads on TV are a form of "Free Speech" 
is full of s**t - when it's so damn expensive that only the rich can afford 
to do it - it's not "Free Speech" anymore...neither in the literal, 
financial sense...nor in the metaphysical, Constitutional sense.



_________________________________________________________
Aaron "Bishop" Read       aread@speakeasy.net
Fried Bagels Consulting   www.friedbagels.com
AOL-IM: ReadAaron         Brighton, MA 02135