Kucinich Exit An Effect Of Biased Process
Originally published by Daily Campus
Kucinich Exit An Effect Of Biased Process
Daniel Wilkinson
Issue date: 1/25/08 Section: Commentary
Last week, NBC News sent out a debate dis-invitation to former Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich, a move later upheld by the Nevada Supreme Court. In this action, the public was sent a disturbing message - the media is a self-elected officiator of the democratic process. Yesterday Kucinich dropped out of the presidential race, in part because of his inability to garner TV time and in the midst of a tightly contested election year, this is more alarming than ever.
The trouble exploded when NBC revoked an invitation to Kucinich for the Jan. 15 Democratic debate in Las Vegas. They justified this development with a set of new requirements for participating in the debate. Suddenly, a candidate was required to be in the top three spots in Iowa or New Hampshire. Kucinich responded by calling the company's decision un-American - justly so.
NBC carelessly cited its First Amendment rights in defense of its case. Regardless of whether or not the cable conglomerate has the law-given right to exclude candidates from the electoral process is irrelevant. The legitimacy of Kucinich's campaign should not have rested on the shoulders of NBC. As the Democratic nominee for president will not be chosen for months to come, NBC overstepped its role as a news medium in the election process. The role of the media is to serve the public's desire for news. Dennis Kucinich, regardless of how unpopular he is amongst the board members at NBC, was news. He was a Democratic candidate for president in 2008. By silencing select voices in the debate, NBC effectively endorsed the candidates who were allowed to participate.
NBC has made it clear that Kucinich's voice lacks relevance in the democratic process. But more importantly, NBC has denied the rights of Kucinich's supporters, undecided voters and the rest of the voting field. In light of the turbulent reign of the current administration, voters need serious public discourse with as varied a field of opinions as possible. Kucinich, who was arguably the farthest-leaning liberal amongst the democratic candidates, would have added invariably to this debate.
NBC Correspondent Kevin Corke defended the company's position with a predictable callousness for the rights of both Kucinich and voters-at-large.
"Most people want to hear what Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and Barack Obama have to say," Corke said. "After all, those are probably the three they're going to be picking from."
Corke's projection of the future Democratic front-runner, regardless of how certain he might be, remains a guess. It is an uncertainty. Since when did the media become officiator of America's democratic process?
NBC's decision was not new. ABC News denied Kucinich, Democratic candidate Mike Gravel (Alaska) and Republican candidate Duncan Hunter (Calif.) from participating in the New Hampshire debates on Jan. 5. But, certainly that does not make it right. Presidential debates are designed to showcase the beliefs of all eligible candidates amongst the Republicans and Democrats. Many candidates who lack powerful financial bases, such as Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, rely on debates to gain name recognition and exposure. Without this outlet, underfinanced campaigns are doomed from the beginning. Without the blessing of NBC and ABC, Kucinich could not compete.
In light of the situation, one cannot help but wonder what NBC might have done if they had hosted a Republican debate. Surely, they would not have reduced a field of six viable candidates to three. If they had, they again would have effectively endorsed three of the candidates when the campaigns of some, most notably Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani, are relying on Feb. 5 lottery of primaries for their slingshot towards nomination. They would have possibly ended the campaigns of a number of very serious candidates.
Unfortunately, the Kucinich debacle is merely a blemish on the indelible mark the media has cut across the American consciousness over the last few years. The media has fallen slave to their own polls. Rather than strive for relevant journalism, the media has bombarded the public with predictable slop, and their tampering with the election process is no exception. Britney Spears' latest court arraignments dot the front pages of our major newspapers while America fights a trillion dollar war in the Middle East. In the end, the weight for change lies on the back of the public. They need to voice objections to the spurious actions taken by media, and fight for objective journalism. The media relies on the public for incentive and their paychecks stop with the public's purchases. In this case, the public needs to send a message.
Subscribe to this blog's feed