Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich have gotten the short end of the deal since they entered the race for President. The MSM has not covered their campaigns and The New York Times in an editorial recently, left out their names completely when talking about the anti-war stances of the candidates. This must be particularly upsetting to these two candidates that are trying to get the message of their campaigns out.
After almost seven years of an administration that has used distortions and lies to wage war for oil, the American people want an honest, open Chief Executive that wants the best things for the people, instead of the military industrial complex. Kucinich and Gravel should be covered, just as any other candidate. I have heard more about Tom Tancredo and Mike Huckabee and Tommy Thompson than either Kucinich or Gravel. Who is the NYT catering to? Is it their advertisers that want an atmosphere of “business as usual” in Washington, as opposed to what Gravel or Kucinich would bring to the table?
These are the months leading to the primaries. I have kept my Democratic Party card so that I can vote in the primaries. What good is the card if Kucinich or Gravel never make it to South Carolina? I realize that most people don’t follow politics as I do. The names they know are the names they see on TV and the press. Unless these two are given a fair shake, people will come to the polls asking Mike who? We have seen candidates lose their momentum after getting whipped in the primaries by candidates that had grass roots support. How can that happen when one of the largest newspapers in the country doesn’t even mention their names? If you didn’t know that much about the Democratic slate, you would believe there are only six candidates running. That’s just not right.
This country of ours has in effect, a brand of censorship that is controlled by the corporate elite that can disparage journalists from writing what they believe will never be printed. Editors don’t want to take a stand and cover candidates that they believe have no way of winning. Isn’t that one of the reasons why they won’t? What happened to journalistic integrity? If every major newspaper decided that they would publish what their advertisers didn’t want them to print, where would they advertise? If things are so bad for the newspapers with declining readership and all of their other problems, maybe their readership is declining because they are failing to really cover the news!
People just about know what to expect when they read the editorials of The Washington Post and The New York Times. They expect to see spineless editorials on topics that have been beaten to death by television pundits the night before. It is really no wonder why readership is down. The fourth estate has become a summary of what you watch on TV. No longer do you see investigative reporters digging up stories and breaking them on the front pages of newspapers. No longer will you see editorials that break from the status quo and paint pictures of corruption or expound on ridiculous breaks from reality from the White House. No matter what the President says or does, the print media will usually give it their full attention, instead of coming out and saying that what has been said is ridiculous. I don’t need to pay a buck and a half to read that kind of ‘news”. It’s about time that the newspapers take a long look at where their place in this society is. They can either be a proactive place for news and clarification of facts brought out by TV so that the people can get a larger view of the “big picture”, or they can just “summarize” what went on the night before on CNN and write milquetoast editorials on non-events. That’s the way I see it.