After watching last night's Republican debate, and the coverage leading up to and now following it, it's apparent that Mike Huckabee has joined Ron Paul on the outside looking in. The air time given to both men was far exceeded by the attention lavished on McCain and Romney.

Perhaps Huckabee never had a chance to win the nomination, but just like the chicken and the egg, one has to wonder whether this is a case of the media reporting on what's important to the people or the media DECIDING what's important for the people. In other words, does Huckabee no longer have a chance, and therefore the media is no longer giving him equal coverage, or does Huckabee no longer have a chance BECAUSE the media is no longer giving him equal coverage. It's the same story for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul as a candidate in the Republican primary has NEVER been given equal coverage with the others, even though, every candidate should be equal to one another, especially in coverage (free advert) given to them by the media. Now Huckabee has been pushed aside and no longer has a chance of getting the nomination. The media has decided for us that Romney and McCain on the Republican side are the only two candidates to choose from, even though Huckabee and Paul are both still in the race. There is no excuse for this unequal coverage.

On the democratic side, the same holds true for John Edwards. Day after day we were flooded with news about what Hillary said about Obama. About what Obama said about Hillary. About what Bill Clinton said. An endless parade of analysts and experts talking Hillary, Obama, Clinton, Obama, this and that, ad nauseum. All while John Edwards was still SUPPOSEDLY a candidate.

The great majority of voters will base their decision on what is presented to them by the media. Many won't even watch the debates. Therfore, I find this to be an enormous problem.

So my question is this: Is there a deliberate attempt to influence voters, or is this simply a business, with the news channels out to make the biggest profit they can by covering the "most popular" candidates.

Is their coverage based on how the American public is already leaning, or do they actually create that lean through unbalanced coverage of certain candidates?

The commentary style of "news" presented on the major outlets is a huge part of the problem. Should there be actual regulations regarding coverage of political candidates? So long as Ron Paul, or Huckabee, or Edwards are or were in their respective campaigns, shouldn't they be assured equal coverage?



[edit on 31-1-2008 by quango]

well its no doubt that the media has a large influence on who we will vote for.

i have been for ron paul since i heard of him on youtube a while ago...

the sad thing is many people will absorb what the media gives them.
that really makes me mad.

i hope people will do some research about theire candidate before they vote to see if they even like that person.

I've been listening to AM talk radio ( mainly for entertainment and to see why i disagree with them so much). Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck hate the fact that McCain ( a relative moderate for a Republican) is the frontrunner and are blaming the media. They say that their own constituency is being influenced by big media into nominating a moderate (gasp). Romney seems to be the choice amongst the right on the radio.

On CNN this morning one of the "newscasters" said that the media is going to decide this Tuesday who won.

It was probably said in jest but he must be aware they have some pull.