ABC cuts candidates from debates

"The mass media controls what we think and do."

When I majored in radio/TV in college, this maxim was uttered by my professor during my first semester (while my classmates chewed bubble gum and spilled soda). No truer words were ever spoken. So every 4 years the media moguls masturbate to how they can control the presidential election.

Occasionally they'll cut the Democratic nominee some slack as long as the media can frame the issues, like in '96. (That doesn't mean they weren't biased towards the Republicans even then.) But usually the media steamroller considers the Republican nominee almost a default choice.

This desire to control what issues are on the agenda drives ABC's roguish decision to cut several serious candidates from both the Democratic and Republican primary debates. ABC cut Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel from the Democrats' debate; the network removed Duncan Hunter from the GOP side.

I'm no fan of Gravel or Hunter, but hey, let's at least let these guys help frame the issues instead of the punditocracy at Already Been Chewed. The removal of Kucinich is what's most distressing, because he actually has much more support than those two and has a lot more important things to say than even most of the leading candidates - and that's why ABC won't let him say it.

ABC's decision is calculated to make sure the primary and general elections go their way. The candidates who weren't uninvited ought to boycott the ABC debates, but do you think they don't want the free airtime?

The network's excuse is that the dropped candidates didn't meet their "benchmarks" for support. That's bullshit, because Kucinich has more support than Bill Richardson, who ABC did invite. It's also a self-fulfilling prophecy: If a candidate doesn't have enough support now, it's often because the media gave disproportionately little coverage to their campaign.

Just as bad, there's been a general media blackout of John Edwards's campaign, even as he placed second in Iowa. The reason for this is obvious: Of all the Democrats running, he's by far the most likely to win the general election. Man, just think what Edwards would do to, say, Mitt Romney in November! The media has spent the past 3 years assuming the general election would be Hillary Clinton versus John McCain and trying to tell us to cope (when everyone knew that scenario was the most likely to produce a GOP win).

As an example of how extensive this media embargo of Edwards is, of all the headlines last year in the New York Times mentioning at least 2 of the top 3 Democrats, 93% mentioned Clinton, 91% mentioned Barack Obama, and only 18% mentioned Edwards. Even though Edwards ran ahead of Clinton in Iowa, headlines about that contest in various news sources seem to mention Clinton over Edwards by a 4-to-1 margin.

Of course it's because of Edwards's electability. The established media can't stand him for it. They're not crazy about his economic populism either, a stance that's become taboo in media circles (as I know all too well) - but it's these economic issues that would make Edwards so strong in November, and the media knows it.

ABC is probably crying in their baste that they can't kick John Edwards out of the debate without blowing their entire cover.

(Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7198359,00.html;
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/31/01830/925/976/428192;
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/31/141617/72/752/428416;
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/4/93440/63257)