There is a huge field of candidates from both parties. However, the media only seems to be focusing on a few candidates. More media time could dramatically improve minor candidates chances of winning. These candidates, such as Gravel, Kucinich, and Ron Paul, are largely ignored in debates, and rarely invited to debates. These candidates are extremely qualified to lead the country, but are dumped in favor of more widely recognized candidates. The only place these candidates seem to have support is the internet.
2007-09-04 17:37:39 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I completely agree! Too many eyes are on the top tier candidates and the voters (i.e. myself) are left thinking that these are their only choices. The person that can best represent them and their views are left out, I believe, because they offer a different look and issues that the more mainstream politicians are afraid of addressing. The political process needs to be looked at and modified, keeping our forefathers' dreams and vision intact.
2007-09-04 17:49:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The media only pays attention to the candidates that they have in their pocket...literally. The "lower tier" hasnt been bought and paid for by the huge media corporations so it is not in their interest to publicize them and let the sheep public know that there are candidates that actually have the country's best interest in mind instead of big business's best interests. Here's an interesting exercise. Take a look at:
http://www.opensecrets.org and check out each candidate's Top Contributors. Notice how the "top tier" is ALL sponsored by the same big banks and corporations? It doesnt MATTER which one is elected, they are all controlled by the same people. Take some time to learn about the "lower tier" candidates like Kucinich and Ron Paul and find out who really wants to change this country for the better.
Carol, so you think since you wouldnt vote for them that they dont deserve equal time as the other candidates? What about the other 300 million citizens? Wow, I guess the world DOES revolve around you huh. Typical attitude of the ignorant, self centered voter and a perfect example of why this country is going to sh*t.
2007-09-04 18:17:50 · answer #2 · answered by crucial_master 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, if the media is fair enough to give the candidates equal opportunities, then Ron Paul will win the elections with a considerable margin.
2007-09-05 00:07:46 · answer #3 · answered by Ash'ari Maturidi 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The amount of air-time you get has a lot to do with how much news you make yourself. A presidential candidate has to make himself (or herself) visible. How will people know what you look like if they can't see you, in other words. You have to be a newsmaker.
That being said, Ron Paul has made the news. I don't know if anyone who follows him on the Internet knows how many times he's been on TV (including talk shows, nightly news programs, and yes televised debates, not one of which has he failed to attend) or in the newspapers (copies of which are doubtless to be found online as well), but there's not a doubt in my mind that if any of the other candidates are "on the air" more than he is, it is because they have done more to get themselves there.
Discount Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Senator McCain right now, because they are, in fact, actual stars. Rudy Giuliani defines "being in the right place at the right time". If he hadn't been mayor of New York City on the day of the terrorist attacks, then he'd have gone down in history as one of the worst mayors ever in the United States. Fred Thompson has about fifty times more movie and TV credits than the other candidates combined. And John McCain, as a former contender for the Republican nomination, started out as an honest front-runner this time around. You cannot compete for that kind of star power.
Fortunately, for the rest of the country, you can compete WITH that kind of star power. Mitt Romney has done just that, struggling for every inch that he has gained in this election. In the past nine months, he has worked harder than anyone to reach his current position of Number One in Iowa, Number One in New Hampshire, and within three points of Fred Thompson in national polls, a statistical tie.
He has raised more money than any other Republican candidate, and every victory he's won has been due to hard work and innovative planning. He's had to fight against the media painting him as a flip-flopper, a panderer, and even (horror of horrors) a Mormon. Despite these "negative labels", though, his is the only Republican campaign that has done nothing but grow since he declared his bid for the presidency.
Any candidate who says that his campaign hasn't gained enough ground because the news isn't covering him enough has, in my opinion, absolutely nothing to complain about. This is a presidential election. The starting pistol went off months ago. Anyone who thinks he has what it takes has had, and still has, plenty of time to get his act together and convince the rest of the country of that.
2007-09-04 20:46:09 · answer #4 · answered by Paper Mage 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is an excellent point, it is all a big money scandel with those mass media contracts, obviously biased to those with the money and "name". I want some one like Ron Paul or Gravel or Huckabee who is going to stand up for me as working class American citizen, unfortunately the mass idiots of America are going to vote like its a popularity contest and not research any of the candidates, why do you think Bush won ? ? ? And unfortunately the middle class is going to be obslete with retards that vote and do not understand economics.
2007-09-04 20:08:17 · answer #5 · answered by Nate 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it almost appears that the two party system is two corporations and we're force fed the candidates.
You get someone up there like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich (sp, sorry) and even though guys like these two speak out for us working class, they find themselves being shortchanged on air time. The only time you hear anything about them is if they do something embarrassing.
2007-09-04 17:56:38 · answer #6 · answered by King of Turdblossom 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
you're precise in some way whether there are extra events. yet interior the two enormous events there are a number of distinctive activity agencies. So neither of them are monolithic and critiques can selection very plenty interior of those events. I dont think of extra events promptly makes a rustic extra democratic. Poland had the very many events (The Beerparty became into one) in the sejm precise after the autumn of communism it didnt make the rustic common to manage. as nicely that is extremely consumer-friendly in international places with the final public equipment to purely have 2 significant events. the place the illustration is proportional there is extra events
2016-10-18 00:04:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am with you in your sentiment. I believe Duncan Hunter is a good candidate worthy to be heard more however, the media bias will prevent it. I also blame us the people for not demanding it.
2007-09-05 00:30:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes! I agree with you. I think that the news media is being controlled by International Corporations. Anyone who has any integrity at all is disliked by the news media because they can not be controlled by The International Corporations/neo-colonialists.
2007-09-04 17:53:19 · answer #9 · answered by Rebecca 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good point. I'm not ssure if media coverage would help them in the polls but it would give them name recognition, a key factor in the elections. But the media only pays attention to the big fish, unless they start to move up, usually thanks to the internet.
2007-09-04 17:48:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋