----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Tingley
To: mattfuniciello@earthlink.net
Sent: 2/12/2009 9:27:30 AM
Subject:
Mr. Funicello,
I swore I would never email you again, but I will take one more shot. When you write insulting things about me and the newspaper that are patently not true, I will not allow it on my blog. That is my call. You repeatedly talk of some corporate conspiracy against third-part candidate - which is ridiculous - it is hard to take you seriously. The reality is that we make decisions each day over where to spend our resources and what the most important stories are. You may not agree with those calls because you believe third-party candidates are a big issue. It is a subjective decision.We constantly editorialize about change and for you to say we are for the status quo is pretty big leap. I also find it insulting for you to comment on Maury's blog that we will not let Maury do certain stories on third-party candidates. which is also not true. Maury makes his own calls on what stories he does and does not do as do all our reporters. When you stop making accusations that are not true, then I will consider posting them on my blog.
Ken Tingley
Editor
The Post-Star
** MY RESPONSE **
Ken,
I appreciate that you have broken your silence (however briefly) where I am concerned. I accept that many of your readers do not see independent or third party candidates as "big news". I think that, if we're honest, much of what is printed in the paper on any given day is of little interest to the average reader. Its really circular logic, anyway. How do we know people aren't interested in real candidates and instead are interested in daily anecdotes about the blank slates who are just waiting for their corporate donors to fill in the blanks?
Its like a bad song. If you play the Tedisco/Murphy "song" every day on your "radio", I may well find myself humming along whether I am engaged by that song or not. This is how mainstream media influences the American voter and helps retain the status quo. It is low-level brainwashing. Its pervasive and makes most people hesitant to have an independent thought. Its really important that you understand I don't see poorly made choices in media as a corporate conspiracy. I see them as a result of mainstream media CULTURE. It is well-established, long-term patterns of behavior and decision-making that reflect almost no curiosity about anything outside of the box or the mainstream. Historically, substantive change is almost always instigated by those who think "outside the box".
The problem I have with your paper is the total lack of response when your readership shows interest. As evidenced by activity on your forum, we were all quite interested in third party and independent candidates during this past election and we wwrree given excuse after excuse about why there was almost no coverage at all. We were told repeatedly that our candidates don't deserve it or haven't earned it ... etcetera. Why? because a bunch of rich power brokers in a room somewhere else didn't appoint our candidates, they are somehow less important or less credible than rich corporate lawyers who have been chosen for us? You had far greater activity and debate on your forum during the past presidential campaign whenever mention was made of Ron Paul or Ralph Nader than when you reprinted tired old AP stories about Obama and McCain. Thats because most truly engaged political activists are opposed to the mainstream and we are a larger group (independents and 3rd party and non-voters) than the two parties are in this county. We are starving for a media that will cover everyone "comparably" (to use Mahoney's own term) and
comparable does not mean a blog entry or two when the balance is 20 stories prominently printed in the actual paper.
I am used to this. It is the norm for the media not to cover my candidates. It is the norm for the media to not include them in debates. It is the norm for the media to marginalize and/or ridicule my candidates and my issues (ones that actually matter to real people). It is the norm for those journalists with conscience to make feeble excuses that never hold water about why they behave in a biased manner. Those of us who fight so hard for political change are very tired of the media's tacit support of the status quo (and I do believe, regardless of your intent, that this is exactly the result of only covering the corporate candidates). I understand fully that, as a newspaper editor, like most American citizens, you have probably never worked on a municipal or state or national campaign and have no idea how terribly biased the whole process is and how undemocratic it has become. That, in itself, should be your paper's job. To uncover the bias and the tyranny evident in this two-party system. All Americans of good conscience can't help but be outraged when they get involved and find out how terribly corrupt the "democratic" process has become. Will you spend your entire career doing nothing to change that or will you alter course and become an engaged citizen/editor? Will you attack this corruption with a similar zeal to that which you apply to teen drinking?
Being shut out of the media is one of the principle reasons why it is so difficult for real human beings to run for office and most papers don't ever cover these battles. I wish that instead of seeing me as your enemy, we could return to a gentler period of time when I was quite civil to you all and was merely asking questions about bias and the selection processes that kept the Post-Star from being the best paper it could be. Failing that, I want you to know that I appreciate the dialogue, however brief it may be.
Peace,
Matt
Showing posts with label third party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label third party. Show all posts
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Third-Party Blind Spot - John F. Kirch
Democracy suffers when the news media ignore long-shot candidates and the
ideas they espouse
While the news media did an effective job this year of covering the
presidential campaign between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John
McCain, the press still has a major blind spot when it comes to writing
about third-party contenders.
According to a basic LexisNexis database search of election coverage
from Aug. 5 to Nov. 5, The Washington Post and The New York Times
published a combined 3,576 news stories, editorials, op-eds,
photographs and letters to the editor about Mr. Obama and 3,205 items
about Mr. McCain. By contrast, the two dailies published only 36 items
about independent Ralph Nader, 22 about Libertarian Bob Barr, five
about Green Cynthia McKinney and three about the Constitution Party's
Chuck Baldwin.
The Baltimore Sun was not much better, publishing 384 news items about
Mr. Obama, 327 about Mr. McCain, eight about Mr. Nader, four on Mr.
Barr and two each for Ms. McKinney and Mr. Baldwin.
None of these candidates garnered more than 2 percent of the popular
vote on Election Day. But how third-party candidates are covered by the
news media is an important issue that should be taken more seriously,
given that we live in a democratic society that proclaims deference to
the First Amendment and honors the notion that we are all better off
when a wide range of proposals are aired.
The news media are allowing themselves to be co-opted by the Democrats
and Republicans into viewing campaigns solely through the prism of the
two-party system. This means that the major parties control which
issues are permitted into the debate, thus denying the public a chance
to hear proposals that might seem extreme today but could gain traction
in the future if only voters had an opportunity to consider them more
seriously. Remember, third parties have been the catalyst for many
reforms throughout American history, including the abolition of
slavery, tough child-labor laws, free public education, strong business
regulations, direct election of senators and women's suffrage.
By including more substantive coverage of third-party candidates, the
press could help open the door to innovative alternatives to old
issues. It might force the two major candidates to come off message
more often and eventually adopt the new ideas pushed by otherwise
marginalized candidates, much like the Republican Party did when it
absorbed some of Ross Perot's proposals after the 1992 election.
Part of the reason that the news media ignore most third-party
candidates is that most journalists tend to view campaigns almost
exclusively as a contest of winners and losers. The criteria by which
journalists judge candidates play to the strengths of the major parties
and set up a no-win situation for all other contenders: Third-party
candidates are not covered because they do not demonstrate public
support, but they cannot gain public support because they are not
covered by the news media.
In addition, viewing campaigns mostly as a "contest" is a mistake,
because numerous political science studies conducted over the past 50
years strongly suggest that campaigns actually have little impact on
election results.
Where campaigns really matter is in their ability to educate the public
about new ideas. Studies have shown that while voters don't always
remember the specific policy proposals of each candidate when they go
to the ballot box, they nevertheless learn enough during the course of
a campaign to make sound judgments about which path the country should
take.
What this tells us is that campaigns are about more than just the horse
race. They are a time in the nation's political life cycle when voters
consider the problems facing the country and look for a wide range of
solutions. Including minor-party candidates in this debate could infuse
new ways of looking at old issues, challenge basic political
assumptions and create avenues for new movements to challenge the
hegemony of the Democrats and Republicans.
John F. Kirch is an adjunct professor of journalism at Towson
University and the University of Maryland. His e-mail is
jfk909us@aol.com
ideas they espouse
While the news media did an effective job this year of covering the
presidential campaign between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John
McCain, the press still has a major blind spot when it comes to writing
about third-party contenders.
According to a basic LexisNexis database search of election coverage
from Aug. 5 to Nov. 5, The Washington Post and The New York Times
published a combined 3,576 news stories, editorials, op-eds,
photographs and letters to the editor about Mr. Obama and 3,205 items
about Mr. McCain. By contrast, the two dailies published only 36 items
about independent Ralph Nader, 22 about Libertarian Bob Barr, five
about Green Cynthia McKinney and three about the Constitution Party's
Chuck Baldwin.
The Baltimore Sun was not much better, publishing 384 news items about
Mr. Obama, 327 about Mr. McCain, eight about Mr. Nader, four on Mr.
Barr and two each for Ms. McKinney and Mr. Baldwin.
None of these candidates garnered more than 2 percent of the popular
vote on Election Day. But how third-party candidates are covered by the
news media is an important issue that should be taken more seriously,
given that we live in a democratic society that proclaims deference to
the First Amendment and honors the notion that we are all better off
when a wide range of proposals are aired.
The news media are allowing themselves to be co-opted by the Democrats
and Republicans into viewing campaigns solely through the prism of the
two-party system. This means that the major parties control which
issues are permitted into the debate, thus denying the public a chance
to hear proposals that might seem extreme today but could gain traction
in the future if only voters had an opportunity to consider them more
seriously. Remember, third parties have been the catalyst for many
reforms throughout American history, including the abolition of
slavery, tough child-labor laws, free public education, strong business
regulations, direct election of senators and women's suffrage.
By including more substantive coverage of third-party candidates, the
press could help open the door to innovative alternatives to old
issues. It might force the two major candidates to come off message
more often and eventually adopt the new ideas pushed by otherwise
marginalized candidates, much like the Republican Party did when it
absorbed some of Ross Perot's proposals after the 1992 election.
Part of the reason that the news media ignore most third-party
candidates is that most journalists tend to view campaigns almost
exclusively as a contest of winners and losers. The criteria by which
journalists judge candidates play to the strengths of the major parties
and set up a no-win situation for all other contenders: Third-party
candidates are not covered because they do not demonstrate public
support, but they cannot gain public support because they are not
covered by the news media.
In addition, viewing campaigns mostly as a "contest" is a mistake,
because numerous political science studies conducted over the past 50
years strongly suggest that campaigns actually have little impact on
election results.
Where campaigns really matter is in their ability to educate the public
about new ideas. Studies have shown that while voters don't always
remember the specific policy proposals of each candidate when they go
to the ballot box, they nevertheless learn enough during the course of
a campaign to make sound judgments about which path the country should
take.
What this tells us is that campaigns are about more than just the horse
race. They are a time in the nation's political life cycle when voters
consider the problems facing the country and look for a wide range of
solutions. Including minor-party candidates in this debate could infuse
new ways of looking at old issues, challenge basic political
assumptions and create avenues for new movements to challenge the
hegemony of the Democrats and Republicans.
John F. Kirch is an adjunct professor of journalism at Towson
University and the University of Maryland. His e-mail is
jfk909us@aol.com
Thursday, November 6, 2008
What I Really Want To Know
I consider myself a third party activist. I only support independents and Greens and Libertarians. I do not vote for Democrats or Republicans, ever. As such, I am often asked my opinion by those who play the two party game. I try to be civil and decent. I try to help them understand my viewpoint and I sincerely try to understand theirs.
Over the last decade, I have asked a few questions that I really figure any two-party denizen should be able to answer ... simply to restore my faith in humanity's ability to reason if for no other reason. Can you help me?
I asked Alan Chartok (of our NPR affiliate, WAMC) and his pals on The Media Project, Ira and Rex, to comment on why the media gives Ralph Nader zero coverage during each election cycle. I asked this because I believe that ALL media ignores thrid party candidates on purpose to prop up our system of corporate machine politics. This of course raised the hackles of all three. All of their media mechanisms covered Ralph 2-3 times over the past year. In their view, thats much better coverage than other media gave him. They wondered aloud what my problem is, then? Rex Smith (the Albany Times Union editor) even piped in to say that he felt that Nader already had his time in the sun and that his message doesn't resonate any longer with the American public. Thats why they don't cover him.
There are two huge problems with this narrow answer to my broad question;
1) Does anyone who appreciates the promise of democracy really think that the 1/4 of 1% of media coverage Nader actually got in 2000 was "fair coverage" by any reasonable measure of the word? He was polling 10-18% during that election cycle and it certianly seesm thatbwere he given 10-18% of the coverage that he would have been in the debates which might well have given him a win. Can Nader or othr independents ever truly "resonate" with anyone when the populace is subjected to the two corporate candidates 100 times a day for an entire year and are not even made aware of their many other choices? 36,500 to 3 mentions. Is this really the "liberal" media's idea of "fair and balanced"?
2) If its just Ralph Nader who has worn us all out, why then does corporate media also basically ignore ALL the other independents and third party candidates, as well? In this election cycle, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Chuck Baldwin, Gloria LaRiva and Roger Calero were all basically ignored, too. No one even knew about them. How could they possibly have "worn us all out" or "had their time in the sun"? Why is it that THEY didn't deserve to be covered at all? I'm not sure that I can see this behavior as anything short of willful and criminal manipulation of our information and our democracy.
A member of the local DFA chapter asked me Wednesday if I was "happy". You could see that Obama's victory made him feel that a cloud had lifted. His "team" had "won". I would write "Bob" off as a loon except that many other Democrats reached out to me withg similar sentiments, many of whom I respect greatly. To be frank, I feel sorry for people like "Bob". In my world, the ruling and the corporate classes control our democracy. That's a terrible truth but being awake to it allows me to avoid all the emotional highs and lows and the football team mentality that so many Americans seem caught up in.
I know that my fight as a citizen is a daily one against the corporate power that chokes democracy. Its never a winner take all battle waged once every four years. I don't suffer severe depression when a Bush is in office nor do I feel like I just ate a bag of mushrooms because we've elected an Obama. I don't expect the ruling class to deliver me any substantive change for the better regardless of which puppet they say is "our leader". I'm a realist.
I asked "Bob" the same question I have been asking Democrats for ten years, thus far;
"I have been working outside the Democratic Party because I do not believe that the change I want can ever come from such a flawed and co-opted machine. If just one Democrat would tell me what it is EXACTLY that has been accomplished over the last forty years by "working from within", I might better understand why you people do it. Just humor me ... tell me what specific piece of legislation has been passed by either corporate party that could demonstrably be considered pro-worker?"
"Bob" responded heatedly, "I'm not going to answer that but we're a damn sight better than the Republicans. Thats all I have to say." "Bob" then walked out.
This "walking out" is the reason why better than 100 million Americans don't vote in any election cycle. They see no visible, pragmatic reason to do so and we refuse to explain how it works to anyone's benefit to vote. Is it possible that we're not really sure ourselves?
Over the last decade, I have asked a few questions that I really figure any two-party denizen should be able to answer ... simply to restore my faith in humanity's ability to reason if for no other reason. Can you help me?
I asked Alan Chartok (of our NPR affiliate, WAMC) and his pals on The Media Project, Ira and Rex, to comment on why the media gives Ralph Nader zero coverage during each election cycle. I asked this because I believe that ALL media ignores thrid party candidates on purpose to prop up our system of corporate machine politics. This of course raised the hackles of all three. All of their media mechanisms covered Ralph 2-3 times over the past year. In their view, thats much better coverage than other media gave him. They wondered aloud what my problem is, then? Rex Smith (the Albany Times Union editor) even piped in to say that he felt that Nader already had his time in the sun and that his message doesn't resonate any longer with the American public. Thats why they don't cover him.
There are two huge problems with this narrow answer to my broad question;
1) Does anyone who appreciates the promise of democracy really think that the 1/4 of 1% of media coverage Nader actually got in 2000 was "fair coverage" by any reasonable measure of the word? He was polling 10-18% during that election cycle and it certianly seesm thatbwere he given 10-18% of the coverage that he would have been in the debates which might well have given him a win. Can Nader or othr independents ever truly "resonate" with anyone when the populace is subjected to the two corporate candidates 100 times a day for an entire year and are not even made aware of their many other choices? 36,500 to 3 mentions. Is this really the "liberal" media's idea of "fair and balanced"?
2) If its just Ralph Nader who has worn us all out, why then does corporate media also basically ignore ALL the other independents and third party candidates, as well? In this election cycle, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Chuck Baldwin, Gloria LaRiva and Roger Calero were all basically ignored, too. No one even knew about them. How could they possibly have "worn us all out" or "had their time in the sun"? Why is it that THEY didn't deserve to be covered at all? I'm not sure that I can see this behavior as anything short of willful and criminal manipulation of our information and our democracy.
A member of the local DFA chapter asked me Wednesday if I was "happy". You could see that Obama's victory made him feel that a cloud had lifted. His "team" had "won". I would write "Bob" off as a loon except that many other Democrats reached out to me withg similar sentiments, many of whom I respect greatly. To be frank, I feel sorry for people like "Bob". In my world, the ruling and the corporate classes control our democracy. That's a terrible truth but being awake to it allows me to avoid all the emotional highs and lows and the football team mentality that so many Americans seem caught up in.
I know that my fight as a citizen is a daily one against the corporate power that chokes democracy. Its never a winner take all battle waged once every four years. I don't suffer severe depression when a Bush is in office nor do I feel like I just ate a bag of mushrooms because we've elected an Obama. I don't expect the ruling class to deliver me any substantive change for the better regardless of which puppet they say is "our leader". I'm a realist.
I asked "Bob" the same question I have been asking Democrats for ten years, thus far;
"I have been working outside the Democratic Party because I do not believe that the change I want can ever come from such a flawed and co-opted machine. If just one Democrat would tell me what it is EXACTLY that has been accomplished over the last forty years by "working from within", I might better understand why you people do it. Just humor me ... tell me what specific piece of legislation has been passed by either corporate party that could demonstrably be considered pro-worker?"
"Bob" responded heatedly, "I'm not going to answer that but we're a damn sight better than the Republicans. Thats all I have to say." "Bob" then walked out.
This "walking out" is the reason why better than 100 million Americans don't vote in any election cycle. They see no visible, pragmatic reason to do so and we refuse to explain how it works to anyone's benefit to vote. Is it possible that we're not really sure ourselves?
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
To Those Unfortunates Who Work at the Post-Star
An Open Letter To The Good Folks at The Glens Falls Post-Star,
Most of you will be glad to know that I am done. For the last four or five years, I have read your paper and have more than frequently tried to engage many of you in discussing all of the myriad of things that require improvement at our local daily. I have done so solely because I believe in democracy (I believe that a truly free press is the only way we can have one). The cynical and machine-like nature of dailies like the Post-Star ("product" merely put out to raise more ad revenue) puts our democracy at great risk. It is wrong. Its just that simple. I have spent many hours of my time asking only that you do what is right (or, at the least, that you might explain why you have knowingly done wrong). At the end of this very bumpy road, our "discussion" has devolved into a mere rant on my part. You have obviously decided to stop even pretending you feel a needto defend yourselves and your corporate, pro-war agenda.For that lack of communication, I cancel you. I already cancelled my home subscription about a year ago. I had already ceased writing letters to the editor last summer as you refuse to print them when they matter most. Quite recently, I ceased writing about your terrible behavior on my blog, as well. I am now cutting all ties and am going to stop selling your “paper” at my place of business. I vow to stop concerning myself about your existence in any way. I will continue to be a politically-active, community-oriented, citizen advocate and, as such, when I send out press releases, I will include your joke of a paper on my list of corporate, pro-war, anti-third party media (it is my feeling that you should at least have access to this type of information even though you will likely never use it). At the very least, you can all gather around the water cooler and talk about “that asshole Funiciello” and his ranting while you continue to blacklist third parties and regurgitate wire service crap. That will prove highly amusing for you, I have no doubt.You’ve had several months now to let people know that Howie Hawkins is running for U.S. Senate against Hillary. You have yet to mention it even once! Why? Is it because you're bad, evil people with a bad, evil agenda? I've given you way too many chances and you've failed at almost every turn. I am left with no alternative thought process. I know that your readership will never read that Malachy McCourt is running for Governor, either. You’re not going to tell them. That’s simply unconscionable! That is corrupt agenda-ridden bullshit and you know it. Those in management perpetrating this third-party blacklist should know one thing; You are without merit or integrity. You know exactly who you are.Good luck to those of you at "the paper" who try to do what is right on a daily basis. I feel sorry for you having to work in that environment. I know for a fact that you’re not all simple, corporate minions trying to dumb down the electorate but, obviously, most in the P-S hierarchy are. They totally negate your efforts. Here’s to the inevitable (and happy) day on which you escape from that tomb of lies and misrepresentation!
Peace to you all,
Matt Funiciello
Most of you will be glad to know that I am done. For the last four or five years, I have read your paper and have more than frequently tried to engage many of you in discussing all of the myriad of things that require improvement at our local daily. I have done so solely because I believe in democracy (I believe that a truly free press is the only way we can have one). The cynical and machine-like nature of dailies like the Post-Star ("product" merely put out to raise more ad revenue) puts our democracy at great risk. It is wrong. Its just that simple. I have spent many hours of my time asking only that you do what is right (or, at the least, that you might explain why you have knowingly done wrong). At the end of this very bumpy road, our "discussion" has devolved into a mere rant on my part. You have obviously decided to stop even pretending you feel a needto defend yourselves and your corporate, pro-war agenda.For that lack of communication, I cancel you. I already cancelled my home subscription about a year ago. I had already ceased writing letters to the editor last summer as you refuse to print them when they matter most. Quite recently, I ceased writing about your terrible behavior on my blog, as well. I am now cutting all ties and am going to stop selling your “paper” at my place of business. I vow to stop concerning myself about your existence in any way. I will continue to be a politically-active, community-oriented, citizen advocate and, as such, when I send out press releases, I will include your joke of a paper on my list of corporate, pro-war, anti-third party media (it is my feeling that you should at least have access to this type of information even though you will likely never use it). At the very least, you can all gather around the water cooler and talk about “that asshole Funiciello” and his ranting while you continue to blacklist third parties and regurgitate wire service crap. That will prove highly amusing for you, I have no doubt.You’ve had several months now to let people know that Howie Hawkins is running for U.S. Senate against Hillary. You have yet to mention it even once! Why? Is it because you're bad, evil people with a bad, evil agenda? I've given you way too many chances and you've failed at almost every turn. I am left with no alternative thought process. I know that your readership will never read that Malachy McCourt is running for Governor, either. You’re not going to tell them. That’s simply unconscionable! That is corrupt agenda-ridden bullshit and you know it. Those in management perpetrating this third-party blacklist should know one thing; You are without merit or integrity. You know exactly who you are.Good luck to those of you at "the paper" who try to do what is right on a daily basis. I feel sorry for you having to work in that environment. I know for a fact that you’re not all simple, corporate minions trying to dumb down the electorate but, obviously, most in the P-S hierarchy are. They totally negate your efforts. Here’s to the inevitable (and happy) day on which you escape from that tomb of lies and misrepresentation!
Peace to you all,
Matt Funiciello
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
