An Open Letter To The Media From Ralph Nader
Published on October 30, 2008 by spencer · 1 Comment
The following is an open letter to the media at large from independent presidential nominee Ralph Nader.
Sorry, I haven’t actually had a chance to read it, I’ve been too busy ignoring Ralph Nader.
October 30, 2008
www.votenader.org
www.officialnaderstore.comPress Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASERALPH NADER QUESTIONS MEDIA COVERAGE
Below is an open letter to the national media from Ralph Nader….
Open Letter to Members of the National Media:
Dear Members of the 4th Estate:
Having spoken to numerous reporters and some editors with the national media (as distinguished from the local media) about the blackout or near blackout of the Nader/Gonzalez presidential campaign, striving to challenge the two party, exclusionary duopoly, (debates, ballot obstacles, etc.) I must ask a general question:What journalistic criteria have you been employing in this presidential year that guides your pronounced non-coverage of the number three campaign that advances majoritarian agendas based on long experience, involvement, and accomplishment. These agendas are either opposed or ignored by McCain and Obama (see www.votenader.org) and are often rooted in the very investigative reports by your reporters?
It is puzzling how editors and publishers who oversee these prize winning stories seem to lose interest in covering Americans who are trying to do something with that information for a better country.
We asked one top editor of a major daily why his paper was not covering us at all and he said, “Because you can’t win.” Besides being a catch-22 that he quickly acknowledged, that is not a supportable newsworthy judgment. News Media have covered many stories outside the electoral arena of people “who can’t win” and such coverage extends to both the import of the struggles and the reasons why “winning is not possible” given the stacked deck against them.
There has been a witting or unwitting political bigotry against third parties and independent candidates, as there was years ago against minority voters. Against the status of such candidates obstructed through ballot access laws by the two parties that dislike competition they present other rigged ways to secure their domination over the electoral landscape, including gerrymandering each other in the majority of Congressional Districts, for example.
This is meant to be a short letter. Journalism scholars, reporters, and other post-election writers of books and articles will be chronicle, no doubt, the quantity and quality of media coverage (see the previous analysis by such scholars as Stephen Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter).
For now, please verify for yourselves your own non-coverage or coverage and inform us what your journalistic criteria standards or policies led you to this definition of your readers, listeners, and viewers rights to know.
Thank you for responding, even though there is obviously no obligation to do so.
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
-End-
So anyway… Anyone else catch Barack Obama on the Daily Show?
Tags: accomplishment, agendas, bigotry, blackout, catch 22, electoral arena, green party, immediate release, independent candidates, investigative reports, John McCain, journalistic criteria, local media, media coverage, news media, nominee ralph nader, presidential campaign, presidential nominee
Readers Comments (1)
RELATED STORIES
Ok, ok,
You may not agree with Nader’s politics, and you may still be (incorrectly) salty about his having influenced Gore’s loss in Florida in the 2000 election. In fact, if any of the other third-party candidates’ voters had switched and voted Gore (even the Socialists), Gore would have won. (check out this article, or even just the conclusion) http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html
You can’t honestly argue with the point of his letter though. Third party candidates don’t get any coverage. The two major parties dominate the political conversation, and the presidential race in particular takes the light away from everyone else who’s running – not just third parties, but other offices.
Isn’t it a bad thing that voters today don’t know as much about their local, state, and congressional representatives? That they are less informed about state officials and justices because of the focus on the presidential election? Isn’t it telling that the Framers of the Constitution expressly DIDN’T want the populace directly electing the president? Or that George Washington himself was outspokenly against political parties?
When we continue to have 50/50 elections, clearly the parties are merely leaning to pick up the middle, and we don’t in fact have a candidate that represents a definitive majority interest. We end up with the slightly less distasteful of two alternatives, which is not how a representative democracy should work. Up until the economic crisis occurred, 2008 was looking to head the same way.
Don’t get me wrong – Obama has a lot of good to offer. Nader’s asking for a fair share of coverage. To the extent that he or any third-party candidate has something to offer to the political discourse of our country, doesn’t he deserve at least to be heard, if not elected?