Don’t Watch TV. Don’t Trust the Media.

What pisses me off the most is when news outlets deliberately cut Dennis Kucinich down as an “unelectable” candidate from the get-go. Does it matter? Shouldn’t we decide if he’s electable?

Well, no. Not according to ABC, which not only gave Dennis only four frikkin’ minutes in an hour-long debate, they also doctored an online poll after he still managed to win the damned debate, regardless. They cut him out of the picture, redid the poll, and cut out viewer comments that supported him. Wow. Just. Wow. That’s awfully Foxish.

Good God, this is why I only get my news from blogs. I obviously can’t trust newspapers which can’t differentiate between blogs and official sites. I can’t watch TV because it’s dumbed down to a 6th grade comprehension level and considers Paris Hilton newsworthy and I can’t even read media sites now because they are desperately trying to make my choice a choice between Clinton and Obama. I can’t make myself vote for either and now I’m stuck getting all my news from blogs and the Daily Show. You see how this is a problem? I do…

33 thoughts on “Don’t Watch TV. Don’t Trust the Media.

  1. the FIRST anonymous poster

    Holly – Of course I feel I made a very strong argument, yet I’ll be the first to admit that I made rude and disparaging comments about “your man” Dennis Kucinich, and I truly appreciate your thoughtful and respectful response. Kudos for elevating the level of debate.However, although I respect your style, that doesn’t mean I agree. Firstly, you cited universal health care. Obama’s plan is a joke and it doesn’t guarantee that people will be covered and Clinton plan includes billions of dollars in handouts to pharmaceuticals. However, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, and Dodd all have all-encompassing health care plans that are just as effective as Kucinich. And on the plus side, none of those guys belong in a mental asylum.More importantly, I feel it is essential that the media select viable candidates and focus attention on them. Right now there are 8 Democratic candidates that we know about because they are the only ones who made it to the debate, but there are many many more out there. What about Dal LaMagna, who unsuccessfully ran for Congress, owns a multi-million dollar corporation, and visited Iraq many times? He’s running for the Democratic nomination. What about Danny Francis, who served two tours of duty in Vietman and worked for the DoD?My point isn’t that we should include these people – my point is that it is the job of the media to weed out the real candidates from the jokes. Even you, a Kucinich supporter, admitted he’s crazy. The fact that the media has given hours upon hours of national media attention to Kucinich during debates upsets me. The media should set a number – 1% or 2% or something like that – and if a candidate can’t reach that threshold, he/she/ze shouldn’t be allowed to participate in debates When the media gives attention to lunatics, it only gives credence to those crazy ideas.A great example of this is the evolution controversy. Any sane, intelligent person knows that intelligent design is a mindless theological joke; however, many mainstream media venues (more than just fox) give equal media time to “intelligent design” advocates. This results in society viewing evolution not as a basic fundamental scientific cornerstone, but as a debate. The media has the power to drive the discourse of our nation, and when they give credence to lunatics, be it “intelligent design advocates” or Dennis Kucinich, it takes away from the legitimacy of their discourse.

  2. the FIRST anonymous poster

    Holly – Of course I feel I made a very strong argument, yet I’ll be the first to admit that I made rude and disparaging comments about “your man” Dennis Kucinich, and I truly appreciate your thoughtful and respectful response. Kudos for elevating the level of debate.However, although I respect your style, that doesn’t mean I agree. Firstly, you cited universal health care. Obama’s plan is a joke and it doesn’t guarantee that people will be covered and Clinton plan includes billions of dollars in handouts to pharmaceuticals. However, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, and Dodd all have all-encompassing health care plans that are just as effective as Kucinich. And on the plus side, none of those guys belong in a mental asylum.More importantly, I feel it is essential that the media select viable candidates and focus attention on them. Right now there are 8 Democratic candidates that we know about because they are the only ones who made it to the debate, but there are many many more out there. What about Dal LaMagna, who unsuccessfully ran for Congress, owns a multi-million dollar corporation, and visited Iraq many times? He’s running for the Democratic nomination. What about Danny Francis, who served two tours of duty in Vietman and worked for the DoD?My point isn’t that we should include these people – my point is that it is the job of the media to weed out the real candidates from the jokes. Even you, a Kucinich supporter, admitted he’s crazy. The fact that the media has given hours upon hours of national media attention to Kucinich during debates upsets me. The media should set a number – 1% or 2% or something like that – and if a candidate can’t reach that threshold, he/she/ze shouldn’t be allowed to participate in debates When the media gives attention to lunatics, it only gives credence to those crazy ideas.A great example of this is the evolution controversy. Any sane, intelligent person knows that intelligent design is a mindless theological joke; however, many mainstream media venues (more than just fox) give equal media time to “intelligent design” advocates. This results in society viewing evolution not as a basic fundamental scientific cornerstone, but as a debate. The media has the power to drive the discourse of our nation, and when they give credence to lunatics, be it “intelligent design advocates” or Dennis Kucinich, it takes away from the legitimacy of their discourse.

  3. the FIRST anonymous poster

    Holly – Of course I feel I made a very strong argument, yet I’ll be the first to admit that I made rude and disparaging comments about “your man” Dennis Kucinich, and I truly appreciate your thoughtful and respectful response. Kudos for elevating the level of debate.

    However, although I respect your style, that doesn’t mean I agree. Firstly, you cited universal health care. Obama’s plan is a joke and it doesn’t guarantee that people will be covered and Clinton plan includes billions of dollars in handouts to pharmaceuticals. However, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, and Dodd all have all-encompassing health care plans that are just as effective as Kucinich. And on the plus side, none of those guys belong in a mental asylum.

    More importantly, I feel it is essential that the media select viable candidates and focus attention on them. Right now there are 8 Democratic candidates that we know about because they are the only ones who made it to the debate, but there are many many more out there. What about Dal LaMagna, who unsuccessfully ran for Congress, owns a multi-million dollar corporation, and visited Iraq many times? He’s running for the Democratic nomination. What about Danny Francis, who served two tours of duty in Vietman and worked for the DoD?

    My point isn’t that we should include these people – my point is that it is the job of the media to weed out the real candidates from the jokes. Even you, a Kucinich supporter, admitted he’s crazy. The fact that the media has given hours upon hours of national media attention to Kucinich during debates upsets me. The media should set a number – 1% or 2% or something like that – and if a candidate can’t reach that threshold, he/she/ze shouldn’t be allowed to participate in debates When the media gives attention to lunatics, it only gives credence to those crazy ideas.

    A great example of this is the evolution controversy. Any sane, intelligent person knows that intelligent design is a mindless theological joke; however, many mainstream media venues (more than just fox) give equal media time to “intelligent design” advocates. This results in society viewing evolution not as a basic fundamental scientific cornerstone, but as a debate. The media has the power to drive the discourse of our nation, and when they give credence to lunatics, be it “intelligent design advocates” or Dennis Kucinich, it takes away from the legitimacy of their discourse.

  4. Eamon

    Third party candidates do serve to add a new and different aspect to the election, but at some point they just act as spoilers. Nader has been quoted a lot, and look at what happened. He ran on a platform of enviornmentalism and liberalism, and took away votes from the more electable Gore, who might have had an incredible impact on the environmental policy of the US if he had been elected. I think that people like Kucinich are fine in the primaries, as they serve to widen the spectrum a bit, but it is absurd to assume that they are viable candidates. And with respect to your comment about news outlets, I kind of have to take issue with your stance. I agree with the fact that many news outlets give a slanted view on thing, but I would argue that blogs give an even MORE slanted look into the news. If you are simply getting your news from DailyKOS and the Daily Show (Which I happen to find hilarious, just FYI) you are probably getting an even more distorted image of the news. I mean, Jon Stewart even riffed on it for a bit in that famous interview with Tucker Carlson, saying that people really shouldn’t take his show as seriously as network news. I think if you really want to get a balanced idea of what’s actually going on, you should take info from a bunch of different sources, from moveon.org to Fox news. I’m just saying the greater the spectrum of information, the more you’re gonna be able to see what is really accurate and what is just hype. In any event, I identify as a moderate liberal, and I’m not advocating for a media sponsored two candidate at this point in the election. While I dont see it in terms as extreme as you do, there are some major problems with the system.

  5. Eamon

    Third party candidates do serve to add a new and different aspect to the election, but at some point they just act as spoilers. Nader has been quoted a lot, and look at what happened. He ran on a platform of enviornmentalism and liberalism, and took away votes from the more electable Gore, who might have had an incredible impact on the environmental policy of the US if he had been elected. I think that people like Kucinich are fine in the primaries, as they serve to widen the spectrum a bit, but it is absurd to assume that they are viable candidates. And with respect to your comment about news outlets, I kind of have to take issue with your stance. I agree with the fact that many news outlets give a slanted view on thing, but I would argue that blogs give an even MORE slanted look into the news. If you are simply getting your news from DailyKOS and the Daily Show (Which I happen to find hilarious, just FYI) you are probably getting an even more distorted image of the news. I mean, Jon Stewart even riffed on it for a bit in that famous interview with Tucker Carlson, saying that people really shouldn’t take his show as seriously as network news. I think if you really want to get a balanced idea of what’s actually going on, you should take info from a bunch of different sources, from moveon.org to Fox news. I’m just saying the greater the spectrum of information, the more you’re gonna be able to see what is really accurate and what is just hype. In any event, I identify as a moderate liberal, and I’m not advocating for a media sponsored two candidate at this point in the election. While I dont see it in terms as extreme as you do, there are some major problems with the system.

  6. Eamon

    Third party candidates do serve to add a new and different aspect to the election, but at some point they just act as spoilers. Nader has been quoted a lot, and look at what happened. He ran on a platform of enviornmentalism and liberalism, and took away votes from the more electable Gore, who might have had an incredible impact on the environmental policy of the US if he had been elected. I think that people like Kucinich are fine in the primaries, as they serve to widen the spectrum a bit, but it is absurd to assume that they are viable candidates.

    And with respect to your comment about news outlets, I kind of have to take issue with your stance. I agree with the fact that many news outlets give a slanted view on thing, but I would argue that blogs give an even MORE slanted look into the news. If you are simply getting your news from DailyKOS and the Daily Show (Which I happen to find hilarious, just FYI) you are probably getting an even more distorted image of the news. I mean, Jon Stewart even riffed on it for a bit in that famous interview with Tucker Carlson, saying that people really shouldn’t take his show as seriously as network news. I think if you really want to get a balanced idea of what’s actually going on, you should take info from a bunch of different sources, from moveon.org to Fox news. I’m just saying the greater the spectrum of information, the more you’re gonna be able to see what is really accurate and what is just hype.

    In any event, I identify as a moderate liberal, and I’m not advocating for a media sponsored two candidate at this point in the election. While I dont see it in terms as extreme as you do, there are some major problems with the system.

  7. Anonymous

    You’re missing the point, Anon. The question is WHY nominating Kucinich is suicide for the democratic party, and how sad it is that most of the reasons have nothing to do with him.

  8. Anonymous

    You’re missing the point, Anon. The question is WHY nominating Kucinich is suicide for the democratic party, and how sad it is that most of the reasons have nothing to do with him.

  9. Anonymous

    You’re missing the point, Anon. The question is WHY nominating Kucinich is suicide for the democratic party, and how sad it is that most of the reasons have nothing to do with him.

  10. Anonymous

    i dare you liberal democrats to nominate mr. kucinich as your candidate. i’m sure the GOP would be thrilled with the prospect of another McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis. Or better yet why not have Kucinich run as a third party candidate? Kucinich-Gravel 2008. Maybe the dems can win the great state of Alaska! I mean Nader did a FINE job in 2000 especially in the Sunshine state. guys, please be realistic. I respect your idealism, but please recognize the fact that a Kucinich nomination would be suicide for the Democratic Party.

  11. Anonymous

    i dare you liberal democrats to nominate mr. kucinich as your candidate. i’m sure the GOP would be thrilled with the prospect of another McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis. Or better yet why not have Kucinich run as a third party candidate? Kucinich-Gravel 2008. Maybe the dems can win the great state of Alaska! I mean Nader did a FINE job in 2000 especially in the Sunshine state. guys, please be realistic. I respect your idealism, but please recognize the fact that a Kucinich nomination would be suicide for the Democratic Party.

  12. Anonymous

    i dare you liberal democrats to nominate mr. kucinich as your candidate. i’m sure the GOP would be thrilled with the prospect of another McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis. Or better yet why not have Kucinich run as a third party candidate? Kucinich-Gravel 2008. Maybe the dems can win the great state of Alaska! I mean Nader did a FINE job in 2000 especially in the Sunshine state.
    guys, please be realistic. I respect your idealism, but please recognize the fact that a Kucinich nomination would be suicide for the Democratic Party.

  13. Anonymous

    Hear, Hear, Holly. I can’t tell you how many arguments I’ve gotten into about Kucinich. The focus is always on how insane he is, and how he shouldn’t be running, never on the fact that most of his concrete ideas are so much more genuine than anyone else’s. The success of the media branding is really disgusting: even among progressive people, it seems like no one’s even willing to listen to what the guy wants to do.

  14. Anonymous

    Hear, Hear, Holly. I can’t tell you how many arguments I’ve gotten into about Kucinich. The focus is always on how insane he is, and how he shouldn’t be running, never on the fact that most of his concrete ideas are so much more genuine than anyone else’s. The success of the media branding is really disgusting: even among progressive people, it seems like no one’s even willing to listen to what the guy wants to do.

  15. Anonymous

    Hear, Hear, Holly. I can’t tell you how many arguments I’ve gotten into about Kucinich. The focus is always on how insane he is, and how he shouldn’t be running, never on the fact that most of his concrete ideas are so much more genuine than anyone else’s. The success of the media branding is really disgusting: even among progressive people, it seems like no one’s even willing to listen to what the guy wants to do.

  16. Holly

    Dear anon,I appreciate your thoughtful comment. I can appreciate the way you and millions feel, but if it wasn’t for candidates like Kucinich who literally only throw themselves into the candidacy to pull the other candidates to the left, then every democratic candidate would straddle the middle more than Obama and Clinton already are.In 2004, I supported Dean, and it was apparent that, despite Dean’s low media attention, he was getting more and more public attention. His ideas seemed pretty far left, too, at the time, but it made Kerry and Edwards pay attention.And you’re right to say he speaks on a plane that’s ridiculously lofty. And he’s really not down to earth. But watching election after election of being delivered diet cookie promises–ideas that seem like a good, practical idea, but they are inherently unsatisfying–I’m pretty jaded. And I think a lot of America is jaded. Maybe they won’t ultimately vote for Kucinich. The practical government major in me wouldn’t blame them. But as the idealistic youth with more brain cells than the TV media gives me credit for, I love Kucinich. I don’t agree with everything he says but then again, I don’t agree with everything any candidate says. So really, I don’t have any “great” choices, I might as well support the one who is at least saying the things I most want to hear. Universal healthcare is a big one, mind you. A huge one to me. And hearing wishywashy bullshit from Obama and Clinton, it’s nice to hear that someone really cares about it and wants to do something about it that doesn’t involve a rehash of the same policy we have now.See, I absolutely see where you’re coming from. And I think it’s a fair assessment. But I’ve been so burnt-out with hearing the same bullshit, I really like Gravel and Kucinich precisely *because* some of the shit they say is nuts. And maybe it seems nuts because we’re conditioned to be hearing the same shit over and over again. Who knows. And so I personally love hearing Kucinich talk. Did you see him at the Logo Debate? The equal sign in a heart? ADORABLE. But even if you don’t support Kucinich, the lack of air time for both him and Gravel is disturbing and inexcusable. Elections should be decided by voters but we’re witnessing how heavily they are influenced in decisions like these to literally censor out dark horses before they even get to the gate. This upsets me, even the practical side of me.

  17. Holly

    Dear anon,I appreciate your thoughtful comment. I can appreciate the way you and millions feel, but if it wasn’t for candidates like Kucinich who literally only throw themselves into the candidacy to pull the other candidates to the left, then every democratic candidate would straddle the middle more than Obama and Clinton already are.In 2004, I supported Dean, and it was apparent that, despite Dean’s low media attention, he was getting more and more public attention. His ideas seemed pretty far left, too, at the time, but it made Kerry and Edwards pay attention.And you’re right to say he speaks on a plane that’s ridiculously lofty. And he’s really not down to earth. But watching election after election of being delivered diet cookie promises–ideas that seem like a good, practical idea, but they are inherently unsatisfying–I’m pretty jaded. And I think a lot of America is jaded. Maybe they won’t ultimately vote for Kucinich. The practical government major in me wouldn’t blame them. But as the idealistic youth with more brain cells than the TV media gives me credit for, I love Kucinich. I don’t agree with everything he says but then again, I don’t agree with everything any candidate says. So really, I don’t have any “great” choices, I might as well support the one who is at least saying the things I most want to hear. Universal healthcare is a big one, mind you. A huge one to me. And hearing wishywashy bullshit from Obama and Clinton, it’s nice to hear that someone really cares about it and wants to do something about it that doesn’t involve a rehash of the same policy we have now.See, I absolutely see where you’re coming from. And I think it’s a fair assessment. But I’ve been so burnt-out with hearing the same bullshit, I really like Gravel and Kucinich precisely *because* some of the shit they say is nuts. And maybe it seems nuts because we’re conditioned to be hearing the same shit over and over again. Who knows. And so I personally love hearing Kucinich talk. Did you see him at the Logo Debate? The equal sign in a heart? ADORABLE. But even if you don’t support Kucinich, the lack of air time for both him and Gravel is disturbing and inexcusable. Elections should be decided by voters but we’re witnessing how heavily they are influenced in decisions like these to literally censor out dark horses before they even get to the gate. This upsets me, even the practical side of me.

  18. Holly

    Dear anon,

    I appreciate your thoughtful comment. I can appreciate the way you and millions feel, but if it wasn’t for candidates like Kucinich who literally only throw themselves into the candidacy to pull the other candidates to the left, then every democratic candidate would straddle the middle more than Obama and Clinton already are.

    In 2004, I supported Dean, and it was apparent that, despite Dean’s low media attention, he was getting more and more public attention. His ideas seemed pretty far left, too, at the time, but it made Kerry and Edwards pay attention.

    And you’re right to say he speaks on a plane that’s ridiculously lofty. And he’s really not down to earth. But watching election after election of being delivered diet cookie promises–ideas that seem like a good, practical idea, but they are inherently unsatisfying–I’m pretty jaded. And I think a lot of America is jaded.

    Maybe they won’t ultimately vote for Kucinich. The practical government major in me wouldn’t blame them. But as the idealistic youth with more brain cells than the TV media gives me credit for, I love Kucinich. I don’t agree with everything he says but then again, I don’t agree with everything any candidate says. So really, I don’t have any “great” choices, I might as well support the one who is at least saying the things I most want to hear. Universal healthcare is a big one, mind you. A huge one to me. And hearing wishywashy bullshit from Obama and Clinton, it’s nice to hear that someone really cares about it and wants to do something about it that doesn’t involve a rehash of the same policy we have now.

    See, I absolutely see where you’re coming from. And I think it’s a fair assessment. But I’ve been so burnt-out with hearing the same bullshit, I really like Gravel and Kucinich precisely *because* some of the shit they say is nuts. And maybe it seems nuts because we’re conditioned to be hearing the same shit over and over again. Who knows.

    And so I personally love hearing Kucinich talk. Did you see him at the Logo Debate? The equal sign in a heart? ADORABLE.

    But even if you don’t support Kucinich, the lack of air time for both him and Gravel is disturbing and inexcusable. Elections should be decided by voters but we’re witnessing how heavily they are influenced in decisions like these to literally censor out dark horses before they even get to the gate. This upsets me, even the practical side of me.

  19. Anonymous

    i like having him on board, but then again, he doesn’t really garner enough support to warrant giving him as much time as the others. gravel was on a debate the other night in iowa where he has 0% support. in the end, the only reason kucinich is up there with the other guys is because of one reason: he has the money and the political infrastructure to do it.

  20. Anonymous

    i like having him on board, but then again, he doesn’t really garner enough support to warrant giving him as much time as the others. gravel was on a debate the other night in iowa where he has 0% support. in the end, the only reason kucinich is up there with the other guys is because of one reason: he has the money and the political infrastructure to do it.

  21. Anonymous

    i like having him on board, but then again, he doesn’t really garner enough support to warrant giving him as much time as the others. gravel was on a debate the other night in iowa where he has 0% support. in the end, the only reason kucinich is up there with the other guys is because of one reason: he has the money and the political infrastructure to do it.

  22. Anonymous

    If it was anyone other than Dennis Kucinich I would be sympathetic, but that man is what gives the Democratic Party a bad name.Look at his abortion record. When he first entered congress, he was pro-life. He spoke adamantly and passionately about how “life begins at conception” and all that bullshit. Then, in 2003, when he decided he wanted to run for the Democratic nomination, he suddenly reverses his decision and becomes radically pro-choice. The man sickens me.But his problem goes far beyond specific inconsistencies. He is a nutcase. Have you heard him speak? Half the time he talks not about policy, but about “reach a higher existential plane” and other bullshit like that – I think philosophical talks are wonderful, but not as a solution to the quagmire in Iraq or to the impending social security disaster.And a Department of Peace? What the fuck? We already have that. Its called the Department of State. We just need an administration that isn’t radically neo-conservative, but abolishing the Department of Defense and replacing it with the Department of Peace is simple stupidity, nothing more.I hate how the media tries to make the race into a contest only between Clinton and Obama, and I’m not personally a big fan of either. I agree that we should give all the candidates, including Kucinich, their fair share. Honestly, I would love to see Kucinich get more airtime – that way everyone can see firsthand how much of a moron the guy is.

  23. Anonymous

    If it was anyone other than Dennis Kucinich I would be sympathetic, but that man is what gives the Democratic Party a bad name.Look at his abortion record. When he first entered congress, he was pro-life. He spoke adamantly and passionately about how “life begins at conception” and all that bullshit. Then, in 2003, when he decided he wanted to run for the Democratic nomination, he suddenly reverses his decision and becomes radically pro-choice. The man sickens me.But his problem goes far beyond specific inconsistencies. He is a nutcase. Have you heard him speak? Half the time he talks not about policy, but about “reach a higher existential plane” and other bullshit like that – I think philosophical talks are wonderful, but not as a solution to the quagmire in Iraq or to the impending social security disaster.And a Department of Peace? What the fuck? We already have that. Its called the Department of State. We just need an administration that isn’t radically neo-conservative, but abolishing the Department of Defense and replacing it with the Department of Peace is simple stupidity, nothing more.I hate how the media tries to make the race into a contest only between Clinton and Obama, and I’m not personally a big fan of either. I agree that we should give all the candidates, including Kucinich, their fair share. Honestly, I would love to see Kucinich get more airtime – that way everyone can see firsthand how much of a moron the guy is.

  24. Anonymous

    If it was anyone other than Dennis Kucinich I would be sympathetic, but that man is what gives the Democratic Party a bad name.

    Look at his abortion record. When he first entered congress, he was pro-life. He spoke adamantly and passionately about how “life begins at conception” and all that bullshit. Then, in 2003, when he decided he wanted to run for the Democratic nomination, he suddenly reverses his decision and becomes radically pro-choice. The man sickens me.

    But his problem goes far beyond specific inconsistencies. He is a nutcase. Have you heard him speak? Half the time he talks not about policy, but about “reach a higher existential plane” and other bullshit like that – I think philosophical talks are wonderful, but not as a solution to the quagmire in Iraq or to the impending social security disaster.

    And a Department of Peace? What the fuck? We already have that. Its called the Department of State. We just need an administration that isn’t radically neo-conservative, but abolishing the Department of Defense and replacing it with the Department of Peace is simple stupidity, nothing more.

    I hate how the media tries to make the race into a contest only between Clinton and Obama, and I’m not personally a big fan of either. I agree that we should give all the candidates, including Kucinich, their fair share. Honestly, I would love to see Kucinich get more airtime – that way everyone can see firsthand how much of a moron the guy is.

  25. s p a z e b o y

    If you like Kucinich, my friend CT Bob gave him a fair shake on his visit to Connecticut. Videos and write-ups here (an interview with Elizabeth Kucinich) and here (the “rolling interview”).The problem with traditional reporters is that they love to cover a horse race — between two horses. We saw it in the U.S. Senate race here in CT last year where the media gave unprecendented coverage to a minor party candidate named Joe Lieberman.I think that I got more coverage in the Hartford Courant than the Republican nominee Alan Schlesinger (only a slight exaggeration).

  26. s p a z e b o y

    If you like Kucinich, my friend CT Bob gave him a fair shake on his visit to Connecticut. Videos and write-ups here (an interview with Elizabeth Kucinich) and here (the “rolling interview”).The problem with traditional reporters is that they love to cover a horse race — between two horses. We saw it in the U.S. Senate race here in CT last year where the media gave unprecendented coverage to a minor party candidate named Joe Lieberman.I think that I got more coverage in the Hartford Courant than the Republican nominee Alan Schlesinger (only a slight exaggeration).

  27. s p a z e b o y

    If you like Kucinich, my friend CT Bob gave him a fair shake on his visit to Connecticut.

    Videos and write-ups here (an interview with Elizabeth Kucinich) and here (the “rolling interview”).

    The problem with traditional reporters is that they love to cover a horse race — between two horses. We saw it in the U.S. Senate race here in CT last year where the media gave unprecendented coverage to a minor party candidate named Joe Lieberman.

    I think that I got more coverage in the Hartford Courant than the Republican nominee Alan Schlesinger (only a slight exaggeration).

Comments are closed.