• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should media give equal coverage to the Green and Libertarian Parties?

Should the media give equal coverage to the libertarian and green parties?

  • Yes. It would afford viable political options outside of the status quo by their lack of coverage

    Votes: 24 63.2%
  • No. They shouldn't force coverage of something the public isn't interested in

    Votes: 13 34.2%
  • Yes, but only if we also incorporate a run off election

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • Total voters
    38

Smeagol

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm watching an interview on CNN with the potus candidates from the Green and Libertarian parties. We can moan and gran all we want but tbo Democrats and the GOP are very likey going to own the US political system until the media starts paying other parties some attention and treat them equally.

Should the media treat the Libertarian and Green parties with the same seriousness as the GOP and he DNC? Shoud the Libertarian and Green parties be included in the debates and their primary debates covered by the meda? The obvious outcome IMHO will be a viable third and possibly fourth party. Is that even a good thing. Do we want to elect a potus with only 26% of the popular vote? Woud we need to concurrently end the electoral college and go to direct presidential vote with a runoff if no candidate gets 50% plus one vote? Are states doers ready to see Puerto Ricans, Guam residents, Samoans and Virgin Islanders have an equal vote in the presidential election as they have?
 
I'm watching an interview on CNN with the potus candidates from the Green and Libertarian parties. We can moan and gran all we want but tbo Democrats and the GOP are very likey going to own the US political system until the media starts paying other parties some attention and treat them equally.

Should the media treat the Libertarian and Green parties with the same seriousness as the GOP and he DNC? Shoud the Libertarian and Green parties be included in the debates and their primary debates covered by the meda? The obvious outcome IMHO will be a viable third and possibly fourth party. Is that even a good thing. Do we want to elect a potus with only 26% of the popular vote? Woud we need to concurrently end the electoral college and go to direct presidential vote with a runoff if no candidate gets 50% plus one vote? Are states doers ready to see Puerto Ricans, Guam residents, Samoans and Virgin Islanders have an equal vote in the presidential election as they have?

The media should give equal airtime to all 3rd party candidates. The media has blatantly ignored 3rd party candidates and excluded them from debates in order to deliberately aid the two party monopoly.
 
just a comment on your 2nd option..

"No. They shouldn't force coverage of something the public isn't interested in"

that premise relies on the notion of the media reflecting what the public is interested in....I believe the media determines what the public is interested in, not the other way around ( especially in politics)
 
for my answer..
I think the media should report on all candidates to whatever office the elections is being held for.
withholding coverage does a disservice to the citizens, and to the country overall.
 
I think there should be equal coverage to all parties. Give the public a real choice
 
It is amazing how many answered yes. What they are saying is that really Obama and Romney should have only had 15 minutes each in the debates - with equal time to candidates that less than 10% of voters could even name.

And why those two 3rd parties only??? Because the OP - in total contradiction - wants to exclude other 3rd parties from having a voice?

There are SIXTEEN THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT FOR PRESIDENT. So REALLY, the OP and majority on the forum think that Obama and Romney should only be allowed to speak for 5 minutes in the debates, with 16 other candidates "having equal time."

But why limit it to Party candidates? Why not all candidates for President in the USA? Then Obama and Romney get 18 seconds each in the debate.
 
Media gets money by people telling them what they want, not the other way around. Therefore, I say no.

Besides, if you really want to experience libertarian thought in the media, John Stossel hosts a show on Fox News every week. Glenn Beck also had libertarian leanings at the start, until he got hijacked by the far-right evangelical crowd.

If you want libertarianism training wheels, you could get a start with the O'Reilly Factor. Eventually you have to graduate from that class if you want to fully embrace it, however.
 
No. Where do you draw the line? The American Nazi Party? The Rent Is Too Damn High Party? Some random nutcase who says he's running for president?
 
The media, if their interest is truly reporting the political landscape and informing the electorate of their choices, should give "equal time" to all candidates for President. Yes..that even means the Nazi party and Rent is too Damn High party. But that's not to say the debate commission (or host of the debate) should forego their "rules of engagement' for debates. It makes sense to limit access to "viable" candidates.

At the end of the day, the real complaint isn't with "media". It's with the electorate. If people would research and vote third party instead of throwing away their vote on the "lesser of two evils" or the candidate who they think will win anyway, then third party candidates would have a better showing, scare the major parties a bit, and attract the attention of the media.
 
Kandahar said:
No. Where do you draw the line?

Draw it at the point where the party has legitimate backing. Libertarian Party does. I'd even argue that the Green Party does.

However, for these parties right now, the best way to go is what Ron Paul is doing. The Libertarian RINO is alive and well, and we're waiting until America is just progressive enough to break out of the evangelical funk and start making laws that make sense.
 
Since I'm a registered Green, I'm prejudiced so I voted "yes." I don't think the media does a very good job of framing the important issues of our time. That may be because their major advertisers don't want certain issues publicized. Money talks, so global warming is not in Presidential debates. Job policies generated by genuine "green" policies are not discussed. it's a hell of a note when even the Dems think the only way to save the Country is to save the 1%. As the wealth of the 1% has increased, jobs have decreased. As the wealth of the 1% has increased, foreclosures have increased. As the wealth of the 1% has increased, our National debt has increased. Enough said?
 
i would support more coverage, certainly. i understand why they don't; Johnson and Stein are polling at four and two percent, respectively. one could argue, however, that they aren't polling better because they've received almost no coverage. i've seen about two stories on CNN about their campaigns. the slope is certainly much steeper for those who are not part of the duopoly.
 
The media, if their interest is truly reporting the political landscape and informing the electorate of their choices, should give "equal time" to all candidates for President. Yes..that even means the Nazi party and Rent is too Damn High party.

That is not very practical. Why should some random guy who says he's running for president get as much attention as the sitting President of the United States?

At the end of the day, the real complaint isn't with "media". It's with the electorate. If people would research and vote third party instead of throwing away their vote on the "lesser of two evils" or the candidate who they think will win anyway, then third party candidates would have a better showing, scare the major parties a bit, and attract the attention of the media.

If your goal is to influence the outcome of the election, that's not a very rational way to vote.
 
Draw it at the point where the party has legitimate backing. Libertarian Party does. I'd even argue that the Green Party does.

Who decides what is "legitimate backing"? You? Neither of those two parties you mentioned have any chance whatsoever of winning the election.
 
The media should give equal airtime to all 3rd party candidates. The media has blatantly ignored 3rd party candidates and excluded them from debates in order to deliberately aid the two party monopoly.

I was about to correct you and say duopoly, but now that I think about it, monopoly still seems about right.
 
Sorry. I forgot who I was replying to. Too many interuptions. Anyway:
How can the media determine what I'm interested in? I don't think I'm in a minority; and the media needs us watching and reading. I've listened and thought about many minority candidates; and, they almost always come across to me as dogmatic. I also observed that the media covers them sufficiently for me to determine that they are monotonic in their solutions; i.e. essentially not rational. Anyone that can be influenced they way you're indicating are the people I wish wouldn't vote. They are what is called Other Directed. I bet if I step back and take a look at how other things in people’s lives are decided on with dogmatic like processes. Can you think of one?
 
It is amazing how many answered yes. What they are saying is that really Obama and Romney should have only had 15 minutes each in the debates - with equal time to candidates that less than 10% of voters could even name.

And why those two 3rd parties only??? Because the OP - in total contradiction - wants to exclude other 3rd parties from having a voice?

There are SIXTEEN THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT FOR PRESIDENT. So REALLY, the OP and majority on the forum think that Obama and Romney should only be allowed to speak for 5 minutes in the debates, with 16 other candidates "having equal time."

But why limit it to Party candidates? Why not all candidates for President in the USA? Then Obama and Romney get 18 seconds each in the debate.

I intentionally excluded ALL the candidates fur exactly the reasons you cited. Just the green and libertarian have halfway significant followings, other than the GOP and dnc. And like the football playoffs, who says they have to be in the same debates? I'm okay with a GOP/dnc debate one night and maybe a lib/green another night. If we get coverage of the big party conventions, somebody ought to cover the green and libertarian ones even if its just link-tv or current-tv. I'm not decided on the subject either way but I do think the present system is limiting and driven by big money.
 
Ok Alot of people have made good points here. What constitutes equal coverage, news, infomercials, debates and what constitutes a legitmate party? Polls won't work beccause if a person doesn't know the views of a particular party they won't go for it. the only way I can think of is to have something like those poltical quizes you see on the internet and keep track of how many people would fall iinto what catagory or group.
Everyone would get equal air time to politic but only the top 3,4 or five would be invited to debate. It would be similar to a primary debate between the canidates of the same party. Those usually have at least 3 people.
You could allow the infomercials and internet information to start in say the January before the election. So that by the time the debates came around say september more people would have an idea of what each party or canidate supposedly stood for.

This is as far as my thinking goes but I am sure there are people out there who could expand on this.
 
I think there should be equal coverage to all parties. Give the public a real choice

Not all, there should be some minimum standards met (maybe 1,000,000 registered members or something like that) or else, bob's political party that is him and his best friend bubba would be covered too.

The media couldn't possibly get through all of the parties that would spring up if something like that happened.
 
Kandahar said:
Who decides what is "legitimate backing"? You? Neither of those two parties you mentioned have any chance whatsoever of winning the election.

Voters. The electoral system, as it is now, is designed to quell the ability for another party to rise.

Perot's biggest obstacle was states who refused to acknowledge his candidacy on ballots. The system is designed to fiercely protect its own.

As long as this system prevails, along with a winner-take-all format, you're stuck with picking the lesser of two evils if you don't tow party lines.
 
I'm watching an interview on CNN with the potus candidates from the Green and Libertarian parties. We can moan and gran all we want but tbo Democrats and the GOP are very likey going to own the US political system until the media starts paying other parties some attention and treat them equally.

Should the media treat the Libertarian and Green parties with the same seriousness as the GOP and he DNC? Shoud the Libertarian and Green parties be included in the debates and their primary debates covered by the meda? The obvious outcome IMHO will be a viable third and possibly fourth party. Is that even a good thing. Do we want to elect a potus with only 26% of the popular vote? Woud we need to concurrently end the electoral college and go to direct presidential vote with a runoff if no candidate gets 50% plus one vote? Are states doers ready to see Puerto Ricans, Guam residents, Samoans and Virgin Islanders have an equal vote in the presidential election as they have?

It's not really the medias fault, at least as far as the debates go.
The presidential debates are run by a committee of former DNC and GOP heads.

They moderate the contract process between the two candidates and have a minimum threshold of 15% of the popular vote, before another person can be put on the debates.
Of course, excluding people from debates, means they're unlikely to even get that much popular votes in the first place.
It's a catch 22 and DNC/GOP know it.
 
I think they should.

And I think there should be at least one presidential debate where all the sane alternatives are there.

Not even nessecarily because I'd support any of them.

But because I think it's healthy in a democracy for people to hear all kinds of views rather than the two party dictatorship the USA has right now.

I think it'd be a refreshing change from the Right - Left hamster wheel you guys are on.
 
Not all, there should be some minimum standards met (maybe 1,000,000 registered members or something like that) or else, bob's political party that is him and his best friend bubba would be covered too.

The media couldn't possibly get through all of the parties that would spring up if something like that happened.

Ok yes I agree did not think of that but its a good point.
 
I think they should.

And I think there should be at least one presidential debate where all the sane alternatives are there.

Not even nessecarily because I'd support any of them.

But because I think it's healthy in a democracy for people to hear all kinds of views rather than the two party dictatorship the USA has right now.

I think it'd be a refreshing change from the Right - Left hamster wheel you guys are on.

I would absolutely love it if we had smaller, more narrowly focused parties and needed to form coalitions to get things done. It would help ensure a plurality of views were represented and the national conversation was more diverse and hopefully intelligent than what we have now.
 
I've made an argument in another thread where someone echoed the BS line about the citizenry "not wanting to hear what the 3rd parties have to say".

You look back in 2004 where the LP in particular had ballot access in 45 states, yet the LP, as well as Green candidates for president were arrested for trying to enter a presidential debate.

Michael Badnarik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Badnarik and Green Party candidate David Cobb were arrested[5][6] in St. Louis, Missouri, on October 8, 2004, for an act of civil disobedience. Badnarik and Cobb were protesting their exclusion from the presidential debates of the 2004 presidential election campaign. They were arrested after crossing a police barricade in an attempt to serve an Order to Show Cause to the Commission on Presidential Debates.
 
Back
Top Bottom