Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I love the MEDIA

  1. Sep 29, 2008 #1
    There are over 10 different parties in the 2008 presidential contest, yet only 2 parties are shown on television in general. Are we experiencing an undemocratic election? Especially in times of suprise and hardship, I feel that we as U.S. citizens should be given information on all the candidates. Without adequate information the citizens can not chose wisely and the republic fails.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 29, 2008 #2

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Mainstream tv stations don't give time to unelectable candidates. Having looked at what's out there, there is no one of interest, IMO.
     
  4. Sep 29, 2008 #3
    The reason the candidates are unelectable is because the media gives them no coverage.
     
  5. Sep 29, 2008 #4

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Ron Paul did a press conference with Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and Chuck Baldwin back on September 10 in Washington DC. Bob Barr was invited, but decided to his own thing. Barr wasn't interested in the other alternatives - only himself.

    Third-Party Candidates Gather In Show Of Unity
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94481300
    by Ari Shapiro
     
  6. Sep 29, 2008 #5
    I didn't mean to make a blank statement, of course third parties get some coverage. But not nearly as much. If coverage of party A gets a hypothetical ratio of 1 to 100, with 50 and 50 split up among parties A and B. which ones have the greater chance to be elected?

    I guess what really pissed me off was seeing only two parties in a presidential debate. I want to hear all views.
     
  7. Sep 29, 2008 #6

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well the alternatives haven't really sounded credible to independents or dems or reps.

    Nader's ego keeps getting in his way.

    Ron Paul had some wacky and over-simplistic ideas.

    I haven't really payed much attention to the others - neither has the majority of the voting public.



    Anyone - feel free to write me (Astronuc) in - as a protest vote!
     
  8. Sep 29, 2008 #7
    However crazy they may be do you think its fair to to give air time to only two candidates? I think theres a very decisive team atmosphere developing in this country, or perhaps its always been here. The two teams are the republicans and the democrats, they hold the power because they are the media. Both sides are at a struggle to convince the american public to put their side in power. I think this destroys our republic.

    If the information people recieve is on the television, and the television is convincing people how to vote, they are not voting for themselves. Even if you disagree that this is happening, it is something that can happen in the future.
     
  9. Sep 30, 2008 #8

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There is something to say about this. In France for instance, the time dedicated to each presidential candidate (or to each party involved in a legislative vote) on national televisions (public and private) is measured and compared by an independent authority during a certain period before the elections:

    http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000821359&dateTexte=

    These times have to be equal within minutes.
     
  10. Sep 30, 2008 #9

    Art

    User Avatar

    If every candidate had to be given equal air time in the US election there would be 100''s if not 1000's of candidates as every protest group or special interest group would field a candidate to get their views aired.

    It would be impossible for the electorate to sort the wheat from the chaff.
     
  11. Sep 30, 2008 #10

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's foreseen, that's why candidates need 500 signatures from persons in public office (mayors, city counselors, members of parliament, ...) before they are accepted as a candidate. These don't need to be people from the candidate's party and they don't mean that they endorse the candidate, only that they consider him/her a "suitable" candidate to present himself/herself, exactly to avoid the above mentioned abuse.
     
  12. Sep 30, 2008 #11

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    In Poland it works similar, you need 100,000 signatures - but you are not limited to public persons. That's 100,000 out of around 38,000,000 population. Then you are given some amount of time on public TV and you can broadcast (almost) whatever you want. It works similar during Parliament elections, just the numbers (signatures, minutes) are different.
     
  13. Sep 30, 2008 #12

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    One could think that this is a bad idea as people would not get signatures from members of the established parties already. This turns out not to be true at all. In fact, left wing fringe candidates get easily signatures from moderate right wing persons (as they think that this will undermine the moderate left wing candidates), and vice versa.
     
  14. Sep 30, 2008 #13
    What oversimplistic ideas do you think Ron Paul has? Much of what Ron Paul says about how government ought to function greatly resonates with most of the public ; During those debates between the republicans , Ron Paul won a lot of those debates Removing all of are troops from different parts of the country is and not instigating wars overseas is oversimplistics? Reducing the size of government and eliminating failed federal programs like FEMA and eliminating IRS is oversimplistic? Having a foreign policy based only free trade is oversimplistic?!?!?!? He is the only candidate who has identified the root cause of why the prices of goods like gasoline are going up. All Obama and Mccain want to do is sustained are empire around the world and continued to reduced the value of the dollar. Ron Paul is the only candidate who realizes that we need to reduced are spending due to the debts we owe to other countries with the addition of our own debt we created;

    Ron Paul generally sides with the public , unlike Obama and Mccain, Paul is one of the few candidates who sees this bailout as a bad idea just like much of the country. Noticed that the mainstream media is now paying attention to what Ron Paul is saying about are current financial crisis. Ron Paul has received many recognitions and awards from the prestigious austrian school of economics , So he knows what he is talking about when it comes to the Economy. MCcain even confessed in a debate he knows nothing about the economy.
     
  15. Sep 30, 2008 #14

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Just look at his website and some of the nutty, IMO, things he's for. Ever listened to him answer questions from the public? He didn't know what global warming was, he did say he'd heard something about it. There is a very good reason he was pretty much ignored - people checked him out.

    I haven't seen any mention of him in mainstream media since the novelty wore off ages ago.
     
  16. Sep 30, 2008 #15
    LordofDirT, are you complaining that third party candidates in general don't get coverage, or is there a particular one you have in mind. If so, are you going to vote for that candidate? One way to get the media to pay attention to your candidate is to vote for them. If you won't vote for them, why should you expect anyone else to do anything for them?
     
  17. Sep 30, 2008 #16
    Yes, considering that none of the other candidates have a chance of coming anywhere near winning. We have enough to worry about choosing between viable candidates without subjecting ourselves to hours of nonsense from kooks in the name of "fairness."

    It has been around for many, many decades.

    No, they hold power because we employ a winner-take-all election system. This means that other parties have no chance of getting elected, and even if they somehow did, the two major parties would have a huge incentive to cooperate in marginalizing them.

    The things that separate two-party systems from multi-party systems are much deeper, and more systemic, than media coverage. Countries with real multi-party systems typically employ parlaimentary systems, in which the government is necessarily formed by a coalition of parties. Votes are cast for parties, not candidates, and seats assigned to the parties in proportion to the votes they receive. The downside of such systems is that they are susceptible to gridlock, and that the government is at the mercy of any of the parties in the coalition, who can pull out and force elections at any time.

    There are advantages to both types of democracy, but it's crucial to note that this stuff is designed into the Constitution explicitly. It is not driven by media coverage. Indeed, it predates modern media by a large span. The media simply reflects the realities of our electoral system, and forcing the media to act differently wouldn't accomplish anything but to waste everyone's time and money on marginal parties that are not relevant. If significant numbers of people were actually interested in Ron Paul or Ralph Nader, the major media would rush to cover them more. They are businesses, after all, not political operators. But the fact is that Americans, in general, are just not impressed with their ideas, and no amount of exposure is going to change that. These media conspiracy theories are simply a refuge for people who don't want to admit that the reason for the unpopularity of their ideas is that their ideas are bad.

    Considering that this has been going on since the very beginning of our Republic, which happens to be the longest-standing republic on the face of the Earth, I don't think there's much evidence for that stance.
     
  18. Sep 30, 2008 #17
    Oh really? I will post a list of recent clips of Ron Paul appearing on FOX news, the network that banned him from the debates. He is aware of Global Warming. He just doesn't think humans are completely responsible for the cause of global warming since many natural elements and phenomena contribute to the warming of the earth. Did you know in the 70's that scientists use to believe the Earth was heading towards another ice age. MCCAIN confessed he doesn't know how the economy works for crying out loud!!!!




    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlgByE1jDRA&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4k-eMP_6zE&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfUKZOHtRs&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSNnembIJ_c&feature=related

    And there are plenty more recent clips of Ron Paul speaking out on the presidential candidates and on the Bailout
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  19. Sep 30, 2008 #18
    I support Obama, if anyone was wondering. Why would anyone assume I supported a third party simply because of my concern about fairness in the media?
     
  20. Sep 30, 2008 #19
    I never said you were supporting a third party candidate. Its glad to see someone who acknowledges other candidates that are not mainstream.
     
  21. Sep 30, 2008 #20
    Sodium, I'm assuming thats your first name, I wasn't talking about any of your posts.

    I think people need to have a little more discussion on televisions effect on the proper functioning of a republic. Obviously television can be used to manipulate, otherwise advertisements would not be prosperous. I don't think it's a very big stretch to say that the media is manipulative also. News channels are like giant shadow advertisements for the two opposing political parties.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: I love the MEDIA
  1. Idiot media! (Replies: 33)

  2. I *LOVE* Ann Coulter (Replies: 17)

  3. Media & Politics (Replies: 44)

Loading...