media suppression of dissident responses via followup avoidance

[cryofan]

I have been reading a lot lately about how the media shapes political debate and excludes radical and third party political candidates. In particular, I have been following the Democratic party presidential race and debates. One of the interesting aspects of the media coverage has been how, during the televised candidate debates, the sometimes "radical" or "dissident" comments of candidate Kucinich has been handled.

Also, Anthony Garcia, who is a Texas Libertarian party activist and sometime candidate was recently on the Houston PBS "connections" TV show. He "debated"/discussed various broad political issues with representatives of the local Democrat, Republican, and Green parties. Interesting to me was how the moderator and Dem and GOP representatives completely ignored Anthony's occasional comments about broad issues regarding how the dems and gop use their power to keep 3rd party candidates off the ballot and away from the media. However, almost every comment from the dem and gop representatives, even when about seemingly trivial subject matter, prompted a followup from the moderator and the other major party candidate.

Likewise, when Kucinich made radical/dissident comments about broad issues during the debate, the moderator simply ignored every single one, while comments from the more "mainstream" candidates were followed up by the moderator.

Here is a quote from Michael Parenti's website that defines how this exclusion of outlier parties, ideologies, and candidates is accomplished via "followup avoidance of dissident comments" when a radical or dissident comment is made on TV:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Follow-up Avoidance

When confronted with an unexpectedly dissident response, media hosts quickly change the subject, or break for a commercial, or inject an identifying announcement: "We are talking with ." The purpose is to avoid going any further into a politically forbidden topic no matter how much the unexpected response might seem to need a follow-up query. An anchorperson for the BBC World Service (December 26, 1997) enthused: "Christmas in Cuba: For the first time in almost forty years Cubans were able to celebrate Christmas and go to church!" She then linked up with the BBC correspondent in Havana, who observed, "A crowd of two thousand have gathered in the cathedral for midnight mass. The whole thing is rather low key, very much like last year." Very much like last year? Here was something that craved clarification. Instead, the anchorperson quickly switched to another question: "Can we expect a growth of freedom with the pope's visit?"

On a PBS talk show (January 22, 1998), host Charlie Rose asked a guest, whose name I did not get, whether Castro was bitter about "the historic failure of communism". No, the guest replied, Castro is proud of what he believes communism has done for Cuba: advances in health care and education, full employment, and the elimination of the worst aspects of poverty. Rose fixed him with a ferocious glare, then turned to another guest to ask: "What impact will the pope's visit have in Cuba?" Rose ignored the errant guest for the rest of the program.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Iverson]

1. a look at mass media is so important

In the last generation, really since the Reagan administration, changes in mass media have been just appalling. You raise an important issue here, one which is intimately bound with questions of consolidation of media ownership.

[kodi]

2. the major media is setting the narrative instead of reporting the facts

it does this by ignoring facts and selectively presenting the facts.

we are not the customers of the media, advertisers are, and nothing will be allowed to get thru if it undermines the economic interests of the advertisers.

noam chomsky was on the charlie rose show a month ago or so, each time chomsky began to explain, with examples, the media manipulation, rose would interrupt with a feign of incredulity, acting like he was stunned and confused at what chomsky was saying, which was itself a pointed attempt to direct the narrative away from what chomsky was trying to explain. it was a classic case of media controllers trying to define the story instead of reporting on it.

[salinen]

3. Nobody wants to be called

corrupt. Just as the 2 major parties want to keep greens away from the debate, pubs have almost made sure dems are away from the debate. One party rule is almost complete. The great experiment has been pig fucked.