Is there an official term for the phenomenon of the commercial media excluding/ignoring a candidate?

[begin_within]

We read about this all the time on DU - a candidate gets trivialized, marginalized, ostracized, or just completely ignored by the commercial media even though he/she is still running for the office? And it may or may not be intentional - the media may simply not want that candidate to get that office, so they give him/her no airtime or just a token mention. And being excluded from a debate because of some "standard" set by whoever runs the debate? Is there a term that refers to all this? If not, what do you suggest?

[southerncrone]

1. I'll start one......"Kuciniching"

[begin_within]

2. It would be sad if Kucinich is remembered in the long run more for his mistreatment by the media,

than what he stands for politically.

[southerncrone]

6. I wholeheartedly agree, however

If his name lives on in infamy, at least there is reason for future generations to KNOW his name & perhaps educate themselves on the REAL individual that is Dennis Kucinich.

At the rate things are going, MSM will see to it that everyone forgets about him "yesterday".

[WritersBlock]

3. How about mediocroup? Mediocre media commits coup. n/t

[begin_within]

4. going in the right directin - keep working on it

[OffWithTheirHeads]

5. When corporations run the state it' pretty simple

It's called fascism.

[Political Heretic]

7. A candidate needs to be fielding more than 1% support before this should matter.

[WritersBlock]

8. Sorta hard for a candidate to field more against a media blackout. n/t

[Political Heretic]

10. Edwards has faced the same problem. It's just the way it goes.

It doesn't change the fact that in this democratic electoral process, support matters. If you can't field more than 1% support then you can't be expected to be automatically included in every event especially as the field narrows and we move closer and closer toward a single selection.

Life isn't fair. If you don't have the candidate who can build enough grassroots support to overcome the challenges of the system, then you need to find someone else. I am tired of people blaming the media rather than taking personal responsibility. The media sucks. Big deal. Power-Elite interests have always been around. They didn't stop Dr. King. They didn't stop FDR. They didn't stop countless leaders through history who carried a message of change that was directly opposed by the establishment and the power elite.

Consider the possibility that if your guy can't seem to overcome the obstacles, perhaps he isn't the right guy for that particular role.

[begin_within]

20. Didn't he get 4% in Michigan yesterday?

[Political Heretic]

9. I'm running for President too, and I was not allowed to participate in the debate

Is that a problem? Or should the fact that I have less than 1% support in state and national polls be a factor in deciding not to invite me to participate?

(Note: this isn't about Kucinich's court case - I support him because he was invited and then dis-invited, and that I have a problem with. However if NBC had never invited him at all, I would understand. Anyone can run for president. But you should have to field a certain percentage of basic support before you get guaranteed to be included in every debate. Why isn't anyone crying about Gravel or any other candidate with next to zero support who was not included in previous debates?)

Just saying "I'm running for President" is not some kind of universal license. The people have spoken with their lack of support. Kucinich might want to try focusing on building more of a grass-roots support network than grabbing for the national media limelight next time and see if he can get himself 15%. That should be the cut-off where you are automatically guaranteed a spot in every debate.

[EFerrari]

11. It's not on Dennis to prove his access to the First Amendment. n/t

[Political Heretic]

15. It's not a first amendment issue, and answer my question. n/t

[EFerrari]

17. It certainly is a First Amendment issue. Not to mention,

Dennis is on the ballot in Nevada. Not to mention, NBC rents the airwaves from us. They have no business denying our candidates air time.

What do you think, you have to have some kind of special tattoo to run for office? These people put their pants on one leg at a time just like you do.

Not to mention, it's likely that the Clinton or Obama campaign bumped Dennis in the first place.

[Political Heretic]

19. You are wrong.

NBC may "rent" the airwaves from us. But this is not the government demanding airtime from NBCs company programing. This is a private corporation choosing to air the programing it wants, in the way it wants - which it is completely legally and constitutionally entitled to do. So you can tout the "they rent the airwaves" line as much as you want. All I need to do is point you to legal rulings and the FCC's own regulations outlining the rights that private media companies have to determine their own programming. Now if we actually had publicly funded elections then the government could demand airtime on ALL the networks to televise debates and then that would raise very interesting questions about what the criteria would be for inclusion of candidates.

It STILL shouldn't just be "anyone" who puts their name on a ballot. But some criteria should be established and every candidate - regardless of message or point of view - who meets that criteria must be allowed to participate. That would be great. But that's not what we have right now.

It may be lame, and worthy of being protested, boycotted, or railed against - but it isn't a violation of the first amendment in any way shape or form. People throw that around every time they dislike something and when they do it sullies the real meaning of the first amendment and the significance of violations of the first amendment. And you're talking to someone who worked for the ACLU right up until returning to school to complete my masters degree.

Once again I ask you, to answer my question which you have still failed to answer.

Because apparently according to you, a for-profit company is apparently legally obligated to allow every person running for president regardless of their support or standing, participate in a "debate" even this far into the process when we are attempting to narrow down our selection to one. So you think that a platform with thirty-seven candidates on it, many of whom have no national support and no place in any poll higher than 1% would be the most beneficial to seriously people honestly interested in choosing the best nominee to lead the democratic party in 2008?

[ChiciB1]

12. Maybe "The D.C. Machine" Made Or Told The Players, Thou

shalt not "muddle things up!' It's been said, and it's more than a rumor... the POWERS THAT BE only will allow certain candidates to have "their day" or even chance to "hear their message!'

So much for "fair and balanced" or even Democracy!

[snot]

13. censorship? not by gov't but by those in thrall to the real powers? nt

[Whisp]

14. I think Warmongers R Us pretty well covers it.

peaceniks are fringey freakoids that talk stupid talk.

peace! feh.

[Rex]

16. Mass suppression of Democracy.

Corporate (s)elections (and I don't mean the voting machines).

[leftofthedial]

18. fascism