Loaded Questions to a Captive Audience

Like an infomercial gone horribly wrong the current American system of 'Election Year Coverage' has embarked on yet another steamroll of issues and ideas. The audience is now made up of people who get their news predominantly from a single source, (More Americans get their news from {inserts initials here} than from any other source!!!) which is a very bad idea.

A mass of people nodding to Rush or Fox or even NPR without seeking the voices of dissent (frequently left out of most major news outlets) is a scary thought. Especially when many registered voters are blowing like fuses vowing to never vote again. Saying there is no choice and they are sick of voting for the lesser of evils. There actually IS a choice, it just has no coverage. Michael Badnarik said at the LP convention "When you vote for the lesser of evils and your candidate wins, you still get evil!!!".

The cable media lackeys are pulling down interviews with Bush and Kerry family members, friends, neighbours, garbage men and whomever else they can find in the world of trivial time fillers of possible interest. Instead of a fair and balanced review of ALL candidates that will actually BE on the ballots in enough states to win.

Unless things have changed in the past few days you can go onto many cable news and major networks web site and see links and stories about Dean, Nader, Kucinich, Sharpton, And till recently 'Edwards for Pres. site''s. Yet run a search for Libertarians, and many times you find nothing, nada, zilcheroney. Or an article from 2001.

Now, would you be interested in a party that is pushing a candidate that is anti-Nafta/GATT, Pro-choice, anti-war on drugs, pro-rights of gay couples to decide the nature of their relationship (The 'keep your laws off my body' party), anti-Halliburton, anti-corporate welfare, anti-wasteful govt. spending, anti-war in Iraq (Read Kerry's record, record on both voting and speaking out for invading Iraq), and yes, sheesh the list goes on and on.

I ask again, would you be interested? Would you be more interested if you knew they were on enough ballots to actually win the election?

Then watch the 'MEET MICHAEL BADNARIK' section of the Badnarik web site. {REAL PLAYER}

If I told you the Olympics, from now on, thanks to an agreement with the American and Russian swim team, will now be blocking out the other countries in the running, because they want to make sure the viewer sees how good a swimmer the U.S. and Russian's are, would you agree with the choice?

If you are watching the Oscars moments before the announcing of the winner, and the five nominated actors are on the jumbo-screen, but three of the windows have been blotted out like a bad episode of Cops, because they did not win the last nomination, would you agree with the decision/action?

ANd say the real estate agent showing you homes, blacks out all the windows but two little eye holes that are covered till the car is parked where you can only peep through and see the one, maybe two homes the agent thinks best for you, would you like that tactic?

If not, then why would you sit idle as the major networks covering 'Election 04' keep all legit, ballot represented candidates off their radar? Off the screen, out of the coverage? Out of the debates? This should be regardless of your political perspective. WHAT are the major parties and media outlets afraid of?

So, let's say you really despise BUSH. Just a hypothetical here. You are gwarna vote for KERRY no matter what other candidates are out there. Will you take five minutes to review Michael Badnarik's site or the LP site and see what you might be wishing for in 2008? Maybe a few minutes will be the prep work for the next few years. Maybe you will see something there that will strike your 'not so funny bone' as important.

I hope so,

As far as 'Election 04'. . .

May the best man win,



Tom L said…
Excellent job Scott. I think taht's the right way to approach the arguement.
Anonymous said…
I have to disagree with your analogy about the US and Russia not allowing other countries into the olympic swimming... It's more like the NBC, while shooting the swimming match would show only the US swimmer and the Russian swimmers because they were neck and neck the whole race and they were a couple minutes (a long time in a swimming event) ahead of the rest of the pack.

The Japanese swimmer, while maybe having perfect form, won't get much TV time on the US screens because he's only about 1/10th as quick as the two leaders. But, on Japanese TV, he'll get a lot more screen time.

If you were Japanese and watched a US TV broadcast, you'd think it quite unfair, but if you were a US viewer, you'd think it less so.

Now, I personally think the ACTUAL US coverage of the Olympics is AWFUL, but that's an entirely different subject.

It's not like the alternative candidates aren't allowed to participate, they just don't get the coverage that you think they deserve... I personally think that the right wing media (read: most media) over covered Nader back in '00 causing Bush to be able to steal the election.

Scott said…
Actually the coverage in the media of the Olympic contestants is far more 'inclusive' than the media coverage of the Political field.

Sure, the fish from Japan will get front page in Japan, and the American will get front page in the U.S., but if I search for the list of who's swimming this time 'round I get a list of the swimmers and their stats.

Whereas. . . searching for who the candidates this time 'round were, I and others found MANY major media outlets not covering all candidates that will be on enough ballots to win.

ANd only after many of us sent thousands of e-mails and made phone calls did we see some change in that. But there is much more to go.

I have some of the letters from a few of these media outlets saying, 'yeah, gee, we should cover this guy.'.

So to argue the finer desparaging points of Olympic/Political media coverage, I still stand by my analogy as one of good measure.

three time gold medalist. . . . . . . not
Scott said…
And also, you mention that the coverage, in the final heat should be on the American and the Russian. I am aware that this is the method of coverage in a heat. We are way-pre-heat. Very far from the last leg. I'm not foolhardy to say, in the final stretch of the big race, 'oh please oh please, cut to the guy who's limping, he's so cute!!! I know the lifegaurds holding his head above water, but give him a shot'.

This is why I am pointing out that months before the swim we are blocking out the thrilla from manilla and the crackawan from Japan. I understand the heated thick of it, get a close up of the two in front. I DO NOT agree with the way far way out prediction of American and Russian strength far before even reviewing the Japanese hard core swimmer, who seems to have as good of numbers as the others in practice. 'Aight

As far as the (L)'s go, I respect their effort. . . oh wait, I guess you could say I'm one too. I feel good voting for who I like, and not for who a radio host or tv guide says to vote for. Since the mdia won't cover them, I have to review them on my own and I find how good they are in the process.

Bush and Kerry - voted for the war, nafta (Bush was not in, I know but he's pro-nafta), patriot act, war on drugs, status quo of big govt., etc. I, however am not, so I vote for what I believe in. it's simple really.

I'd be glad to hear arguements to the contrary, in fact, I seek them. and am glad you posted what you did.

Scott said…
ALso, the debates are like a try out, ALL those who are trying out should be allowed to do so. At least those who have worked hard and crunched the numbers to get in.

What do Kerry and Bush have to fear from having those in the room who have a grassroots org so strong it gets them on the ballots? Enough ballots to win, mind you.

Popular Posts