Anonymous sources say that Senator Evan Bayh will announce his intention to run for President of the United States this Sunday, and newspapers are dutifully passing on that information to their readers. Governor Tom Vilsack announced his presidential candidacy a few weeks ago, and then announced a second time to try to get more attention for his campaign last week. Both times, journalists obligingly wrote about Vilsack’s announcement.
What about the other Democrats who have announced their campaigns for President? Reporters have said, over and over again, that “Vilsack was the first in a crowded field of potential Democratic candidates to officially announce his campaign.” In doing so, they are willfully ignoring other Democratic candidates who announced their campaigns for President well before both Tom Vilsack and Evan Bayh.
Former Senator Mike Gravel announced months before Vilsack did. Then there are perennial Democratic candidates like Willie Carter and Jerry Carroll.
Maybe journalists don’t think that these other Democrats have a serious chance of victory. If that’s the case, they ought to say so. Pretending that these Democratic candidates don’t exist, however, is just plain dishonest. It ought to be the job of the voters, not reporters, to decide which candidates are worthy.
If journalists want to write editorials in which they list the Democratic presidential candidates they believe to be worthy of consideration, that’s fine. When they’re writing news articles, however, they ought not to tell us that only a few Democratic ppresidential candidates exist when anyone who cares to visit the web site of the Federal Elections Commissions can see that there are other Democratic candidates that the reporters don’t tell us about.
I’ll keep on writing about the minor candidates for President, not because I agree with them, but because I believe that voters deserve to know the full range of choices available to them in the upcoming presidential election.
So, J. Clifford, following up on this I’ve got a question for you: do you think we ought to offer bumper stickers for the presidential candidates like Willie Carter and Jerry Carroll? In the 2004 season we didn’t offer Lieberman stickers because although he’s a nominal Democrat his policy preferences are odious. What’s your opinion of these minor party candidates and whether we should help them with a selection of bumper stickers, buttons and so on?
I think we ought to offer bumper stickers for them when we know what they stand for, and if we agree with where they stand on at least some issues. I haven’t met any of these minor party candidates that I can say that of, but I think they still deserve coverage, if only for how kooky they are in some respects.
J Clifford — You are absolutely correct to point out the media’s “filtering” mechanism at work in identifying only those candidates who fit the mold. An unconventional candidate has a real uphill battle in getting any attention from traditional media sources. I commend you for setting the record straight. Maybe “irregular” sources can enable an “irregular” candidate to get some traction. That, by itself would be a very good thing. After all, what has “conventional wisdom” produced in recent memory: lacklustre candidates who have trouble articulating a position and no chance of affecting real change. It’s time that, to coin a phrase from an announced irregular, that we “Let the People Decide” — rather than the media.
Keep up the good work.
THIS ARTICLE DESERVES WIDE CIRCULATION.
While I don’t disagree with the article, it’s probably somewhat significant to point out that Jerry Carroll is not a Democrat. He’s “a perpetual independent candidate for President of the United States of America”, at least according to his flyer/business card he handed out only two days ago.
Pingback: Irregular Times » Blog Archive » Carter Ready To Be President Again