Leave it to the voters to decide who is a viable candidate: On the media’s non-coverage of Ron Paul

Kevin Drum and Jonathan Bernstein say essentially the same thing regarding the press deciding not to cover Ron Paul’s campaign, which I’d sum up as: It’s obvious Paul has no chance of being the next President, so the press is right to not cover his campaign.

But granting that Ron Paul can’t win, that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be covered. Candidates who — like Paul — might plausibly bring issues in the race that would otherwise be ignored, or force their opponents (a few of whom might well become President) to make arguments they wouldn’t otherwise, can have an important impact even if they can’t win. If the media was covering Ron Paul as eagerly as they cover Michele Bachmann, that could force other candidates — including “real” candidates like Romney — to more explicitly discuss when they would and wouldn’t consider the US going to war to be justified. That’s useful information for the public to know — and it’s not a question we can rely on mainstream journalists to persistently badger Romney with.

Or maybe that wouldn’t happen, and no matter how much public noise Paul makes, Romney would dodge the issue. We really can’t know for sure. But voters should get a chance to find out, rather than the media deciding that it’s not worth the bother.

The press’ role should be to communicate the election contest that’s going on right now — not to gatekeeper the news according to the election contest they believe will happen in the future.

Obviously, it’s necessary for the press to make some gatekeeping decisions; giving equal coverage to everyone who can get their name on a ballot, even if they’re polling at .00001% and have only raised a hundred bucks they got from their mom, would turn press coverage into an incomprehensible mishmash of hundreds of candidates.

But we should see gatekeeping is a necessary evil, which journalists should try to minimize. Above all, journalists should be striving — not for canniness, which is unfortunately the thing most campaign journalists seem to value most — but for modesty. That means that journalists shouldn’t decide things for voters; journalists should not be saying “I’m so canny and smart that I know this candidate can’t win, so why bother reporting on the campaign?”

As much as practically possible, journalists should provide their audience with the full story, and leave it to the voters to decide who is and isn’t a viable candidate.

I don’t know exactly what the threshold of newsworthiness should be. But Paul came within inches of winning an event that the mainstream media considers significant. He’s polling in third in New Hampshire (4% above media darling Michelle Bachmann). Any reasonable threshold based, not on canniness, but on giving readers and viewers what they need to decide, would say that Ron Paul’s campaign is newsworthy.

(None of this is to deny that I think Ron Paul has substantively awful views on many issues.)

This entry posted in crossposted on TADA, Elections and politics, Media criticism. Bookmark the permalink. 

6 Responses to Leave it to the voters to decide who is a viable candidate: On the media’s non-coverage of Ron Paul

  1. 1
    Clarence says:

    Sadly hilarious and true, Amp.
    I’m glad you can see that despite having disagreements with Paul that he does bring up some good political points that are often overlooked. I have much respect for him. How he’s being nearly totally ignored is not only shameful but shows just how controlled our media is.

    By the way I disagree with Stewart most of the time, but I’m gonna give him mad propz for noting the media diss of a guy whom he mostly doesn’t agree with either.

  2. 2
    nobody.really says:

    Early in the 1988 presidential campaign Jesse Jackson was polling ahead of any of his Democratic rivals. A Tom Toles (?) political cartoon depicted Democratic campaign operatives running around looking for a champion, studiously ignoring the larger-than-life Jesse Jackson standing in their midst. “Where, oh where, can we find our candidate? Keep looking! Keep looking! …Oh god, this is embarrassing….”

    Ah, the indelible power of a well-crafted cartoon….

  3. 3
    RonF says:

    Basically an example of the MSM deciding who they want to see running for President and who they don’t want to see running. Follow closely by the MSM deciding who they want elected President and who they don’t.

  4. 4
    April says:

    Right on. Glad to see this issue addressed by more progressives. The MSM’s lack of coverage (or, at least, serious coverage) is shameful and eye-opening. I don’t plan to vote for him for president, but I donated to his campaign. I fully support him becoming the GOP nominee… even if that support is completely in vain. He’s asking questions that the MSM repeatedly ignores, that need to be addressed more loudly. If he was the nominee, these questions would be forced into the public discourse.

  5. 5
    Stepehn Frug says:

    Well said.

    But while I think you hit the most important point, I think Drum, anyway, is also underplaying the media’s role here. Drum’s argument, IMS, is that it’s ok the media is downplaying him because he lost last time. But didn’t they underplay him — not to the same extent, but not taking him seriously — last time? And doesn’t the overall groupthink contribute to who can & can’t win? Which is to say, although your refutation is spot-on, I think the narrow, technical point is wrong too.

  6. 6
    Sebastian H says:

    Further, he isn’t so out of contention as to be dismissed even from some objective standard. It looks to me as if he is polling only two points behind Obama, and well ahead of Bachman. link So why do they think it is ok to ignore him?