Two of three candidates that ran for president in 2000 are running again in 2004. While Al Gore is busy regaining all the weight he lost for the last contest and giving irritating speeches when he gets bored, George Bush is duking it out with John Kerry. And every once in a while you might here something about Ralph Nader.
The only things I have heard about Nader in this election center around his legal battles to get on the ballot in some state or another (he is currently on the ballot in 34 states according to his website) or his single-digit presence in the polls. I haven’t seen a single interview with him or news story detailing his positions or analyzing the impact of his candidacy on this close election. Not one word about his exclusion in the debates, or what he eats for breakfast for that matter.
I see two possible explanations for this: First, the major difference between the 2000 election and now is obviously the war on terrorism. A quick glance of Nader’s issues page will show the usual laundry list of progressive causes - but not a single mention of fighting the war on terror. I couldn’t even find the word ‘terrorism’ on his website. There is a section regarding the “Iraq War and Occupation” with ramblings about oil, impeachment and all the cool shit we could have bought with that money. But since the majority of the anti-war crowd doesn’t think the invasion of Iraq has anything to do with the war against terrorism (or against “freedom-fighters”, depending on how out to lunch they are), this doesn’t count. There are a considerable number of people in the world who would like to kill us and Ralph Nader doesn’t care. Given that, it is not very difficult to say that no serious American could think that Nader is a serious or credible candidate for president.
Which leads to the possibilities: is the mainstream media doing everybody a favor by not wasting our time covering this unserious candidate? This is a nation at war and the foreign policy credentials of the Nader ticket make John Edwards look like Ronald Reagan and Douglas MacArthur rolled into one. Or is this a more conscious effort by the media to ignore completely the efforts of the candidate that caused their guy, Al Gore, to lose last time around? You can almost hear the news directors, working for organizations that openly detest George Bush (CBS News, the New York Times), giving their marching orders: “breath one word of that third guy and you’ll be in the street.”
I’m inclined to believe the latter, given that I would expect at least a few news stories about Nader, considering his impact in the last election and what the effects might be this time around. Or at least a story hinting that in this time of war Nader isn’t qualified to lead a company of crossing guards, much less be Commander in Chief. It would appear that the mainstream media doesn’t even want to utter his name for fear of reminding potential Kerry voters (that may not really like Kerry) that there is another option. If you take recent instances of near-collusion between Big Media and the Kerry campaign, it is not hard to imagine the DNC gameplan hanging on the wall of newsrooms with Rule Number Five, “Any Mention of Ralph Nader Will Result In Not Being Invited To Anymore Cocktail Parties” - circled with a fat red Sharpie.
Is any of this earth-shattering? No. Do I think Nader deserves any more media attention than he’s getting. Certainly not, but I do think the relative silence regarding all things Nader speaks volumes about the media and their “role” in this election.
Comments (1)
What is also interesting is I read that Badnarik, the Libertarian guy, is on the ballot in 48 states plus DC. So why is Nader having such a problem with getting on the ballots?
Post a comment