Two Media Myths of Campaign Coverage Debunked

[ihavenobias]

Two Media Myths of Campaign Coverage Debunked
By Cenk Uygur

Here are two media myths about presidential campaigns:

1. The media covers candidates based on their electability, as measured by polls and donations.

2. If you haven't raised a lot of money, you don't have a chance.


Myth #1 was debunked by Ron Paul. He is set to become the top fundraiser among Republicans this quarter and he isn't getting anywhere near the coverage of Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain and at this point Mike Huckabee.

Ron Paul has been raising more money than John McCain for a long time now. Yet, I still see John McCain being discussed as a legitimate candidate for president, albeit one whose chances are shrinking (but at least he's "legitimate" and "credible"). On the other hand, the Ron Paul stories are mainly curiosity pieces. As in, "Isn't that curious how much money that fringe candidate Ron Paul raised?"

The answer you'll get in private from folks in the media is, "But you know he's not going to win!" No, you know that. Apparently, many other people don't agree. And God knows what would happen if the press gave them all equal coverage and pretended to be anywhere near objective when analyzing all of the candidates.

There is far more "fringe candidate" bias in the media than there is liberal or conservative bias. Once the media decides you're a fringe candidate, you better create miracles to overcome that.

For the rest, click here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/two-media-myths-of-campai_b_75105.html