Is The Media Choosing Our Candidates?
Posted by: Brent James on February 26, 2008
Hot Issues •
This question has been raised repeatedly and rightly so. Some have posed it this way: Should Big Media choose our candidates? Of course not. That would be absurd. But aren’t they, in effect, doing just that? They have the power to exalt or the power to shun and they exercise it relentlessly. But is anyone actually listening? I mean really, who cares what they say. Free thinkers don’t, finding it thoroughly repugnant.
There seems, however, to be an effect. We see it in a turning tide. We hear it in a cleverly coined phrase. And timing is everything. In the first few days of January, an entire month before the Super Tuesday primaries, news outlets began foreshadowing her defeat with subtle suggestions. These became increasingly obvious as more opportunists piled on. “Is Hillary Finished?” appeared up as a question across the Blogoshere. From the likes of Newsweek, MSNBC, and the Wall Street Journal came insinuations that she should quit the race. Now, her team is portrayed as beaten, in shambles.
Call them sharks or piranhas, reminds me of blood in the water and the subsequent feeding frenzy.
Remember Rudy? He was pitched by the mainstream press as the people’s choice. Conservatives rejected that chicanery out of hand and he never gained popular support. He was the establishment’s choice, not ours.
And what of John McCain? It was said that he couldn’t make the grade because he was an angry, liberal, Washington insider that conservatives would not support. Then, seemingly overnight (just as Rudy had faded from wishful prominence), he was the only Republican on the radar. Further, he was lauded as the viable choice (now second choice) for Republicans, generally, and the moderate-independent voters. The media can just as easily create doubt about a candidate’s chances as they can a favorable impression.
Heard much about Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee lately? You might think both had dropped out of the race with the lack of mention either gets from the press. It is un-American to shut them out of the debate. Both have challenging messages we ought to hear, but the media doesn’t support those having, in their estimation, no chance of winning. Here we go again. By following their lead each election cycle, we end up in the same place, different candidates.
Bottom line: Don’t listen to them. They are mostly an opportunistic lot (opportunity for them, not you and me), unstable and misled. All the more important to know the Bible’s prescriptions for voting your godly values.
Next Stops: Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and Rhode Island.
Next entry: Temper, Temper
Previous entry: Hanging On For Dear Life
Comments
I wholeheartedly agree with the article and believe that the media are also trying to tell us what to think about the issues: global warming, the economy, the war, moral issues, and on and on. The media currently has more power than any elected official or government for that matter and so we should “vote them out of office” by completely ignoring them and instead fully researching all candidates and issues ourselves.
Posted by on March 11, 2008.
What a ridiculous diatribe. The media concentrates attention on those the public clamors to learn more about. Unfortunately, no one is asking to learn more about Ron Paul. Does the media “control” our thoughts and opinions? Only to the extent that an increased knowledge base helps determine our courses of action. It is terribly ironic that a blogger castigates the media. Is this not a medium?
Posted by on April 7, 2008.
Join The Conversation
Discuss this article. We reserve the right to delete any comments that do not comply with our terms of use.