Does the Media Elect Our Leaders, Or Do We?

Who determines whether a presidential candidate is electable or not? According to a short but bittersweet article from FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), the answer turns out to be the media outlets that cover the campaigns. FAIR uses USA Today as an example, citing a recent article in which John Edwards apparently does not exist in the presidential campaigns. The problem, FAIR argues, is that Edwards is the only Democratic candidate who consistently holds his own against the two supposed front-runners, Clinton and Obama:

"Missing from USA Today's polling about electability was John Edwards--even though aside from Clinton and Obama, Edwards is the only Democratic candidate who consistently polls in double digits. And when other polls have included Edwards in questions about electability, Edwards generally does better than the other two, sometimes by wide margins. In a CNN survey of December 6–9, Edwards beat Romney by 11 points more than Clinton and 9 points more than Obama. He beat Huckabee by 15 points more than Clinton and 10 points more than Obama. Clinton lost to McCain in this polling by 2 points while Obama and McCain were tied, but Edwards beat him by 6. There's not as much of a difference with Giuliani, but Edwards still did 3 points better than Clinton and 2 points better than Obama."

Whatever your political leanings, it should frighten and disturb you that your choices are being narrowed before you even know about them. Edwards is a viable Democratic candidate (to my mind, he happens to be the only one who doesn't sound like he's constantly blowing smoke up America's collective ass), but you'd never know it to watch the news or read a major metropolitan newspaper.

Sad, that. America deserves better; we should demand better.