Third-party choices aggressively suppressed by mass media

[Dmitri]

Just saw this:
https://www.facebook.com/JustinSmith804 ... 5069636419

Fuckin' mass media pushing aggressively against even using the words "3rd party" -- let alone the (FULLY LEGITIMATE) 3rd-party choice being considered as an option!

The guy isn't "undecided", you dishonest bought-and-sold motherfuckers!
They're treating everybody like little toddlers. If you want a little child to eat a veggie, you don't ask them "what would you like" because they might say "chocolate"; instead you show them some green beans and some carrots and ask "which one do you want?" It works like a charm; they are unable (yet) to think outside the presented choices.

Apparently way too many adults behave in exact same fashion.

I really hope this info goes viral, maybe more people will start actually thinking for themselves a bit more (not holding my breath though, anymore) and realize there are OTHER OPTIONS out there... (Not the greatest ones, these days, admittedly -- but STILL they should not be actively suppressed like this! What fucking bullshit!! "Unbiased coverage" my ass...)

[Steve James]

Well, the system is biased against "3rd party" candidates, but there are plenty of independents. I.e., there's no need for another party, per se. There are labor party and libertarian party candidates. They don't get equal attention. We already had third party candidates on the ballot, like Perot and Nader, but they don't get the majority of support even when they're advertised.
Anyway, both the big parties have (or had) the same basic ideology. They just described it with different words.

Besides, I think social media, as opposed to mass media, is what many people use to get out knowledge about the candidates. I've seen Gary Johnson's positions on several issues, and I'm not at all sure I'd vote for him. I'd rather vote for Bernie, but we know how that meant. Imo, though, it would be best to promote a candidate rather than criticize the system.

[Steve James]

I also think that it is critical that environmental issues be addressed in spite of the fact that there's not much attention given the Green party. I was reading FB during the Matthew storm, and there were people saying that it was all made up by the media and the government in order to assert climate change. But, in spite of almost 1000 people dying in the Caribbean, and 15 people dead in the US, there's no retraction --and the water keeps rising in NC. There'll be no commendations for preparation or warning, no projections about how many lives may have been saved. Instead, the mass media will present the contrary view, whatever it may be.

[Dmitri]

it would be best to promote a candidate rather than criticize the system

Sure, but when the system is pushed along by severely-biased mass media like this, twisting what people are actually saying/believing, -- I think that should be exposed and drawn attention to.

[Steve James]

We're talking about two systems: the mass media (for ex MSNBC and FOX) and the political party system. The media will always present competing views; whether true or false. That's because they are seeking an audience. It's why Trump got as much attention as he did. Why didn't the media actually suppress him by keeping him out of the news? Then, there's the political system. We have two major parties because, after the historical shake ups, most people belong to or vote for one of the two that remain. They are not just voting blocks; they are organizations with specified goals. Yet, Trump, who identified as a Democrat years ago, managed to win the nomination of the Republican party. Why Gary Johnson didn't try to win the Republican nomination, like Rand Paul, or why Jill Stein didn't enter the Democratic race is unclear. But, Trump shows that it would be possible.

The third factor is money. Mass media needs it; political parties dole it out to their candidates. The question is how the Green party can bring their issues to the forefront. But, as you know, that's not a big enough issue.

Btw, I have no issues with complaining about the biases in the systems. I've seen it for 60 years, and I've heard the complaints. I just don't use my energy on it. Convince me that I agree with Johnson, and I bet there'd be a lot more. Keep up the good fight.

[Michael]

I didn't think it could really happen, but I was hoping for Trump vs. Bernie. Can you imagine Trump trying to deflect by attacking Sanders? I don't think he'd have much to say about Sanders' peccadilloes that he or his supporters would be able to or interested in following. And then Sanders would be all policy focused in the debate and the news cycle would have to invent some shtuffs for mud-slinging, and, well, it was just a pipe dream.

[Steve James]

Trump is the third party.

[Dmitri]

He's a party of his own awesomeness.

Sanders would be all policy focused in the debate and the news cycle would have to invent some shtuffs for mud-slinging

Right

Yeah it's really too bad he didn't get nominated. Very socialist, but I would pick him over Hillary (and everyone else who's running) in a blink of an eye.
Oh well.

[grzegorz]

Speaking of which I hear Utah could go to a third candidate who is a Mormon.

[grzegorz]

Saying that one reason the media doesn't cover third party candidates, unlike Europe, is because here the winner takes all and everyone else gets nothing. In other countries those "others" still get to be positions of power. I understand he frustration but that is the Constitution which is essentially to blame not the media which is simply a business anyway.

[Dmitri]

that is the Constitution which is essentially to blame not the media

Constitution?

[Steve James]

In the U.S., candidates must buy advertising on the media. At one time, candidates were required to have equal time. Nowadays, there's no requirement for the media to present all the candidates. Forget about three parties; there are many different parties who get no air time.

Anyway, the European multi-party system works because coalitions are made among competing parties. I.e., there is always a far-right almost neo-fascist party that wins a bunch of votes, but never enough to make up a majority because other parties like the Greens, Liberals, Christian Democrats unite to vote for a president or pm whose views they can all accept, if not agree with.

And, the alternative to a "2 party" or multiparty system is a one party system --which is not uncommon. In those systems, there are opponents and rebels, not different parties because they're not allowed.

So, we have several parties. Individuals in them don't have the money to compete in the media.

[windwalker]

edited

[windwalker]

edited

[Dmitri]

not just third parties

sure, but I was hoping to talk specifically about third parties... Clinton and Trump are talked about enough everywhere else.