On The Media

Very thurough questions but I believe that the control exercised by the few media companies is a real threat to our public, free ond open society. By not allowing Mr. Kucinich place in the debate MSNBC they have eliminated the chance of the public to a free choice. This is because of the pervasive and too powerful roll of media in our society. Money rules, people no longer do.

Thank you,

Glenn Maxwell

Hear, hear! Glenn Maxwell, It couldn't have been said any more succinctly and correctly. It is a sad state of affairs that we are forced into this corner--UNLESS we really pursue on our own and wherever we can find information on the other candidates. It's up to us to do the work the media should be doing. Not only was Dennis Kucinich screwed but we were all screwed.

I very much like your program, but I found your Dennis Kucinich interview condescending and mildly offensive. You failed to properly contextualize the issue (ie: Why did NBC change their rules immediately after Richardson dropped out? Because Richardson was less likely to bring up the GE-unfriendly issues that Kucinich is running on?).

And the question "Why were you trying to stop the debate?" was naive to the point of offense. You know what the lawsuit was attempting to do, why act dumb about it, unless you're trying to make Kucinich look ridiculous? Well, he wasn't the one who came of as foolish...

its nice to read the thoughtful comments above. yes, I too felt that brooke uncharacteristically dropped the ball on this one.

I was very disappointed by Brooke Gladstone's questions here. A great assumption was made when she asked Kucinich whether or not the programmers at MSNBC weren't "just trying to create a more coherent environment in which ideas can be discussed with fewer candidates." I can only assume this was MSNBC's excuse for excluding Kucinich at the eleventh hour, because many Democrats, particularly those aware that Kucinich is the only candidate offering a mainstream point of view on healthcare (he supports a single-payer system, and none of the other candidates do), would disagree that fewer candidates = more "coherence" in a debate. Even if Kucinich's presidential campaign is geared more toward effecting the terms of the debate than to getting elected, he should be allowed to do so—the terms of the debate have now calcified into a few issues that do not generate provocative discussion or change beyond a few key talking points. Thanks a lot MSNBC. You haven't helped here, WNYC. I expect public radio to offer me more than this. I am really tired of candidates promising change and not doing anything about it once they're in office. We've already seen this in Congress. As long as the terms of the debate remain unaffected by candidates who speak to principles rather than to electability or financial support (I'm looking at you, Kucinich & Ron Paul), we will see this again in the presidential office.

I think Brooke was throwing hardballs at Kucinich because this was a report on politics, and On the Media's direct interviews on politics are trying to break news, not share and delve into the guest's opinions, which OTM does with secondary reports, such as the piece before it on Bush's visit to the Middle East. If George Bush, Hillary Clinton, or Rudolph Giuliani were interviewed, they'd no doubt be subjected to similar withering fire. Perhaps the hardballs got harder for two contradictory reasons, because a) Brooke was initially hoping Kucinich could hit one out of the park, and b) because Kucinich could have taken the high road and talked more about the media excluding candidates from coverage, but instead turned this into a "GE hates me because I hate nukes" moment, which, true or not, goes over as sour grapes and paranoia, and not very presidential.

Brooke's questions weren't hardballs. I don't think they ever are. OTM has a way, not just in the Kucinich interview, but chronically, of playing devil's advocate, which does not always mean a hard question or the BEST, most intelligent question is being asked. It's what I see Public Radio doing more and more, asking questions that a very conservative commentator might ask to avoid looking like a (god forbid) intellectual or liberal. The real question is "Who should control the debates?" And why hasn't there been a story on how different Dem & Repub debates are, which would be perfect for OTM: ie, "Raise your hand if you believe in evolution" vs "Outline your plan for health care." What if all candidates had to answer the same questions, and got free air time without commercial or corporate sponsorship? Dennis is right, it's an issue that goes beyond his candidacy.

I do wish the notion that cable channels are free from requlation because they do not depend on the public's airwaves would be put to rest. This is just false. All cable networks use satellites and licensed frequencies to deliver their signals to cable companies for distribution. In my mind this makes them broadcasters. It's time to apply the rules fairly to all media no matter how it is delivered into the home.

It seemed that Dennis Kucinich was trying, amidst the hostile badgering that passed for an interview, to raise important issues "on the media." Why wasn't he allowed to? Yes, CBS is owned by GE, but what is NPR's excuse?

Please have him back on and let him speak!

At this point Dennis' candidacy is barely viable. He has had many chances in many debates to put his positions forward and has failed to gain much traction. I think he's had some great points to make at those debates, but even the other candidates didn't take him seriously enough to respond.

There's hardly enough debate at these debates as it is; throw in more candidates and shorten their time for responses and you'll have even less substance, though maybe more crying.

Jack,

the fact that the other candidates didn't insist that all candidates be included says two things to me: firstly, they know that Dennis HAS made an impact with people who look beyond television to learn about their candidates and do not want it to spread any further; and secondly that they are not capable of upholding even this small tenet of democracy - allowing the people to make a clear and informed choice. NBC and GE know that the top three candidates won't CHANGE much of anything - they will not force giant corporations to become accountable. So once again the candidates supported big business over democracy. And we pay the consequences.

The corporate parties and their sponsors want real change off the table and out of the media. Will they get away with it? Sure!

Kucinich's removal from the MSNBC debate enabled the candidates to forget having voted in favor of the Nevada nuclear waste facility, in favor of the mis-named Patriot Act, in favor of the ongoing occupation of Iraq. Another benefit: no more talk about a not-for-profit health care system.

Right after MSNBC's power play, the Democratic Party removed Kucinich from the ballot in Texas. Where was On the Media's coverage of this related story?

On the Media closely cross-examined the victim; but I was hoping for more.

Originally, I felt the Quixotic campaigns of my senator, Chris Dodd, Senator Biden and Governor Richardson were primarily ego-driven but, also, nationally televised auditions for cabinet posts in the next Democratic administration, whomever of the top three took the nomination, meant to show the breadth of talent and experience the party could offer come January 2009.

Now, it seems to me that it was an orchestrated effort to dilute the debate.

With that effort played out, the party is dependent for the diluting on the media to cull the field of debaters with arbitrary rulings and, of course, their front runners, with their petty bickering and tedious technical analyses of each others' voting and public service records, to reduce the debates to the level of schoolyard brawls.

Dennis may not have fared well in this interview, but he should not have been the interviewee. OTM should have grilled someone from MSNBC but, of course, they wouldn't have agreed to the interview.

i was shocked by brook gladstone's interview with dennis kucinich.her own point of view did not allow for a discussion of the main issue which i believe to be-why msnbc has the power to determine who should be included and the criteria used.