In the cavalcade of Democratic candidates, Dennis Kucinich is a distant fourth, but, in an open democracy, a decent running candidate, who deserves to have his views heard. In last night’s Nevada debates, he was invited to participate, but, at the last minute, NBC denied him from appearing. This was done by NBC appealing to the Nevada Supreme Court, and having a very hurried judgement against Kucinich participating.
So, NBC rushed it beyond that judgement to the NV Supreme Court, which quite bogglingly speedy issued a judgement against Kucinich appearing. What is going on here??? Sure, he’s a distant runner in the scope of things, but NBC initially invited him to participate in that debate, and then went to extreme lengths to cut him out. He was present and ready, so why cut his voice out of the debates? At this point, he still deserves to be heard, as asked.
This really scares me, that a media outlet has the ability to decide which candidates we will see in debates. It should be beyond their dictates; public debate is an open forum, and the process winnows it down with time. This judgement stinks in the most bullying way.
I would consider that the process has already winnowed out Kucinich, just as it has already winnowed out at least one person with slightly better numbers who had the grace to withdraw. His simple refusal to withdraw does not make him a realistically viable candidate.
IMO the real issue is who is sponsoring/hosting the debate. In this case it apparently was MSNBC, so I can’t say I have a real problem with it. Now if it was the NV Democratic party, or League of Women voters, or some other institution, then I would take issue.
It bothers me more in the GE debates when 3rd party candidates are excluded than a marginal candidate during the primaries. Kucinich’s party, at least gets a national voice. Parties like the Libs and the Greens do not.
So, this then begs the question; should a media outlet be allowed to be the primary host of a debate, with exclusive rights andadvertising revenue? Why should they have different standards than your other hosting examples?
Frank, read the link. Kucinich was asked to participate by NBC for this debate, and, at the last minute, by the network going through a pretty amazing feat of court, not allowed. That’s not a normal course of attrition. Why did NBC go through that extreme measure?
Eh. Kucinich’s problem is that the voters don’t want him, not that NBC is snubbing him. He’s the guy who always runs for prez and never gets more than a smattering of votes.
But nobody cares about those candidates. The Green Party got 0.096 % of the vote. By that standard any idiot that wants to be in the debate should be included. Should Earl Dodge of the Prohibition Party have been invited in 2004?
A better question would be, how could you make it illegal for any group to host a debate? What if I want to host a debate? What if my church wants to host a debate? Debates are just a forum for moderated discussion–there’s nothing special about them such that we should have legal prohibitions about who can and cannot sponsor/host them.
I’m just not sure why a media outlet shouldn’t be allowed to host a debate–no one forces the candidates to go to the debates. Candidates used to debate at county fairs and such, with only a few hundreds to a few thousand people being able to witness it. Democracy worked then–and people also were more likely to read full debate transcripts in newspapers as well.
The TV networks are using the public airwaves and publicly funded cable connections. They’re supposed to operate in the public “Interest, convenience and necessity”. That’s why they have to comply with certain amount of oversight. If they bias the debate by excluding candidates, then they could be accused of not acting in the public interest. This could ultimately be used to restrict them from broadcasting (although it would more likely result in a fine.)
Cite on Public Interest Standard in Television Broadcasting
It seems that there are probably 10s of people who’d like to be debating. I can’t think of a good answer that doesn’t boil down to “established powers decide who gets to debate in order to win the inheritance of that established power.”
In the primaries, though, the party can give its imprimatur to some debates but not to others. There’s nothing legally binding about this, of course, but it carries a fair amount of weight. And the party can set conditions in exchange for giving its thumbs-up.
Actually, you should read this link (.pdf), which is the Nevada Supreme Court order reversing the District Court. (In reading the order, just ignore all of the stuff about writs of prohibition and mandamus, which is about the procedural method by which the case came up to the Supreme Court–you can start with the substance on Page 3.)
The Supreme Court ruled on three grounds. First, the Supreme Court held that the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction, because the Federal Communication Act can only be enforced by the FCC, not a private person like Kuzinich. Second, the Supreme Court held that there was no valid contract between Kuzinich and NBC because there wasn’t consideration (a legal term meaning something of value) given by each party. Although NBC gave Kuzinich an invitation, that invitation was not a contract and NBC could revoke the invitation because Kuzinich had not given anything of value to get the invitation. Third (though this was only a footnote as it was cumulative), the lower court’s order prohibiting NBC from broadcasting the debate without Kuzinich was an unconstitutional prior restraint on publication in violation of NBC’s free press rights under the First Amendment.
On the substance and as a matter of policy, I was disturbed by the lower court’s ruling and think the Supreme Court did exactly the right thing. NBC – like all other private news organizations – has the right to publish (broadcast) what it wants, and though I disagree with the viewpoint of some publishers and broadcasters, I would be horrified if the government tried to override their editorial control. Further, the debate was broadcast on the MSNBC cable channel, not the public airwaves, so the fairness doctrine and questions of use of public resources do not apply. The debate was sponsored by the Nevada Democrats, also a private organization, with strong (perhaps overwhelming) First Amendment rights to advance the candidates they see fit. If a political party dies not want an individual candidate to participate in some or all of their processes, I would be aghast at the government requiring them to put someone in.
As a voter, I also appreciate that Kuzinich was excluded. I want to hear the competing views of the viable candidates. When my primary rolls around on February 5, I’ll be choosing between Clinton and Obama (or perhaps Edwards), and I have no interest in throwing my vote away on Kuzinich. I particularly have no interest in giving him a forum to throw barbs at the viable candidates while they are studiously trying to ignore him. Kuzinich was given a seat at the table at the myriad debates leading up to Iowa and New Hampshire, and it garnered him virtually no votes. No reasonable person would believe that he has any shot at breaking out of the low single digits in any other state. If he had gotten any traction in Iowa or New Hampshire, or was seen as viable in the national polls, NBC would have included him. As it is, as a campaign nonentity I don’t want him taking any time away from the candidates I might consider as potentially the next President of the United States.
If you’re a Kuzinich supporter or someone who believes that any view should be represented no matter how marginal, you’re free to say what you like in your own media outlet, and buy one if you don’t have one already. However, the major news organization can choose to show what and who they want to attract the viewers that pay the bills.
I would, however, caution you about the risks of supporting a radical, out of the mainstream candidate. If you will recall, some years ago a certain Mr. Nader ran as a independent candidate for President on the platform that the major parties were both equally tools of corporate interests, and as he perceived no difference between them, you should make a protest vote for his left wing anti-corporate candidacy because it mattered little which of the big parties won. A small but consequential number of people were seduced by his campaign, and almost certainly drew sufficient votes away from a more mainstream candidate, a certain Mr. Gore, so that he ultimately lost the electoral vote by reason of a few hundred vote deficiency in Florida. This permitted the winning candidate, a certain Mr. Bush, to demonstrate clearly and unequivocally that yes, yes indeed, there was a difference between the major parties.
You are making it seem as if NBC filed suit to be able to disinvite Kucinich. That is not what happened. They were defending themselves against his suit, an act which I do not find amazing. YMMV.
The problem is that TV networks have the power to determine who gets to run for president. They can marginalize a serious candidate until he disappears . They can ask Kucinich less questions or flying saucer questions to make him go away. They can decide Green Party candidates should not be covered.
It is a power they simply assumed. It does not serve the public.
You have to draw the line somewhere. I remember watching the first few Democratic debates, and there were something like 10 candidates participating. It was ridiculous. What happens then is that the lesser known candidates don’t get called on much. During the recall election for governor in CA a few years ago (the one in that put Arnold in Sacramento) there were about 125 candidates on the ballot. Do they all get invited to the debate?
Kucinich just isn’t a viable candidate-- I think he’s just looking for a free soapbox. Tough shit for him that he didn’t get one this time.
But why should we determine who is a “realistically viable candidate” based on a couple of caucuses and primaries is pissant states that no-one wants to visit?
It might be the case that people like Kucinich and Ron Paul will never get enough votes to represent their parties in the Presidential election, but i think that the electoral process, and the debates, are better for their presence, because they ask questions and raise issues in ways that other candidates do not. Even when we think their ideas are nutty, their very presence can put more pressure on the “viable” candidates when they outline policy goals and positions.
Look at the most recent Republican debate, at Myrtle Beach. Despite the polling numbers of folks like Romney and Huckabee and McCain, the official focus group voted Fred Thompson the winner, and the Fox News viewer texting poll gave the victory to Ron Paul. I think this shows that, while Thompson and Paul may have little chance of getting elected, each of them has ideas and policies that appeal to a considerable number of Republican voters.
I think you could say the same about Kucinich and the Democrats. Kucinich has opinions on things like health care, social security, the war in Iraq, and a bunch of other stuff, that are well in line with what many potential Democratic voters would like to see in some of those policy areas. Maybe his answers would force the main candidates to address some of these issues in a more substantive fashion. I mean, did you see the most recent Democratic “debate”? Clinton, Obama, and Edwards were so chummy with one another that i was worried they were going to engage in a three-way for a minute.
I know we basically accept that the Presidential race is nothing but a two-horse race where the horses are chosen from a very small stable of acceptable contestants, but do we really have to make the RNC/DNC stranglehold on power such a self-fulfilling prophecy that we omit from the public debate even the main parties’ more marginal candidates?
But Kucinich has never managed to break out of the 1-2% range in national polls. I really do think he’s just looking for free air time, and I don’t see that the networks need to give it to him-- he’s had plenty already.