The Corporate Media and the Election

I saw a list from MSNBC ranking the Democratic cadidates in descending order, as follows: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, Gravel.

The post didn't discuss the candidates or their policies, even intimating that the lack of a stance was unimportant! So for my first diary entry, Iwas wondering:

From what criterion is this list made? Well, first go to www.opensecrets.org and check out the fundraising rankings for these same candidates. You'll see that the ranking is identical, with the exception of Dodd and Richardson trading places. The interesting thing about www.opensecrets.org is that you can also break down their money by donors, corporate contributions and percentages of large vs. small amount donations. If you do this you will start to see a pattern that the "frontrunners" are also the top recipients of large individual donations, as well as corporate donations. Now, a few things to consider from this:

First, should the amount of money a candidate has actually mean more than the policies they propose and issues they support? I mean, the article said: " it doesn't matter that Obama lacks a health care plan, a comprehensive economic policy, any subtle foreign policy vision or even a concrete proposal to move the Middle East peace process forward". This is madness! Why wouldn't it matter? And just how could a candidate raise over 25 million without having definite plans on these things? WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE DONORS SUPPORTING?

And this brings us to a second consideration. If these "top candidates", even this early, have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from big special interests like the insurance and oil industries, pharmaceuticals etc. what will that mean in the shaping of policy?

Further, I would consider how the media shapes these campaigns in general. You can start by re-reding this article! The media is bogged down by special interests as well. They shape public opinion about who is electable, who has detailed plans etc.

Consider Dennis Kucinich. Many people don't know about his policies because the mainstream media doesn't cover them. The article didn't go out of its way either. But, the fact is he has many well reasoned and detailed positions on issues like healthcare, Iraq, the economy etc. Even cadidate Edwards has been quoted as claiming himself to be the only one with a detailed universal healthcare plan. But, this is patently false. Kucinich has co-authored a bill, HR 676, and introduced it to Congress, already gaining the support of over 60 Reps., various Unions and healthcare professionals. The bill would give ALL Americans comprehensive coverage while actually spending less. The way this works is by cutting out the private insurance companies with their 30% overhead-that's 30% of 2.2 trillion dollars. But, therein lies the problem; the profound influence of the healthcare industry prevents the media from covering it and any other candidate from proposing such a system.

But, we can't let special interests decide our government for us. Do you know how a corrupt government could be done away with? The same way that absurdly childish porpularity contests, headlined by those the corporate media calls "electable", and vapid power rankings such as this one could:

The public educates itself!