Septimus writes at The Whig, a blog associated with the Modern Whig Party:
Debate Should Include Libertarian Candidate
A special election is coming up to elect the replacement for the late Senator Kennedy. A Libertarian (also named Kennedy, but no relation) qualified for the general election as an independent. The question has arisen as to whether the independent candidate should be allowed to take part in the candidate’s debate. An editorial in the Boston Globe stated that he should not be allowed in the debate, arguing that he was “little known.”
It is disturbing that a news organization would advocate keeping information from the voters. It also shows how tied into advocating for the two-party system the media can often be.
As for as the argument that the candidate is little known, Ballot Access News observes, “The Boston Globe says the independent, Joseph L. Kennedy, is “little-known”. Obviously, if he were included in all the debates, that problem would be overcome.”
From Examiner.com via Independent Political Report: Let libertarian Kennedy debate
Over 13,000 voters expressed through their signatures, a desire to have another candidate on the ballot. If that many people showed up on the Globe’s doorstep demanding they sponsor or cover something, you bet the publishers and editors would react in a favorable way. Half the voters don’t even bother to show up, knowing that it doesn’t matter.
Mr. Kennedy and his signatories have done what the state asks of it. The public at large ought to start questioning why a major publication should advocate blocking a legitimate ballot qualified candidate from a debate based on the insinuation that it will benefit the supplicant of such a request. Glorifying a fictional fight between classic opponents is stuff even the smallest college newspaper wouldn’t do anymore. Whether the Globe thinks Coakley is just staying above the fray or wants a one on one brawl amongst bloody opponents, they should stop taking sides. When newspapers endorse or favor one of the main party candidates or both, they do a disservice to their readership. It’s no wonder their model is failing and they can’t figure out why.
More commentary from Poli-Tea: MA: The Democratic-Republican Duopolist Media Complex
And in article by D. Eris posted at IPR and Poli-Tea, The Boston Herald’s Jessica Heslam is quoted interviewing 2006 Green-Rainbow Party gubernatorial candidate Grace Ross:
Like U.S. Senate candidate Joseph L. Kennedy, Grace Ross was a longshot.
But the colorful Green Rainbow candidate for governor in 2006 took part in all four of the race’s major debates as the media embraced diversity in the race, and Ross was roundly praised for her debate performances.
Meanwhile, the independent Kennedy, who is not a member of the storied clan, has been cast to the sidelines this year as media outlets and others organize a host of U.S. Senate debates.
In fact, the Boston Globe ran an editorial yesterday saying voters deserve one-on-one debates between Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley and Republican state Sen. Scott Brown.
Ross disagrees. “If you’ve done enough work to manage to get your name on the ballot, which is not a small task in a statewide election, the voters have a right for information,” she said.
In the spring of 2006 – before the primary governor’s election – Ross said several media outlets pulled together a debate and invited every candidate who had declared – except her. “We fought in the spring to get into that one. We didn’t succeed, but we created the momentum so that by the fall, we were in everything,” Ross recalled.
While some in the media called for a showdown with only the two major party candidates, Ross ended up squaring off in all four major post-primary debates with then-Democratic candidate Deval Patrick, Republican Kerry Healey and independent Christy Mihos.
Ross said yesterday that the media has forgotten its role. “They want to make themselves into political players where they get to say – instead of the voters – who is worthy of being heard and who isn’t,” she said.