(Some more great insight’s from OMB’s Jason Pramas – promoted by eli_beckerman)

Originally posted at Open Media Boston

by Jason Pramas (Staff), Sep-10-10

It’s not usually the practice of this publication to spend much time in our weekly editorials sniping at the flaws of other Boston news media. Perhaps if we start up a media review column at some point, we’ll do some more regular critiques of our big sibling local news outlets, but it hasn’t been a priority for us primarily because Open Media Boston was not founded to be a reactive publication. We like to offer constructive criticism on issues of the day, but in doing so we really like get at discussions of what a better Boston (and better world) might look like, and how regular people might work together to build that better future. Nevertheless, sometimes the mainstream media screws up in a way that’s impossible for us to ignore, and we’ll weigh in on it. This is one of those times. To wit, on Tuesday the first televised gubernatorial debate was held on WBZ Channel 4. To its sponsors’ credit, all 4 candidates – Gov. Deval Patrick (D), Charlie Baker (R), Tim Cahill (I), and Jill Stein (G-R) – participated. And all did a credible job. In my opinion, Patrick and Baker both did very well in the back-and-forth. Cahill and Stein were both more shaky in their delivery – with Stein perhaps more articulate and better prepared on issues. However, to read the debate coverage in the Boston Globe and Boston Herald the next day, you’d think that Cahill and Stein had barely said a word. Cahill got some extra coverage in the Globe later in the week, and has gotten more attention in other media all along. But Stein has been largely rendered mute.

Given that most informed voters rely on the major news media – especially major print media – for discussion and analysis of high level political debates, the omission of serious discussion and commentary on Stein’s views is unfortunate. Especially in areas, like immigration, where Stein scored a clear hit on the other candidates in the most recent debate – with her excellent explanation of the roots of the current immigration crisis in the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1994.

I cannot help but feel that this is a deliberate editorial policy on the part of outlets like the Globe and the Herald. The reasoning is doubtless “Stein is only polling at 4 percent, and has very little money; so she can’t possibly win.” So why spend time on Stein, right?

Well, that reasoning is flawed because a candidate can do quite a bit with 4 percent of the vote in a tight race. First of all, the Green-Rainbow Party is rebuilding their base and looking forward to electing candidates at all levels of local and state government in the years to come. So while the party may be small now, it probably won’t remain that way – especially given the growing disastifaction of progressive Democrats with an Obama administration that has proven itself to be as conservative as the Republicans on several key issues. Particularly on foreign military adventures and economic policy.

Second, as I often notice in multiparty elections in other countries, a small party like the Green-Rainbow Party could conceivably agree to leave the gubernatorial race in exchange for meaningful concessions from the ruling party or the main rival party. What concessions the Green-Rainbow party might ask for, I’m not sure. But if they continue gaining in sophistication, they might indeed take a dive on this kind of unwinnable race to get some needed reform enacted at speed.

Regardless, the fact is Stein is a real candidate. She has real and carefully considered views in every major policy area. And her ideas deserve to be heard not just in the major debates themselves, but also in news coverage after the fact. To leave her out of the mix in news analysis and feature stories is petty and ill considered.

She’s not completely invisible in the mainstream news media in Boston, but she might as well be given the paucity of coverage she’s getting.

So I enjoin the Boston Globe, Boston Herald – and the local TV and radio news outlets – to do a better job in coverage of candidates outside of the Democratic and Republican parties. Because not to long from now, I think we’re going to see power bases in electoral politics shuffling around for the first time in over 100 years. We could see one or more new major parties emerge. And it’s quite likely that one of those parties will be from the authentic left. So it behooves the mainstream news media to take that into account, and give all serious candidates fair and balanced coverage from the beginning of the election season until Election Day and beyond.

Jason Pramas is Editor/Publisher of Open Media Boston