IN PHYSICS, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that merely by observing a particle, one changes its position. Lately, I've been noticing a similar principle emerging in the media's coverage of the primary. Simply by covering the candidates, the media affect the publics' opinion of them.
To a certain extent, the Primary Uncertainty Principle is inevitable. Who won the Iowa primary, who came in second, and what third and fourth place need to do to catch up is simply much more newsworthy than a story about Larry, the independent candidate who only took a half a percent. However, in some cases it seems that the media's need to break another story or sell just one more paper goes beyond what is simply the unavoidable effect coverage will have on a race, and into actual interference that works against the public good. The most recent example of this is the exclusion of Dennis Kucinich from the Nevada democratic debates.
Now, despite having a wife one of my friends refers to as a FLILF (first two words are "first lady" -- you figure out the rest) Kucinich is probably not going to be president anytime soon. I don't think he's going to be the Democratic nominee, you probably don't think he's going to be the Democratic nominee, and the media certainly doesn't think he's going to be nominee. In recognition of this, MSNBC uninvited Kucinich from their debate in Nevada this past week. However, this raised a certain amount of controversy as well as a lawsuit from Kucinich, because even if he is not favored to win the primaries, Kucinich has in fact been recognized as a serious candidate, as his qualifying for Federal matching funds attests. This means that under the Equal Opportunities Clause of the Telecommunications Act, Kucinich should be entitled to equal air time from NBC.
Although a Nevada judge granted Kucinich's plea to be invited to the show, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the decision. What is curious is that the court did not comment on the equal opportunities law, or whether there was a particular reason NBC was not required to provide Kucinich with equal air time. They only stated that the judge who granted Kucinich's plea overstepped his bounds since it is the Federal Communication Commission's job to enforce equal time rules. According to the court, "Primary and exclusive jurisdiction to vindicate ... alleged violations of ... equal opportunities and fairness is vested with the Federal Communications Commission ... and the court's sole function is to review FCC orders." Given the time constraints Kucinich was under, his decision to proceed directly to court rather than try to petition the FCC can hardly be faulted. The court's failure to comment or clarify on how NBC's exclusion of Kucinich figured into the equal rights act was a great failing and raises many questions about exactly how much control networks can have over which candidates they showcase in debates.
The Equal Opportunities Clause was created specifically to stop networks from favoring one candidate over another. It states that networks must provide an equal amount of free broadcasting time to all "legally qualified candidates." The only exception given is when the network is covering the candidates in a news event. So if a network is not hosting a debate, they can air it as a news event, and are not required to follow equal-time guidelines. In this case, however, NBC was co-sponsoring the debate, which makes it seem as though they should have been obligated to give Kucinich equal time.
The rationale for kicking Kucinich out seems very unclear. I find it hard to believe that MSNBC thought Kucinich was a serious candidate before the primaries, then saw overwhelming evidence to the contrary after. It seems what happened was the network felt the debate would garner a larger audience if Kucinich were not invited, and so summarily kicked him off.
Simply by virtue of their job, the media already have a huge amount of control over how much exposure candidates receive, and how the public perceives them. If the Kucinich ruling is left to stand as a precedent, this control will move from inevitable to direct, where networks can invite on any candidates they please to satisfy the inevitable quest for ratings. In terms of giving the public a fair exposure to all candidates, this seems a dangerous bridge to cross.
Margaret Sessa-Hawkins's column appear Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at msessa-hawkins@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | 16 hours agoTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
