CNN Follows NBC in Uninviting Kucinich

I just spoke to Dennis Kucinich who told me he had been included in the upcoming CNN debate but has been uninvited. After a poll placed Kucinich at 4%, CNN quickly announced the criterion of 5% for participation in its next debate in South Carolina. The Kucinich campaign released this statement:

CNN sets debate criteria 1% above Kucinich’s latest poll results, campaign files complaint with Federal Communications Commission

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Kucinich for President campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission yesterday against CNN and its parent company, Time Warner, Inc., for arbitrarily establishing criteria for its scheduled Monday Presidential debate that will exclude the Democratic candidate from participation.

On Wednesday, the campaign was notified by CNN that its criteria included a showing of 5% or better in a national poll. In two polls completed earlier last week by CBS News/New York Times and by the Pew Research Center, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich scored 4%.

“The CNN criteria specifically exclude the diverse and anti-war voice of Mr. Kucinich and his grass-roots supporters,” according to the complaint. “The exclusion of Mr. Kucinich undermines the purpose of the (Federal Communications) Act and is a blatant violation of the Act, including its equal time provisions.” Also, “Mr. Kucinich is a successful candidate because of his anti-war message and strong criticism of the American healthcare system, issues that are not championed by his presidential primary opponents. In these and other policy issues, his opponents share very similar policy platforms that differ from Mr. Kucinich.”

The filing also points out that Kucinich was invited to participate in the upcoming South Carolina debate by the Congressional Black Caucus, which is co-sponsoring the event. The invitation, which he accepted on May 20, stated, in part that Kucinich “will be guaranteed a rare opportunity to present your message to millions of voters unfiltered by any political organization or by any news organization.”

The complaint also argues that the Monday event “is not a true presidential primary debate without including all credible candidates. Instead, it is effectively an endorsement of the candidates selected by CNN” and is a breach of the federal requirement “to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.”

The campaign is asking the FCC to order CNN to allow Kucinich to participate.

Kucinich told me the FCC refused this, so a court challenge may be needed.

Or we could all let CNN know how we feel about it:
PHONE: 404-827-1500
EMAIL: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/cnntv

welcome to fascist America where corporations mean more than We the People.

I'd be curious to read it.

to its pre-Reagan era strength. Before Reagan came into office, political debates were deemed to be news events. As news events, the candidates, minor and major, were to be given equal coverage by law. As a result, commercial broadcasters before the Reagan era did not sponsor political debates and left the decision to so-called community trustees, who did not have ratings or ad revenue on their minds. Debates were sponsored by entities like the League Of Women Voters. The networks merely put the debates on the air, as news events, and covered them as news events. But in 1983, under Ronald Reagan's FCC Chairman Mark Fowler, the rule was significantly changed. No longer was equal time to be given to all candidates. Commercial broadcasters were now free to choose any candidates they wanted to put on the air. No longer were political debates to be treated like news events. Commercial broadcasters became sponsors of debates; not the League Of Women Voters. The inherent conflict of interest in having a news reporting entity like a commercial broadcast network also become a maker of the news in selecting who came before the people in a political debate was no longer a concern. The complete ignorance by the Reagan Administration of the important phenomenon of political speech is evident in the words of FCC Chairman Mark Fowler, one of the worst FCC Chairmen in history. It's clear that political debate was now on a level with a beer commercial or a soap opera. Fowler said that television is "just another appliance - it's a toaster with pictures."

Section 315 has exempted news events from the equal opportunities rules since 1959. In 1975 (during the Carter administration), the FCC issued a declaratory ruling finding that debates were "bona fide" news events provided that the decision to cover the event was based on the broadcasters good faith news judgment and not to advance the candidacy of a particular candidate. See Aspen Institute, 55 FCC 2d 697 (1975), aff'd sub nom.,
Chisholm v. FCC, 538 F.2d 349 (D.C. Cir. 1976) cert. denied, 429 U.S. 890 (1976.

Initially, the exemption from 315 for debates was limited to debates sponsored by parties other than a broadcaster. However, in 1983 (during the reagan administration) the FCC -- at the request of Henry Geller, a public interest lawyer -- concluded that such a limitation was inconsistent with Congress' intent to exempt bona fide news events from being covered and raised serious First Amendment issues. In other words, the FCC held that coverage of a debate was coverage of a bona fide news event no matter who sponsored the debate, so long as it wasn't designed to promote the candidacy of a particular candidate. The decision was upheld by the court of appeals. See Henry Geller, 95 FCC 2d 1236, aff'd sub nom. League of Women Voters v FCC, 731 F.2d 955 (DC Cir 1983).
This decision, it should be noted, is consistent with the fact that Congress in 1959 exempted from the equal opps rule regularly scheduled new interview appearances by a candidate -- meaning that an appearance by one candidate on Meet the Press doesn't create any equal opps rights in any other candidates,notwithstanding that the broadcaster is deciding who gets to appear on the interview program.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the 1983 decision, although I tend to agree that it would be hard to sustain a different decision under the First Amendment. In any event, keep in mind that even before the reagan-era FCC expanded the debate exemption, a broadcaster wasn't barred from hosting a debate with all, or even less than all of the candidates. Indeed, if all candidates participated, the requirements of section 315 -- equal opportunities -- were met. If the debate excluded a candidate or candidates, the excluded candidates had no right to be a part ofthe debate. They merely had a right to a period of free time on the station equivalent to what the other candidates were given.

This is wrong. CNN should have the license revoked for this.

I am an Edwards Supporter but THIS IS ANTI-AMERICAN and anti-Democracy.

I agree with one of the previous posts: Edwards had better start supporting Kucinich in this or he (Edwards) will be next.
This is a terrible precedent for future races and debates and SCREAMS the need to get these debates, and this process the HELL OUT of the hands of Corporations, especially the MSM corps.

These debates were FAR better off in the hands of the League Of Women Voters. The major Corporate networks ARE TO IRRESPONSIBLE to be allowed to control this process.

Just another nail in the Coffin of Democracy.

For example - I just found this:

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/74277/

Pollsters Drop John Edwards from Head to Head Match-Ups
Another attempt to narrow the primary field before most people cast a vote.

So, now, Survey USA, which conducts an influential state-by-state poll, has decided that John Edwards is not sufficiently "viable" to be included in their head-to-head match-ups for the general election.

This is in keeping with a major theme of campaign 2008: our media and political establishments narrowing the field before most Americans get to cast a vote.
---------------------------------------------

Wake up John...and EVERYONE. We MUST fight for Kucinich's right to participate FULLY in this process. If we don't - Edwards is next. And the DLC and other Corporatists WIN.

then as your poll ratings don't go up, because they wont let the people hear your message, they use that as an excuse to exclude you from the debates of which they had already previously ignored you. This is like the classic question of which came first the chicken or the egg?

I also agree with the above poster regarding Edwards being next to be diminished by the corporate media, because he's promoting the strongest message of taking on corporate corruption and the corrosive influence of the lobbyists on our political system, actually I believe they've already started on him after he came in second in Iowa and the New Hampshire Debate, when they ignored his best moment and made Hillary Clinton out to be the victim. Edwards threatens the corporate media's prime source of cash during elections. I imagine Obama will follow after that, because he's played it more ambiguously.

I would think they are outraged by this.

-Hoot

In fact he's my second without a doubt.
I say if the name's on the ballot, the invite should be there.

Hell there are probably hundreds of official Democratic candidates on ballots across the country.

At some point you have to draw a line and say enough of the fantasy campaigns.

If they make an effort to be there I'll make the effort to watch.
After all it's our country we're talking about, not local dog catcher. And with the new Congress approved Bu$h powers I wouldn't trust my own mother in the Blight House. Damn right I want some choice.

OR..

We could narrow it down to YOUR candidate saving us all that time and bother and just vote when we're told to.

Your candidate of choice won't be excluded from the debate. Neither should mine. Whether they got 5% or 50% is not relevant as long as they are still running. If that means that there are 22 participants then i'm all for it. More viewpoints being heard by voters will never be a bad thing in my book.

Why even bother with debates if you're only allowing certain candidates? Aren't debates intended to, er, actually _debate_ things? Rather than be a reality TV show with the NBC/GE/CNN/AOL - chosen tweedledee and tweedledum candidate 'choices' we are allowed?

nt

Not exactly accurate. The Gravel campaign wasn’t informed of MSNBC’s newly updated “minimum standards” by hack extraordinaire Chuck Todd until a little less than a week before the Philadelphia/Drexel debate.

Much in the same way CNN’s new arbitrary standards have clearly been tweaked to specifically bar Dennis, Gravel at the time met all standards (and in some cases even exceeded them) except for one: $$$.
As soon as Gravel confronted Hillary on her Iran vote, and proceeded to harangue about the credit card companies at the previous debate I knew his fate was sealed.

Considering that Mike and Dennis are friends, I am a little surprised at the Ohio congressman’s reticence. I thought better of him.

As far as I’m concerned, Democrats and Republicans alike should be equally up in arms when either Gravel, Paul, or Kucinich is given the hook. It serves neither party's interest to allow corporations to run roughshod.

Mike Gravel contacted the DNC only to be told that they were powerless against the networks. To their credit, the New Hampshire Republican Party dropped their affiliation with the Fox News Republican debate after they banned Paul and Hunter.

Why is it the other party continually seems to do a better job of circling the wagons and defending their own? :grr::banghead:

As long as they are in the race, they should be allowed to debate. I just don't understand what is so difficult for some to get about that.

because it's cable they can fucking do this. (remember, nbc yanked the debate off the "public airwaves" and just ran it on cable)

we need a change in these regulations.

maybe cbs or abc should cover this (and not air a debate on the disney channel!)

The FCC's decision on this doesn't say that the equal opps rules don't apply to cable. They simply apply the existing precedent, which is now 25 years old, that section 315 doesn't apply to the coverage of a debate even if the entity covering the debate also is sponsoring it and even if it does not include all of the candidates. In particular DK failed to show that the decision to exclude him was not the result of CNN's exercise of its good faith news judgment. In particular, he hasn't shown that he is a "major presidential candidate" as that term has been applied by the FCC in previous decisions. All he cited, appareantly, was the fact that he has qualified for matching funds and has done well in some online polling -- hardly persuasive evidence. Finally, what DK and his supporter seem not to recognize is that even if DK could persuade the FCC that the debate should be subject to Section 315 (and not exempt as a bona fide news event), it still wouldn't get him a seat the debate. All it would do is give him the right to a period of time to present his message equivalent to that given the other candidates.

They take that into consideration for everything else.

Invite em all CNN, I dare you!

Now where I'm I going to get my tabloid political news/"analysis"?

:cry:

I've had enough of it.

:spank:

:(

Kucinich.

:mad:

I will be giving them a call.

NBC when they first excluded Kucinich --

If they are doing this to Dennis, they will soon be doing it to Edwards ---

this whole privatized system needs to be thrown in the garbage can ---