[extropy-chat] followup avoidance upon unexpected dissident responses

[randy]

I have been reading a lot lately about how the media shapes political
debate and excludes radical and third party political candidates.  In
particular, I have been following the Democratic party presidential
race and debates.  One of the interesting aspects of the media
coverage has been how, during the televised candidate debates,  the
sometimes "radical" or "dissident" comments of candidate Kucinich has
been handled.
Also, a former poster to this list, Anthony Garcia, was recently on
the Houston PBS "connections" TV show.  He is a Texas Libertarian
party activist and sometime candidate.  He "debated"/discussed various
broad political issues with representatives of the local Democrat,
Republican, and Green parties.  Interesting to me was how the
moderator and Dem and GOP representatives completely ignored Anthony's
occasional comments about broad issues regarding how the dems and gop
use their power to keep 3rd party candidates off the ballot and away
from the media. However, almost every comment from the dem and gop
representatives, even when about seemingly trivial subject matter,
prompted a followup from the moderator and the other major party
candidate.

Likewise, when Kucinich made radical/dissident comments about broad
issues during the debate, the moderator simply ignored every single
one, while comments from the more "mainstream" candidates were
followed up by the moderator.

Here is a quote from Michael Parenti's website that defines how this
exclusion of outlier parties, ideologies, and candidates is
accomplished via "followup avoidance of dissident comments" when a
radical or dissident comment is made on TV:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Follow-up Avoidance

When confronted with an unexpectedly dissident response, media hosts
quickly change the subject, or break for a commercial, or inject an
identifying announcement: "We are talking with [whomever]." The
purpose is to avoid going any further into a politically forbidden
topic no matter how much the unexpected response might seem to need a
follow-up query. An anchorperson for the BBC World Service (December
26, 1997) enthused: "Christmas in Cuba: For the first time in almost
forty years Cubans were able to celebrate Christmas and go to church!"
She then linked up with the BBC correspondent in Havana, who observed,
"A crowd of two thousand have gathered in the cathedral for midnight
mass. The whole thing is rather low key, very much like last year."
Very much like last year? Here was something that craved
clarification. Instead, the anchorperson quickly switched to another
question: "Can we expect a growth of freedom with the pope's visit?"

On a PBS talk show (January 22, 1998), host Charlie Rose asked a
guest, whose name I did not get, whether Castro was bitter about "the
historic failure of communism". No, the guest replied, Castro is proud
of what he believes communism has done for Cuba: advances in health
care and education, full employment, and the elimination of the worst
aspects of poverty. Rose fixed him with a ferocious glare, then turned
to another guest to ask: "What impact will the pope's visit have in
Cuba?" Rose ignored the errant guest for the rest of the program.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



-------------