Title:  Speak and ye shall not be heard

The methods the major parties employ to marginalize third parties are
deplorable but perfectly understandable.  The Democrats and Republicans
have entered into a Machiavellian pact in which each accepts that it cannot
rig the electoral process to favor only itself (monopoly), but by rigging
the system to favor both parties, achieves a guaranteed share of power
(duopoly). By making the FEC and the Presidential Debate Commission
"balanced" they avoid raising the ire of the American people, who would not
stand for single party control, yet do not fully understand that the
duopoly these enforce is very much the same sort of beast.  Removing third
parties from the equation lets the two major parties protect their
political flanks, which allows them to split the electorate neatly in two.
Smaller parties have challenged the FEC in court but that is inherently
futile as the disputed election is always long over before the final ruling
arrives. 

These actions by the two ruling parties follow in an obvious way from their
goal of holding power. However, the behavior of the press, and particularly
the national television networks, is much more difficult to explain. The
press generally ignore third party candidates, except when they implicitly or
explicitly question the legitimacy of their candidacies. Such coverage is
neither neutral nor fair - and it effectively strangles third party
candidacies at birth. 

To be elected to high office a candidate requires extensive media coverage.
The network evening news programs spend about 5 minutes per night, 5
nights a week, for 40 weeks covering the two major party Presidential
candidates, and so provide each with around 1000 minutes of free coverage. 
This happens even when a candidate has no significant chance for victory,
as was the case with Sen. Mondale's 1984 campaign.  The major party
convention coverage resembles a week long infomercial and this burst of
exposure, more than anything the candidates say or do, engenders their
inevitable "bounce" in the polls. 

The media are apparently loathe to provide equivalent coverage to third
party candidates.  The total coverage on the network evening news for all
third party Presidential candidates is likely under 20 minutes and the
level of information imparted in those few minutes minimal.  The networks'
non-coverage of third party candidates renders them unelectable, no matter
what their other qualifications, because Americans get most of their
information from television, and on the evening news these candidates are
neither seen nor heard.  Not even a major party candidate could overcome
such a hurdle - but of course, they never have to. 

Mr. Perot in 1992, and Gov. Ventura in 1998, are the only two exceptions to
the "no coverage" rule within the previous decade.  Each managed to pique
the interest of the media through a method completely unrelated to his
qualifications for the office he sought. Mr. Perot's method was to wave a
large wad of cash,  Gov. Ventura's tireless self promotion in a state small
enough for that approach to be effective. By overcoming the "no coverage"
rule each was able to enter a debate, which has become a prerequisite
for election. 

The media are usually content to simply ignore third party candidates.
However, if a candidate rises high enough in the polls through their own
merits or the work of their parties the media try to delegitimize their
campaigns.  In Mr. Nader's few precious minutes on the evening news he is
only shown answering the mandatory "third party" questions: "Isn't a vote
for you a wasted vote?" and "Wouldn't you be more likely to achieve your
stated goals if you withdrew from the race so that your supporters could
vote for your opponent?". It's unthinkable that a national correspondent
would ask VP Gore if he shouldn't "let a true environmentalist win" and
even more unthinkable that such a faux pas would ever see air time. 

The media coverage that candidates receive does not depend on their
character, qualifications, or policies, it is simply a function of their
party affiliation.  When Mr. Buchanan ran in the Republican primaries in
previous election years he received considerable coverage.  This year, as
the official candidate for the Reform party he has been all but muzzled by
the press.  His positions have not much changed in the interim.  How is it
that the press provided him an audience when he spoke as a Republican, but
deny him that audience when he speaks for a "lesser" party? 

The networks have yet to provide a single prime time forum for fair and
impartial debate where all candidates may discuss the issues of the day.
Instead they will broadcast the debates arranged by the Presidential Debate
Commission, which have clearly been rigged to exclude all third party
candidates.  This is consistent with the networks' overall hostility
towards third party candidacies. 

It is well past time to examine the networks' motivations and conflicts of
interest to find out what leads them to their extremely biased political
reporting.  Thanks to the campaign finance scandals Americans now know that
the final resting place of most campaign donations to the two major parties
is in the coffers of the national television networks.  Perhaps the
networks fear losing this income if the electorate received enough
information through impartial forums, or if a third party came to power and
cleaned up our currently corrupt system.  Each would seem an unlikely
hypothesis were the sums involved not so very large. 

The national networks are not nonprofit organizations so it would be naive
to assume that they would abandon their deplorable behavior for the
public's benefit if it entailed any significant financial downside to
themselves.  Yet the networks' conduct has been so egregious that they may
well have already exposed themselves to liability from a successful legal
assault by the offended candidates, political parties, and even perhaps by
a class composed of the electorate itself.  The first amendment protects
the press - so that the electorate may be informed.  Here the networks'
actions serve only to keep the electorate in the dark.  Having thus
neglected their duties under the first amendment the media may well find
that they have also been relieved of its protections. 

David Mathog,
Arcadia, CA 
mathog@caltech.edu