What South Carolina Didn't See (the pathetic lack of real election reporting) from FREEPRESS 21JAN12

THIS is a serious issue that the FCC needs to address. Corporate media may avoid in-depth reporting on political candidates to protect their profits from campaign advertising. Sadly, most mainstream media political reporting is fluff, and reporters are afraid to ask to candidates the hard questions for fear of being described as partisan. The question posed to newt gingrich(k) in last Thursday's debate about his 2nd wife's accusation that he wanted an open marriage is a perfect example. He wasn't asked about his hypocrisy of leading the impeachment of Pres Clinton over the monica lewinsky affair while having an affair himself while married or the hypocrisy of him giving speeches about family values while having an affair while married or about the hypocrisy of his opposition to gay marriage and civil unions because that is a threat to traditional marriage while he has had multiple extra-marital affairs and is twice divorced. No, after outlining the charge from his 2nd wife he was asked if he wanted to respond to it. That is not reporting, that is pandering, and the CNN reporter to cowardly to address the real question deserved the public humiliation he received. This is why we need the FCC to establish a public database documenting local, civic and election reporting aired by all stations. Please click the link and sign on to support FreePress's support of this database.

Demand Transparency in Election Coverage The average TV viewer in South Carolina’s capital saw 182 political ads before today’s primary. But how much election coverage did local stations provide? Broadcasters don’t want to say. Demand to know how much election coverage you’re really getting from your local news station. TV stations in South Carolina pocketed $11.3 million in political-ad money — and subjected viewers to an unrelenting barrage of attack ads. Media corporations profited while using our public airwaves — for free — and we have a right to know what we are getting in return. But broadcasters are fighting hard against a Federal Communications Commission proposal to create a publicly searchable database documenting all of the electoral, local and civic programming our stations air. Why? Maybe because they don’t want the public and the FCC to know what they’re up to. After nearly two decades of rampant media consolidation, stations are interested only in the bottom line. Real election reporting costs money, so stations tend to favor cheap, easy-to-produce segments (like coverage of sports and celebrity gossip) instead. We must hold our broadcasters accountable. After today, the political-money machine will leave South Carolina and head to Florida for the next primary. By the summer, everyone in the country will have experienced a heavy dose of political attack ads. The question is, will we also get the election news we need to make informed choices at the polls? Sincerely, Libby Reinish Free Press

Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Learn more at www.freepress.net