Howell's dilemma

(continued)

by Dan Kennedy

Things could be a lot worse for Howell. There are actually three other candidates in the race -- veteran anti-abortion-rights activist Phil Lawler, self-styled "economic designer" Phil Hyde, and the Natural Law Party's Dale Friedgen. According to the FEC, only Lawler has reported raising any money (about $31,000). New England Cable News political reporter Alison King says she plans to include Lawler in her profiles of Senate candidates, and Bob Paquette -- following an interview with Howell on WFCR Radio at UMass Amherst -- says he'll give any candidate who's on the ballot "five minutes of fame" on the morning news. But others argue that Howell is the only third-party candidate credible enough to be included with Kennedy and Robinson, who -- whatever problems he may have -- is nevertheless the standard-bearer for a recognized party.

In fact, it is Kennedy, not the media, who holds Howell's future in his hands. Without televised debates, Howell can't move up enough in the polls to get the media's attention. Emily Rooney, host of Greater Boston on WGBH-TV (Channels 2 and 44), notes that Jesse Ventura was barely a factor in the 1998 Minnesota governor's race until he was included in the debates. "It's really Ted Kennedy's call," Rooney says.

Howell understands this. In an interview over coffee in the Stoneleigh Burnham cafeteria, the candidate insists that if she could debate Kennedy, say, three times, she might actually be able to win. But she's not about to hold the media blameless. "What the media owes its readers is to cover the candidates, cover the issues," she says, charging that the press has "trivialized" the Senate race by focusing on Robinson's foibles rather than the issues. "They should be covering this intensely, because there's a lot of time to make up for."

She compares her situation to that of the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate, Harry Browne, who's getting less media attention than Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan, even though some polls show Browne with more support than Buchanan. The reason, she argues -- not without merit -- is that the media understand only "left versus right" (Gore and Bush) or "far-left versus far-right" (Nader and Buchanan). The Libertarians, by contrast, espouse views that cut across traditional left-right lines, embracing such causes as gay marriage, drug legalization, a smaller military, dramatically lower taxes (including an end to the income tax), a 90 percent cut in the size of the federal government, and the abolition of gun control. Rather than being ideologically inconsistent, Howell says, these views are actually a model of consistency, since they all point toward less government.

New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen, the author of What Are Journalists For? (Yale, 1999), says the media engage in a form of "propaganda" when they take the position that "only what is realistically likely to happen is important." In Rosen's view, "a serious candidate would be someone with serious ideas that ought to be considered, regardless of whether they are a serious threat to win."

Of course, the media aren't going to ignore Carla Howell. But neither are they going to give her the kind of heavy coverage that might actually make her a contender. That's not to say they've made an indefensible call; indeed, it would be odd to see this played as if it were Kennedy versus Romney in '94, or Kerry versus Weld in '96.

But simply by making such a decision, the media -- even while playing by well-established rules as to what's news and what isn't -- are exercising a rather awesome power. Page 1 | 2 | 3

---

Dan Kennedy's work can be accessed from his Web site: http://www.dankennedy.net

---

Dan Kennedy can be reached at dkennedy[a]phx.com

---

Articles from July 24, 1997 & before can be accessed here

---