Nader Raiding

I, and many other journalists, I'm sure, received an interesting email from Ralph Nader's presidential campaign today. After essentially calling the lot of us ignorant, insensitive, biased louts, he asked for a response.

Here is mine, embedded within his original note. (For the most part I didn't critique grammar and punctuation. That could have taken all day.)

Open Letter to Members of the National Media:
[Dear Ralph, if I may be so bold as to address you in the familiar: Perhaps one of the things that contributes to a perceived inattention to your campaign is the media perception that you care about us as little as you seem to think we care about you. What's with the "open letter," dude?]

Having spoken to numerous reporters and some editors with the national media (as distinguished from the local media) [It's always a mistake to alienate local media. They resent the dismissal, and one never knows when a local reporter will become a national or global reporter. Tsk.] about the blackout or near blackout of the Nader/Gonzalez presidential campaign, striving to challenge the two party, exclusionary duopoly, (debates, ballot obstacles, etc.) I must ask a general question:

What journalistic criteria have you been employing in this presidential year that guides your pronounced non-coverage of the number three campaign that advances majoritarian agendas based on long experience, involvement, and accomplishment. [What? No question mark? Good thing you told me up-front you were about to ask a question. And get over your vocabulary. Using big words makes you seem elitist. Haven't you been paying attention to the Obama critiques?] These agendas are either opposed or ignored by McCain and Obama (see www.votenader.org) and are often rooted in the very investigative reports by your reporters? [Now there's a question mark. Have you no proofreaders?]

It is puzzling how editors and publishers who oversee these prize winning stories seem to lose interest in covering Americans who are trying to do something with that information for a better country. We asked one top editor of a major daily why his paper was not covering us at all and he said, "Because you can't win." Besides being a catch-22 that he quickly acknowledged, that is not a supportable newsworthy judgment. [In your most humble news judgment, I trust.] News Media have covered many stories outside the electoral arena of people "who can't win" and such coverage extends to both the import of the struggles and the reasons why "winning is not possible" given the stacked deck against them. [Ah yes: The interminable struggle of the underdog. Here's a tip: In order to catch a reporter's or editor's attention, the underdog must have something interesting to say. Just the fact that he or she considers himself or herself an underdog is not sufficient justification for an expenditure of ink. In addition, I seem to recall a similar complaint from you in 2004. If we in the media neglected to clarify then that we often have difficulty deciphering your esoteric, if strident, talking points, I apologize for all of us intellectually challenged hacks.]

There has been a witting or unwitting political bigotry against third parties and independent candidates, as there was years ago against minority voters. [In general, or are you accusing us of being bigots? If it's the latter, I think I should warn you that name-calling seldom breeds sympathy.] Against the status of such candidates obstructed through ballot access laws by the two parties that dislike competition they present other rigged ways to secure their domination over the electoral landscape, including gerrymandering each other in the majority of Congressional Districts, for example. [And speaking of esoteric, if strident, talking points, what the heck are you trying to say here, anyway?]

This is meant to be a short letter. [Thank goodness, considering the tone so far. No one likes a lengthy diatribe, especially when they're the subject of it.] Journalism scholars, reporters, and other post-election writers of books and articles will be chronicle, no doubt, the quantity and quality of media coverage (see the previous analysis by such scholars as Stephen Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter). [What previous analysis? Another tip: Reporters are as lazy as the next guy. If you're going to throw out an obscure reference (and any reference to J school, J-school professors and media analysts is obscure to everyone who graduated more than a year ago), at least give us a clue where we may find more information. Google is a marvelous resource, but everyone who keeps me from having to resort to googling gets extra points.]

For now, please verify for yourselves your own non-coverage or coverage and inform us what your journalistic criteria standards or policies led you to this definition of your readers, listeners, and viewers rights to know. [Like that's gonna happen. If we haven't taken the time to cover your campaign, what makes you think we have time to engage in lengthy debates about our motives? Honestly, upon respectful, non-threatening request most media organizations are happy to provide statistics and explanations. What they don't like to do is defend themselves from the thoroughly perplexing wrath of people who feel they've been slighted.]

Thank you for responding, even though there is obviously no obligation to do so. [But I thought you just asked us to inform you about our decision-making process! See what I mean about puzzling? In any case, you're welcome. I think.]

Sincerely,
Ralph Nader