RATING THE MEDIA

**VIABILITY INDEX**
+5	For every story that at least mentions all the declared candidates.
-5	For every mention of a 'front runner" before a single vote is cast.
-10	For each candidate deemed unworthy of discussion because they are "unelectable."
-50	For declaring that the nomination process over before 90 percent of the electorate has a chance to vote.
-5	For declaring that a candidate is "credible" because of how much money they've raised.
+10	For investigating where that money actually came from.
+25	For discussing how that money has affected the candidate's stands on issues.

**THE POLLING GAME**
-5	For each story where the only news is that a new poll has been taken.
-10	If the polling news is a "slip" or a "surge" that is smaller than the poll's margin of error.

**POLICY MATTERS**
+10	For an article that examines the potential impact of a candidate's platform.
-5	For an article that examines the potential impact of a candidate's platform - but only on the candidate's chances for election.
-15	If an election article gives you elaborate descriptions of electoral strategy without giving you a clue about what any candidate stands for.
+10	For coverage of a debate that highlights statements about policy.
-10	For coverage of a debate that highlights name-calling between candidates.
-25	For coverage of a debate that complains that there wasn't enough name-calling.

**CONVENTIONAL "WISDOM" CHECKLIST**
-10	For describing "special interests" as blacks, women, old people, unions, etc. -- and not oil, tobacco and agribusiness companies, etc.
-10	For equating "family values" with attacking gays, abortion rights and rap music.

**PUBLIC INTEREST, PRIVATE LIVES**
-5	For reporting rumors about a candidate's sex life.
-10	For pretending to be writing about the political implications of rumor about a candidate's sex life.
-25	For pretending to write about the journalistic ethics of writing about the political implications of rumors about a candidate's sex life.
+10	For taking a critical look at whether a candidate has served the public interest in government office.
-10	For a story that takes a critical look at whether a candidate has ever smoked pot or fought in 25-year-old wars.

**AD WATCH**
+10	For critically evaluating the accuracy of campaign commercials.
-10	For repeating opponents' charges that a candidate's ads are inaccurate while refusing to discuss who is telling the truth.

Return to Top

Do the standards above that "rate the media" apply to this piece from that chronicle of conservative orthodoxy, the Wall Street Journal. We know that it calls itself "the worlds most important publication." And how else can this Crime Street Journal respond to the candidacy of an insurgent Democrat but to call him a liberal. I don't care what they call me as long as they spell my name right and understand the gross gap in power, money, and access between big money campaign donors and the rest of us. Corporate media just doesn't get it that what I really am is a conservative, bleeding heart.

Curtis Little Menokin Ranch, Granite, CO USA 81228-2141

Return to Curtis Imrie Home Page

This page last updated February, 2004