Aaron Johnson and some of his supporters are pretty worked up over his being excluded from a mayoral candidate debate being sponsored by the USC Law School Democrats.
The odd thing is, the law school group didn’t just invite the main three — Benjamin, Finlay and Morrison. They included Joe Azar — but not Johnson, Sparkle Clark or Gary Myers (or any of the lesser candidates I haven’t even met). According to WIS:
“It bothers me that anyone would have their voice stifled in that manner,” said Johnson. “I believe it’s critical to a functioning democracy that every candidate is allowed to voice their opinion, raise their concerns. I understand the limitations of the media, the limitations of an event like a debate, I understand there are time constraints, but I still think that every effort should be made to include as many people as possible.”
And here’s something posted on Facebook about it:
The USC law school has officially NOT invited me to their mayoral debate. Here is the letter I received. There is not much more I can do as a candidate, even though I am a USC graduate and I have done more than any other candidate to try and reach young people and students in our community.
Mr. Johnson,
Thank you again for your interest, understanding, and patience. The groups involved in the planning have decided on a standard for the forum, and unfortunately, you do not fall within it, and I cannot offer you an invitation to participate in the forum. I hope you will understand that this was a very difficult decision to make, but one that had to be made considering our limited resources.
The standard we used is what we’re calling a media standard, designed to reflect the weight that the candidates are given by the local media. This viewpoint-neutral standard was our only option given that appropriate polling and financial information was unavailable. Our method was to tally the times each candidate was mentioned in articles written by Columbia’s mainstream media, including the State and the local network affiliates.
Of course, it is not our intention to exclude anyone for their specific views. We are a community that encourages vigorous debate, and we welcome anyone else who is running to attend and hand out campaign literature and engage other attendees before and after the forum. I admire your effort to get involved in the community, and I hope you can attend.
Regards,
William Tinkler
The “media standard,” eh?
Now you know, I’m not in principle against limiting the number of candidates in a debate. And as a longtime editor, I have no problem with making an editorial decision that some candidates are more legit than others. You may think that’s terrible, but editors have limited resources (especially today), and I believe they have a sacred duty to devote as many of those scarce resources as they can to telling you about the candidates who actually have a chance of getting elected.
And yes, I’ve heard all the arguments from the lesser candidates. You tell them they’re not viable, and they say they would be viable if you’d cover them, and you say you’re not in the business of changing the reality, only of reporting and commenting on it, and… well, such debates go on and on, with both sides having good points. But in the end, you have to deploy your resources as wisely as you know how, and brace yourself for the inevitable complaints.
And if you’re running a debate, one of your precious resources is the amount of time available. And if you limit the field, the viable candidates have more opportunity to be heard, and the voters have more opportunity to judge them wisely. So the USC Law School Democrats have my sympathy.
My saying that is going to disappoint Aaron, who has praised me for writing about him when the MSM wouldn’t. But on the other hand, I sympathize with him completely for being excluded when fellow dark-horse candidate and Five Points businessman Joe Azar gets invited.
The law school dems seem have devised a system that would give them a numerical value for measuring the news coverage, so as to get an “objective” result, and Azar (who after all is better known to the media, for having run so often) just happened to fall on the good side of the thin red line.
But they would have been better off realizing you can’t be purely objective about these things. At some point, you have to have the guts to apply some judgment, which cannot be measured. Particularly when the thing you’re measuring was itself based on … editorial judgment.
Related Posts
By this standard, Cromartie would be welcome?
Johnson could turn this slight into priceless face-time by actually showing up with a group of supporters and making himself heard.
Yes, I’m suggesting he crash the debate. It would garner more mainstream media attention in one night than he’s managed to fluff up in…well…ever.
I mean, what was his campaign strategy, anyway? Show up and be an idealist? If you are too nice you get bumped off stage. Throw some elbows, Aaron!
I don’t like this line:
“There is not much more I can do as a candidate…”
If voters actually took a chance on him, would they be greeted in time with statements like “There is not much more I can do as mayor…”?
Good story. Good analysis, Brad.
Burl, you catch on quick!
Y’know, E.W. isn’t actually convicted yet–maybe he could run. Got to read the law carefully, y’know. He only said he’d resign elected offices on the date of the agreement. He could be Columbia’s Marion Barry; he already is well on the road!
My “there’s not much more I can do as a candidate” line was intended to provoke action on behalf of my supporters, and action is precisely what they committed. My supporters are the ones who have brought this matter to the attention of the press and my supporters are the force that has created a groundswell of attention through social media networks like Facebook and comments sections of websites.
I am honestly not that concerned with my coverage in mainstream media. My entire campaign is admittedly experimental and rooted in idealism, but I believe the mainstream media is digging its own grave. Social media, new media and alternative media are very quickly closing the gap with the “big boys.”
I would point to the fact that Mr. Warthen’s blog’s readership is in a state of growth while The State Newspaper’s readership is in serious decline. My strategy has always been to leverage more affordable and, in my mind, more powerful venues and whether I win or lose, I think everyone in the “main stream” will be surprised at my voter results.
An email by an editor at The State that was forwarded to me about two months ago dismissed my campaign as a complete joke. Said editor claimed he would be surprised if I got more than one hundred votes. Now the Free Times is predicting at least 1,000. Polls from two of the well-funded candidates are predicting between 1,500 and 2,000 votes for me, respectively. And I still have an entire month to cover more ground.
Mr. Warthen, I respect your opinion, and I can understand why I might be seen as hopeless from the viewpoint of a traditional election analysis… But as time marches on and social media matures, I think you will see that my approach to campaigning is the future and these big budget “signs on sticks” campaigns are going to go the way of the T-Rex.
For now, win or lose, I’m proud that my message is resonating with hundreds, if not thousands of people who were, just two months ago, too apathetic and frustrated to even consider voting in a local election… And I’m glad to be on the cutting edge of techno-democracy.
Just as Mr. Drake mentioned earlier, it’s about the media, and of course the best way to have media “see you” is to spend money. (I don’t mean “buying coverage.) Is there no way to take money out of the mix? Huh?
Just think of the obscene amounts of money that will be spent for Joe Wilson’s seat this time around.
Ludicrous.