John Baer | Media should put front-runners on back burner

AMONG ANNOYANCES of the presidential race - apart from its length and its focus on Hillary's cleavage, Obama's "blackness" and Rudy's wives - is media fixation on top-tier candidates.

It isn't good for democracy.

At a time voters want something different (polls put President Bush's approval rating at 29 percent, Congress' at 25 percent), maybe it's time to rethink things.

Like the measure of a candidate's worth.

Instead of crowning "front-runners" on the basis of money and polls, instead of declaring individuals unelectable, how about more attention to candidates' ideas?

Republican Ron Paul, for example, is a physician who calls for greater access to alternative medicine and treatments.

Democrat Mike Gravel says abolish the IRS and the income tax in favor of a national sales tax.

Shouldn't voters know more about such proposals?

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press just released results of a survey showing that 52 percent of Americans hold negative views of the race so far.

Importantly, it said those paying closest attention are the most negative.

I don't doubt it.

When I talk with Russell Frank, a Penn State associate professor of journalism, he says: "It's hard to think of anything substantive. . . . What stands out is media intrigue with the possibility of the first woman president or the first black president and bickering between their two camps."

To be fair, the presidential field is large (16 at the moment), media resources are limited and the nature of journalism is changed.

There isn't a "news cycle" any more - just a constant flow perhaps detrimental to thoughtful journalistic decisions.

Still, says Frank, media should focus on more even-handed coverage rather than deciding outcomes. He suggests regular updates tracking schedules and issues of all candidates.

"It's not up to media," says Frank, "It's up to voters."

And voters should know there are issues other than one's breasts, race, haircut, religion or spouse; and interesting alternatives to Hillary, Rudy, Obama, McCain, Edwards and Romney.

Gravel? Former U.S. senator from Alaska; opposed the Vietnam War; waged a one-man filibuster to end the draft; helped release the Pentagon Papers; once drove a cab in New York City.

Paul? Pennsylvania native (Green Tree, outside Pittsburgh); Gettysburg College, Duke medical school; a libertarian and veteran Texas congressman; never voted to raise taxes; never took a junket, voted against the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq, and doesn't participate in the fat congressional pension plan.

There's more.

Democrat Bill Richardson has to be as frustrated.

He's "the resume": 14 years in Congress, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, U.S. energy secretary, governor of New Mexico.

Maybe if he showed some cleavage.

Republican Mike Huckabee is fascinating: Baptist minister; former governor of Arkansas; diabetic who four years ago lost 110 pounds and since has run four marathons.

He's an anti-abortion, pro-gun fiscal conservative who cut taxes and fees during his decade as governor and left his state an $800 million surplus.

If you're Republican, what's not to like?

And if you're a Democrat, Dennis Kucinich offers national gun-control, universal nonprofit health care and an end to U.S. occupation of Iraq.

I don't suggest any of these candidates can or should be president. I do suggest that all of them and their ideas should be a bigger part of the debate.

Isabel Macdonald of the national media-watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting says the press bears a responsibility to "include all of the perspectives out there."

Conventional coverage of money and polls, she says, is "contributing to rather than reporting on a political system."

I've certainly been guilty of such coverage. Many in media have. But the race at hand seems a good place to start to defy convention. *

Send e-mail to baerj@phillynews.com.

For recent columns, go to

http://go.philly.com/baer.