Editorial: Third-party exclusion averts real argument

The Los Angeles Times hosted a “debate” between the
gubernatorial candidates, but any real argument was averted by the
exclusion of third party candidates.

The most notable omission from the debates was Green Party
candidate Peter Camejo. Camejo was not allowed to participate in
the debates because his party does not have 15 percent of support
in the polls, a standard used for deciding participation in
presidential election debates. The Green candidate was even
prohibited from entering as a guest of GOP candidate Bill
Simon.

As a newspaper, the Times has the responsibility to bring in new
angles and information to the public arena. But the Davis-Simon
debate failed to do so; the only thing it accomplished was showing
both candidates can mudsling each other and toss around
predetermined, meaningless rhetoric. Very little was learned from
the content in this debate that couldn’t have been assumed by
the public anyway.

Including Camejo or the rest of the third-party candidates would
have forced Simon and Davis to address issues specifically. The
Green Party is not an outlier, especially since it basically helped
defeat Democrats in the last presidential election, so it’s
of little wonder why Davis would refuse to participate with Camejo
presently and why Simon invited him.

Sure, the Times can abide by whatever rules it wants. But the
rules of journalism require newspapers to convey news to the public
objectively. Bowing to Davis’ wish for Camejo’s
exclusion was an exhibition of bad journalism. It’s not
enough to write a story saying the decision was protested.