Equal coverage for candidates?

Jonathan Bernstein argues that there's no reason for this. Steinglass agrees, and elaborates:

Obviously there are some tensions to balance here. At the beginning of the primary process it's often unclear which candidates are going to develop into serious prospects. Sometimes, as with Jon Huntsman, candidates who have no chance of winning this year are running in order to establish their credentials four years down the line; they should be covered because of their likely import in future contests. And of course there's a self-reinforcing aspect to the decision-making process here, as the media decides to cover only important candidates who become important in part because the media decides to cover them. But a lot of phenomena in social and economic life are self-reinforcing in this manner (confidence in the value of currency, say). The basic point is that including fringe candidates in political coverage of the presidential primaries mainly does a disservice to the public.