"You do what they told ya"

[plurality]

Posted this yesterday in GD, but it sank, and I believe this really deserves some discussion.

http://www.politicsus.com/presidential%20press%20releases/Kucinich/102903.htm

When Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) entered the race for the Democratic nomination, his supporters had every reason to expect their candidate to be taken seriously by the press. Already acknowledged as the "leader of the opposition"1 to Bush's Iraq war resolution in Congress, with a 100% rating from the AFL-CIO and a record of beating Republican incumbents in a bellwether Midwestern state, Kucinich, the co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, had obvious appeal to angry, progressive, antiwar Democratic primary voters in battleground races like Iowa and New Hampshire.

But if Kucinich supporters were hoping for serious coverage, they were in for a serious disappointment. Too many campaign reporters decided that their job was to act as gatekeeper of the "top tier" instead of informing their readers about the field. Just two weeks after Kucinich threw his hat into the ring, New York Times chief political correspondent Adam Nagourney was already explaining why the Ohio Democrat didn't deserve as much attention as others. Warning of the "potential for complication" in having too many candidates running, Nagourney wrote: "Ideally, a sponsor interested in organizing a meaningful debate would like to limit it to, say, the six top-tier candidates. But who decides what top tier means?" To answer his own question, he supplied a soundbite from an academic pundit: "With all due respect, Kucinich and Moseley Braun have no chance of getting the nomination."2

snip

"When I asked the reporters on the plane what the value of this kind of reporting was, I got an interesting answer. No fewer than four journalists replied to the effect that unless the electability issue was addressed, 'someone like Kucinich' might get the nomination.

"'Hell, if it came down to a battle of position papers, Dennis Kucinich might win,' laughed Jackson Baker of the Memphis Flyer, incidentally not a horse-racer and one of the true good guys on the plane.

"'I think its value is that it helps to explain to the reader why I'm spending so much time with one candidate,' said Mark Silva of the Orlando Sentinel. 'He needs to know why I'm reporting so much on Howard Dean, as opposed to, say, Dennis Kucinich.'"

Why do we continue to let the media, who we know doesn't have our interests in mind (reference pre-Iraq war coverage if you don't believe me) continue to decide who will be our party's standard bearer? By all means if you don't agree with Kucinich, don't vote for him. But for those who do think his ideas are good, but still don't support him, why are you allowing yourself to be manipulated like this?

[Sushi_lover]

1. If Bush manages to steal 2004, Kucinich will leave the party

There are a couple of ways Bush could steal 2004
- voter fraud
- an "October Suprise" (by either stage managing the capture of Osama and Saddam or by permitting another terrorism attack on the U.S.)

If either of these happens, I predict the Democratic party will split and Kucinich will be one of the progressives who leave.

[plurality]

2. Bush won't be reelected...

He's being set up for a fall, look how the media how now decided to go after him. He's become a focal point for all the pissed off people in the country. He'll be replaced by a Dem. that's in on the game too, in the hopes that everyone will go back to sleep because the evil Bush is gone.

we're being played for fools plain and simple. The Republican party, the 'mainstream' Democrats, and the media are all in on it.

[Military Brat]

3. One who was never elected cannot be re-elected

I think sometimes we fall into that trap, accidentally. bush was selected, not elected. I really really miss President Gore.

[plurality]

4. true

Of course with our current system no one is truely elected (50% say none of the above).

Love the sig quote BTW, very fitting for our current situation.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

5. being played for fools - but by who?

Greetings. I'm new to this group and more importantly to politics in general. I hope not to piss off too many folks with my political ignorance - but we all gotta start somewhere...

Read a rather long article by one Michael C. Ruppert: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102003_beyond_bush_2.html

After rerading it I am totally confused as to who the real bad guys are.

I read another article titled Peak Oil Blues (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?s=0d457b244e42a72a224539551830da0c&p=8181#post8181) dealing with how we have passed the world's peak oil production and how it's basicall all down hill from here. I work in the energy field promoting renewable energy technologies, and I have to say the article was very depressing.

Anyone know anything about this Ruppert fellow? Is he for real or just some conspiracy theorist. Anyone care to comment on the Beyond Bush article referenced above?

Thanks

[plurality]

8. the 1 percenters

There's a lot of people here who'll bash Rupert, but I think he's right on a lot of things. You should just take what he says (as with all news) with a healthy amount of skepticism. I think my dad said it best, "Believe only half of what you see, and none of what you hear."

That being said, you want to know who's playing us for fools, follow the money, and look for who has most of it.

[LuminousX]

7. I highly doubt Kucinich would bolt the party

That is what separates him from Nader, he isn't about the ego, he is about the issue. I would say he would take it as a sign that he needs to more Diligent. The man is Unstoppable when he latches onto an issue. Fundamentally, you could not ask for a more Compassionate leader who truly understands Progressive issues.

[JohnKleeb]

50. Exactly thats why I support him and will stay in the party

I am not planning to leave.

[rdfi-defi]

36. this is the last stand of the democratic party as we know it

anywhere from 13 to 19% of voting dems voted for ahnold out here in california this month. the dem party could not even mount an offense or a defense against the "mouth is moovin but you aint sayin nuthin" style. if it is that easy to play the centrist voters (in ca and most likely the whole usa) what chance is there to make any positive changes? compromise is important, but compromise means all sides have an influence on policies that directly effect us all. i don't think the centrists candidates presented in this election represent that. so if the dem party is leaning right or not leaning at all (lack of spine i guess) they will be labeled as such after 04, people who want some positive change will be left out of the compromise and will leave the dem party. maybe that is what some dems want, i'm not sure, but in my humble opinion that is party suicide.

as far as the media is concerned, yeah they are trying to marginalize kucinich intentionaly. but i knew that was going to happen the min. i read up on dk's platform. you know what i don't care. that is one of the reasons i am supporting kucinich, he is not going to win by going on hardball, he is going to win because of people who go out and dig deep in the grassroots. that may not show up in some college degree handbook on how to win an election in the 21st century, or some computer genius's line of code on his web site, what it is is a healthy dose of democracy, i'll say it again DEMOCRACY, that is what this country needs right now. that being said, win or loose i don't think kucinich will quite the dem party after the 04 election but i just might.

[MercutioATC]

51. Leave to where?

Become a Green where he'd have even LESS political clout?

[Pez]

53. if BUSH INC. owns the next election kucinich will be needed more than ever

so will the rest of the dems on the road and in congress; i think that is in the back of all their minds. if dubya & co. wheel out bin laden during the RNC we're toast. burnt toast. i wouldn't put it past them either...

i expect all the dems to continue to kick and scream during a (highly unlikely in my mind, but the pukes are masters at manipulation) #43 act II. and i'm sure kucinich will be at the front, considering the way the press refers to him now-- the guy with the most progressive platform, which no one is covering for reasons ~they~ can't even explain to anyone's satisfaction. DK has a real motivation on the campaign trail, and it's to bring the country forward with a dem agenda. i don't think he'll abandon that cause, ESPECIALLY if BUSH INC. ganks the electoral college.

[Frodo]

6. I disagree with the premise of the article.

"When Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) entered the race for the Democratic nomination, his supporters had every reason to expect their candidate to be taken seriously by the press."

Who is the last sitting member of the House to be "taken seriously" in a Presidential election?

Unless the person is a senior congressman (Speaker, Majority/Minority Leader, Whip, etc) they don't have "credibility" in that arena (heck, I'm not sure Gephardt will be given credibility).

Notice also: In your link, the graph clearly shows that Dean's media coverage went up AFTER his support levels rose. The story was "people are latching on to this guy" (and the fact he was a Governor and everyone knows that's our best shot of winning didn't hurt). If Kucinich jumps up from 1-2% to 5-6% in national polls he'll get some press. If he gets in striking distance of the leaders he will BE the story (just like Clark was for a couple weeks when it was clear that he was competitive). Dean got no sinificant coverage until his numbers were four to EIGHT times what Kucinich has managed to get. Poll as 8% JUST ONCE (nationally - or in the top couple in an early primary state) and you'll be pleased at what you get.

It isn't that DK has a lack of support because he has a lack of coverage. It's the other way around.

[plurality]

9. what about the quotes from the media insiders

see the one's in bold.

there justifying their disparte coverage (over one hundred for Dean to 2 for DK) by saying it's neccessary to make sure 'someone like Kucinich isn't nominated'

[LuminousX]

10. From the start DK was just a footnote

and he has done nothing to disprove that impression.

[plurality]

11. he's done plenty to warrant more coverage than he has recieved

some examples

1) The second largest grassroots base in the race.

2) Numerous bills introduced that back up his policies (any one else actually INTRODUCE legislation for their plans, as I recall there are 4 other candidates that could do this)

3) Over 1000 simulataneous house parties.

4) Comparable fundraising numbers to other 'top-tier' candidates last quarter.

ALL of these things recieved ZERO mention in the mainstream press. The only time they even mention him is to take something he says out of context and ridicule it.

[LuminousX]

13. Why did he turn down an appearance on Hardball?

I've seen numerous articles posted here regarding his grassroots efforts, articles coming from very mainstream sources.

His legislative history is uh, well, history and is not news unless he is submitting something right now that is relevant and isn't seen as pandering.

1000 simultaneous house parties... this deserves what kind of press? Isn't this like trying to cram 50 fratboys into a telephone booth? At the very best, if his media relations people were on the ball, they would have done all the reporting on this themselves, delivered entertaining video clips to news shows so it can be added in a human interest segment.

Comparable fundraising this last quarter ... ok, but there was only one story regarding fundraising last quarter and that was Dean's above and beyond fundraising that broke records. You are a news director and you have a two minute segment to fill regarding Democratic fundraising. Do you a) run a report on how Dennis Kucinich is raising 'comparable funds' to the other candidates or b) report how Dean exceeded Clinton's fundraising record? I would like to point out that it wasn't comparable, though. It was significantly less. 1,660,756.67 for DK, 4,015,365.36 for Kerry, 3,830,746.51 for Gephardt, 14,839,513.99 for Dean.

You are saying all of this has zero mention. I strongly disagree, except of the legislative thing because that is history and not news. Here are the mainstream press accounts of each of these things:

1. Grassroots
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/13/cnna.kucinich/
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10393875&BRD=2318&PAG=461&dept_id=484045&rfi=6
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10616FC3A5B0C778DDDA90994DB404482


2. House parties
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70D14F93E5A0C7A8DDDA90994DB404482

3. Fundraising
http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/state2003/nh__campaignmoney_2003.shtml
You said it was comparable to the other candidates, I say 1 million is not comparable to 3 million or 14 million. But here is an article that mentions DKs performance.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec03/campaign_10-20.html another article.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2003/october/1017_campaign_corner.shtml
One from an unlikely source

[plurality]

17. legislation and others

DK's legislation is not hstory, much of it has been introduced in the last few months such as:
1-Universal Health Care
2-Repeal of PATRIOT Act
3-Repeal of Death Penalty
4-Inquiry about Iraq intel.

As for the other articles, congrats, you found a few, now how many thousands of more hits would you have recieved if Kucinich were replaced with Dean?

And for the house parties. I'd say organizing 1000 house parties on a singles day is a pretty big story, it requires massive grassroots support and dedication. And DKs campaign did everything it could to get this covered by the media, yet they chose to ignore it, why?

[helleborient]

19. Again...if he gained traction on these

And proved he could move them through Congress...I might shift my allegiance.

But he hasn't and I'm a skeptic that he will.

Can you imagine what kind of a boost for the Kucinich campaign a repeal of the PATRIOT act with DK's name on the bill would garner?

He has great ideas, but he hasn't proven he can get them to us, the people. Being President will not confer on him the power to do that any more than it conferred on Bill Clinton the power to pass universal health care and have gays truly be incorporated into our armed forces.

[plurality]

23. his legislation has many sponsors

Dept. of Peace and UHC all have over 50 co-sponsors. Is that insignificant? The reason it's going nowhere is that it's a Republican house and would continue to go nowhere even if it had 218 cosponsors.

[helleborient]

27. Or if Dennis were President

[plurality]

29. I seem to recall Clinton was able to get some of his legislation looked at

with a Republican Congress. DK would be able to do much more as president than as a member of Congress.

[redqueen]

24. So we should forget electing him even though he'd represent people better,

because there are repubs in control?

Do you consider that to be a static situation? That Republicans will control congress for the forseeable future?

Why are Democrats so willing to play second fiddle? ... to give up before the fight even starts?

[helleborient]

28. I'm not giving up...

I fully expect Howard Dean to be the next president of the United States.

That's making a practical choice of a President who can truly deliver on what he is putting forward and make real changes in this country.

I don't believe Dennis has made a compelling argument that he can.

His main argument has been that some massive group of "real people" that has not show up yet to vote or answer pollsters will propel him to the White House because he is the true representative of the people.

He's not the true representative of me...Dean is more representative of me. And I am skeptical that a massive enough amount of people really do agree with him to get him elected or to get his policies passed.

If, however, he was giving us a point-to-point of how we will get from where we are to his ideas and giving us compelling reasons why we can do it...well, there is a campaign!

Saying we're going to get to a real Dept. of Peace automatically by him being President...or that we could even get there in 4 years I believe is being disingenuous and promising something you simply can't deliver. To some it's called taking people for a ride....

[plurality]

32. he does have a plan

Of course part of it requires him actually being taken seriously by the media, which isn't happeneing.

But if that happened here's how he could enact his agenda:

1) DK has many positions that cross party lines (swing votes) and that appeal to alienated voters (new voters).

2) If he could get his message out he could be the forefront of a movement similar to when FDR took office. In otherwords a radical reallignment of the political spectrum.

3) This realignment would not only help DK, but would also create a huge coat-tail effect. (FDR brought in over 100 Dem. Congress members, and 20 Senators)

4) With this realignment he could enact his agenda.

Of course all this is predicated on a fair and impartial media that's here to inform us with facts and not give us opinions!

[Mairead]

54. "who can truly deliver and make real changes in this country."

But Dean isn't planning on making any substantive changes. The guy is a straight tweaks-only, status-quo candidate. Find something among his policies that is going to change the direction in which wealth flows. There isn't one.

He's not going to cut the obscene war-industry budget

He's not going to take the hands of the wealthy elites out of our pockets on healthcare. Instead he's actually planning to give them $88G MORE per year while still leaving 10M people without healthcare.

He's not going to end the drug war, which means that while, if he follows through, he's going to switch some money out of the prison industry, he's just going to funnel into the same elite pockets via the healthcare industry.

He says LGB rights are a states-rights issue...which is the status quo.

He says he's going to balance the budget. But on whose backs? Obviously not the wealthy elites' backs, so guess whose that leaves!

[LuminousX]

37. And DKs campaign did everything it could to get this covered by the media

DK needs to fire his media relations people. They failed. Maybe DK has shunned one too many marketing types, the types who know how to create a buzz.

The legislation, if it is just introduced and not being debated in anything but a committee doesn't warrant DK free press. Again, when do you ever see the news cover legislation in a significant way? Only when it is being pumped up by the President or party leaders.

So, why does Dean get more daily press? His people know how to market. Are Kucinich supporters writing to newspaper people encouraging them to cover DK? In the early days, Dean was accepting every interview opportunity that came his way. Dennis isn't going on Hardball. What gives?

[redqueen]

42. Yeah, right.

:eyes:

And the reason the LA Times story about the connection between CIA and crack was because it wasn't well marketed either, right?

And Chomsky, he really needs to get better PR people too. I mean, really. If Stehpanopoloser can get a TV show, it must be because his ideas 'resonate' better with the public.

:puke:

[LuminousX]

45. Chomsky gets amazing coverage

So I'm not sure what your point is.

[Mairead]

55. Given that the man is worth 200 Stephanopouloses, he gets lousy coverage

He should be quoted everywhere, every time he opens his mouth.

[helleborient]

48. Chomsky drew a standing-room only crowd here of over 3,000

In a 55-60% Republican area of 100,000

Your point about Chomsky??

[Mairead]

56. That certainly speaks to his perceived importance among thinking people

but it doesn't speak at all to the issue of publicity.

[helleborient]

59. There is plenty of publicity for every book Chomsky writes...

I'm a librarian - I get it in the mail. Chomsky is not lacking in any way in publicity.

[redqueen]

60. ROFL!

*This* is your example of publicity? Industry oriented notices?

Jeez Louise!

We're talking about presidential candidates for one of the most important elections in history. Our country is being sold to the highest bidder, piece by piece.

Dennis Kucinich threatens the propserous future of the profiteers currently participating in the kleptocracy. Dean doesn't.

[helleborient]

61. Chomsky is published by New Press...

Dennis is being published in November by Thunder's Mouth.

They are both independent publishers...neither is part of a grand corporate publishing machine.

Both get extra publicity by larger cooperatives that distribute small independent publishers.

Why don't you spew your garbage when you know what you are talking about?

Or...do you want to attack Dennis for participating in the publishing industry? He will certainly garner funds from publishing his book - it's a campaign piece like the one recently published by Kerry and the ones sure to come from every campaign including Dean. It happens every presidential campaign, and there is absolutely no way in which Dennis could claim some kind of innocence here.

Yes, buying his book does support the publishing industry...the same industry that hawks and profits from books by Chomsky.

[redqueen]

63. Sweet Jumping Jesus

You somehow managed to miss the point entirely.

Sending letters to librarians about books does in no way equate to mentions on drive-time news reports.

Neither does it quite measure up to the level of an observation or discussion of a candidate who has been one of the leaders of opposition to a policy during discussions of said policies on a popular NPR program.

Neither does it even begin to compare with the general articles about candidates.

I can't believe we're comparing 'regular news coverage' to 'letters to librarians about new books' in the context of disseminating pertinent information about the positions of would-be presidential candidates.

:wow:

Let me spell it out:

Chomsky is not well-known in the mass media. Liberals who read will know about him -- most average working class Joes and Janes won't.

It is the average working class Janes and Joes that Kucinich's message needs to reach.

[helleborient]

64. That flashy Rolling Stone interview might help then....

Dennis is being embraced by the biggest youth-oriented (fashion, Eminem and all) magazine out there.

Full-on press in corporate media - there he is!

I know for a fact plenty of average working class Janes and Joes read Rolling Stone.

No other candidate standing in his way in the issue either...let's see if this helps the poll results.

[helleborient]

12. Something I don't think can be ignored in Dean/Kucinich press coverage...

I still believe the moveon.org primary was huge for the Dean campaign and a problem for the Kucinich campaign.

Whomever won the online primary was going to get a huge boost in media coverage and support from the left. Dean won the primary and Kucinich didn't in a self-selected set of peace-oriented liberals. Much of the voting was based on what individuals read in the position papers posted by the individual candidates. I hadn't decided before then and was leaning to Kucinich, but shifted at that time to support Dean. My wife had paid little attention until then and she believed Dean took the audience the most seriously and best addressed her concerns. Some of the other candidates basically blew it off as unimportant and sent position pieces that really didn't relate to the audience.

If Kucinich had won, things might be very different right now.

Dean's campaign gained traction and thus media coverage while the Kucinich campaign didn't. It was a very important event in separating these two.

[LuminousX]

14. Dean's campaign got credibility due to MoveOn

Kucinich is still trying to attain it. I had forgotten about the MoveOn primary. It was a factor in accelerating the Dean coverage and helped cement Dean as 'a liberal' even with his centrist views.

[plurality]

15. moveon primary

while the Moveon primary did gain Dean a lot of press it got next to nothing for DK, why? Both candidates TROUNCED all the other guys who were the 'top-tier' candidates. Yet after the primary Dean was the guy getting all the "who is this guy?" press, yet Kucinich recieved next to nothing. Dean didn't win by that much 15% as I recall, and Kucincih's showing should have raised quite a few eyebrows (Dean had been running for 1 year at that point, Kucinich for 1 month). Plus 'electability' was very much in play at that point and probably swayed a few people in the Dean camp (not saying all, but you have to admit it probably influenced some people).

[helleborient]

16. The simple answer....second place

You get little press coverage for second place...particularly if it's as much as 15% behind. The only way you do is if you manage to parlay it into a comeback a la Bill Clinton.

Like I've mentioned elsewhere...practicality is not a strong suit for Dennis' campaign.

I love the idea of a Dept. of Peace, I love the idea of free college, I love the idea of cutting 1/4 out of the defense budget.

However, DK can not do that alone...he has to have congress approve it. I really would like to here his plan that makes at least some of this practical...what incremental steps will he take? Who does he have on his side to push this? Where's the proof he can pull the press along with him.

Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were both masterful with the press...from opposite sides of the spectrum. If you get their attention and the public's attention and cater some to them as people, they have no choice but to follow.

[plurality]

21. second place is often good enough

Take Iowa and New Hampshire, second place is often considered a win there. Granted moveon isn't either of those but do you think Dean would have recieved zero mention if he had finished second to Kerry?

As for DK and Congress, I am aware of this, he's not going to get everything he wants, but he's definitely going to get more than the other guys because he went for what he wanted and will move from there. Do you think the Dean or Kerry are going to have either of their policies approved as is, or are their watered down policies going to be watered down even more by compromise?

[redqueen]

22. I just find this tragically sad.

Why do so many of us refuse to divorce ourselves, our decisionmaking processes, and our country from the craven whore press?

Maybe I'm the odd one out here, but I don't consider the fact that they currently steward the discourse of politics and the picking of candidates to be a fait accompli, not to be fought because 'that's just the way it is'.

Are you really saying that pols should forget policy and providing for the public, and instead focus on making sure fresh donuts and coffee are waiting for journalists covering them?

*sigh*

[helleborient]

31. Why do you insist on slamming every other candidate...??

We have 8 other candidates besides Dennis Kucinich, and ALL of them are concerned about policy and providing for the public.

If DK really thinks they aren't...I think he is like the pouty little kid on the playground that thinks they are somehow endowed with the only legitimate way of looking at the world. In other words, who made DK Jesus???

Just because we disagree does not automatically mean we are in the pocket of the press or anyone.

I made a decision with a brain fully engaged. Any nasty insinuations from you or other Dennis Kucinich supporters does not change that fact.

[redqueen]

33. I'm not, I'm observing reality.

Reality is that most Democrats voted for the Patriot Act.

Reality is that even with 8 years of Clinton, including 2 years of a Democratic congress, the Fairness Doctrine (or any reasonable facsimile thereof) was not made law, the war against the poor continues to rage on, and corporate profits continued to skyrocket as the war on the poor was furthered with the help of Democrats.

If these people were concerned about the public, then they have a strange way of showing it. IMO the vast majority of them are concerned about getting re-elected, and not upsetting the status quo.

If you disagree that's your right, but don't put my thoughts off on Kucinich. He's loyal to the party, and when you call him 'the pouty little kid ... (blah blah blah)' you're really saying that to the people on these boards who are tired of having big media defended now that a few progressives think they're on the winning team. Big media is big media, and if you think they've done a 180 because of some epiphany then I'm sorry.

Once again, I have to point out that this post was directed at those who are basing their support on the candidate's support, not policies -- the people who agree with Kucinich but don't support him! If you're basing your support on other things (like policies) then fine, this thread has nothing to do with you. You agree with another candidate and nobody is saying anything to you.

Please re-read the last sentence from the first post in this thread:

"By all means if you don't agree with Kucinich, don't vote for him. But for those who do think his ideas are good, but still don't support him, why are you allowing yourself to be manipulated like this?"

Sheesh... how many times does this need to be said?

Why so defensive? If this thread isn't about you, go!

[Mairead]

57. It's not a 'slam' to say that they're not going to deliver the goods

when they've SAID they're not. Dean has no plans to make any change in the way wealth is concentrated. His policies are all status quo, possibly (but not necessarily!) with tweaks.

That is just not impressive unless all you care about is image.

[LuminousX]

44. "craven whore press"

I have a friend who works at AP, I doubt she would appreciate being called a 'craven whore' and I'm sure such things makes that local newspaper writer REALLY EAGER to write all sorts of positive things about the people who say that.

Divorce ourselves from the press... How? What other means of mass communication do we have?

[redqueen]

18. Wow my situation is completely opposite.

I had supported Dean right up until that primary. Luckily on the day of the primary I found out that he wouldn't cut the Pentagon budget.

So I voted for and donated to Kucinich. :)


Another point, though, is that Kucinich came in second in that poll. Second place -- after, what... less than 6 months campaigning? How long had Dean been out making speeches at that time?

I think he should have received a great deal of attention based on that alone. Coming out of seemingly nowhere to place second in that field should have garnered more than token coverage and consideration, from progressive media at least.

Instead if NPR remembers to mention his name I'm pleasantly surprised. :)

[helleborient]

20. If he's not getting the coverage...

He has the wrong media people and needs to hire someone new.

Trippi's skill in the Dean campaign cannot be underestimated.

[redqueen]

25. Oh come now

Trippi doesn't call Mara Liasson in the morning and say 'hey remember that Dean's running too!'

Journalists covering a debate should mention all candidates. Not discuss three or four, then mention all of them but ONE.



What really puzzles me is how so many have realized the media is corrupt, until it says what they want to hear, then the blinders go up, the defenses go up, and all objectivity seems lost. :(

[helleborient]

26. I'm sorry, but this is so stupid....

Dean did not get major media coverage when he was polling where Dennis is.

Dennis is getting the kind of media coverage Dean had when he was receiving those polling numbers.

Media coverage did not drive the masses to Dean.

[redqueen]

30. I don't know what you're calling stupid, exactly.

But the fact is that NPR, yes -- not exactly liberal but far, far better than commercial media -- has somehow 'forgotten' to mention Kucinich at all more than a few times.

You can try to say this is because he's not polling well, but that really seems like deep, deep denial when what the journalist in question is doing when they forget to mention Kucinich is not discussing the frontrunners or whatever, but LISTING the candidates participating in a debate.

Another example was when discussing opposition to the Patriot Act, somehow they forgot to mention Kucinich, despite his having led the opposition and being one of the few to vote against it, and his bill against it.

Can you honestly tell yourself this is all reasonable because he has low polling numbers????

[helleborient]

34. Link to the NPR interview of Dennis Kucinich...

http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/democrats2004/kucinich.html

Is this a tiny insignificant mention?

If you click on the interview, it's relatively lengthy like their interview of every announced candidate

And these words:

"While opposition to the Iraq war is what has galvanized Kucinich's supporters, the Ohio congressman has had little success in getting media coverage. Part of the problem for Kucinich is that Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, has become the media's "preferred" choice among the anti-war candidates. From the beginning journalists seemed to like Dean's combative style, his fiery demeanor, his willingness to take on anyone and everyone who disagrees with him. There is a sense, however, that Dean's act may be wearing a little thin; conversations with many reporters during the recent presidential candidate debate in South Carolina elicited a significant amount of criticism of Dean. The Kucinich camp knows this and sees an opening."

are the words of an NPR conspiracy against Dennis?

[redqueen]

39. Oh for Pete's sake...

Are you missing the point or being deliberately disingenuous?

Of course he's been interviewed and he's been in the debates, too... what we're talking about is the constant name dropping and articles that the other, more corporate-friendly candidates get.

[LuminousX]

41. Why should they drop Kucinich's name?

Where is the story?

I keep saying it, but I'll say it again. The media is lazy and stupid. If you want them to carry a story, you have to write it up for them, give them the angle. If you want op/ed pieces written about you, you better call up the editor personally and give him some information, give him a personal connection. When you have an event and want good press coverage, you better have your staff take some of the top level reporters out for lunch or they will cover some other story.

And the core of it all... BE INTERESTING. DK isn't. My opinion, I know, but I listen to him, I read his speeches, there is nothing there that excites me. So I don't talk about DK outside of DU. I talk about Dean (because of the carnival feel of his campaign, the anything can happen at any moment excitement it generates) and Kerry (for his true 'gravitas').

[redqueen]

46. I can't believe I'm reading this.

carnivals and gravitas.

I'm done!

[Mairead]

62. Nice poison-pen piece, that

Look at the things they leave out. Look at the slant. It's practically a textbook example of what RQ is saying.

[Mairead]

58. Particularly since all the DU pundits were predicting he'd get 3rd place

behind Kerry, and possibly even worse.

You know, the DU pundits, the guys who know everything, just ask them.

[helleborient]

35. Press coverage of Dennis Kucinich...

Media interviews

NPR - www.npr.org/programs/specials/democrats2004/transcripts/kucinich_trans.html
Salon - http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/01/kucinich/index_np.html
Santa Fe New Mexican -
http://www.dreamwater.com/blueelf/prezKUCINICH.html

Other easy to find coverage -

MSNBC -
http://www.dreamwater.com/blueelf/prezKUCINICH.html
He's also on MSNBC's daily political schedule - all of the candidates are.
CNN -
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/13/kucinich/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/cf.opinion.kucinich/index.html (from last February)

Those are just a very brief search on google - hardly seems like he's being ignored - great photos of him, too, with the articles.

[LuminousX]

38. His campaign doesn't seem to be able to capitalize on it

Actually, it is because he doesn't have enough supporters to echo these stories far and wide. The DK Telegraph peters out the day after DK appears in the press. DK did a Meet The Press interview... anyone recall it? Dean did a Meet the Press interview... EVERYONE recalls it.

I think the fact of the matter is DK has limited appeal.

[redqueen]

40. These kinds of pat statements really are upsetting.

"I think the fact of the matter is DK has limited appeal."

Oh really? That's what you think the fact of the matter is? Well thanks so much for sharing that.

What I do know for a fact is that we've all seen the results of the poll which clearly showed just how many people in NH even know who the hell he is. I think that might just have an eensy weensy little bit of an impact on how much 'appeal' he has, don't you? That people KNOW about him, and what he stands for? :eyes:

Please try to take at least the pertinent factors into consideration while forming an opinion, please.

Thanks.

[LuminousX]

43. pertinent factors

He's been given ample time for people to get to know him. He isn't appealing to them. Among the people most likely to support him (MoveOn Primary) he came in second. Out in the real world, he comes in last in national polls. Are you saying Edwards had better name recognition?

Limited appeal. Okay, that is my opinion. I will sit back and await the masses to rise up and vote DK in.

[helleborient]

47. The majority of people who do know about him and his policies...

Don't support him for president either...so why would greater recognition automatically equal more support?

Wishful thinking?

[rdfi-defi]

49. i think redqueen was on to something in post 33

"big media is big media, and if you think they've done a 180 because of some epiphany then i'm sorry."

we all saw (and continue to see) the media spin when it comes to the coverage of the war in iraq. the media is continuing with the same principles now as then.

using the last few elections as a guide, we all know who the nomine is going to be for the dems in 04. the media makes the decision way in advance based on $$$ and early pole popularity. this time around the chosen one is dean.

i congradulate hardline dean supporters for finding a candidate you can get behind who speaks to what matters most to you. i say that with respect. but one way of looking at your defense of the the media's bias coverage is that you can now sit back and cruise to the nomination. right or wrong doesn't matter right? all that matters is winning. fcc deregulation and the predictable outcomes are a good thing if my guy is on top.

"who brought up the fcc?" is your next thought, yes? i did. so i can stick to my theme. the fcc issues the licence to broadcast with the understanding that the air waves are used for the public good. the people own the air waves. it is in the interest of the public good to present the candidates with equal coverage. if there is equal coverage and one candidate does not have support then so be it. but thoes contracts are not genuinly honored so we kucinich supporters should fight on. i know i'm going to

[burr]

52. And this is why the media did not predict Goldwater's impacts in 64...

or Reagan's starting in 66. And it is to the benefit of the party out of power, when the press is taken by surprise.

In 1964 there was a beginning of a new movement in the south. In 1960, Nixon's southern base of support was limited to urban and suburban voters who were in the minority then...and he fared well in in urban black neighborhoods. So the divide was urban against rural...with Democrats carring the rurals states in the South and Republicans faring better in the states with urban centers.

In 1964 Barry Goldwater became the first Republican to campaign activately in many southern states, including Georgia. He attracted a large group of stauch right-wing supporters, willing embrace a new party in that region. He also became the first Republican to fair well in the south. First starting with de-alignment in the 70's and 80's, the south finally became a majority GOP region beginning in the 90's.

However...this happened neither with an overnight election victory, nor with single-minded focus on winning back a single office. It took sticking to principles which groups of regional voters agreed with, it took working in states that were traditionally one-party states, and it took thick skin to reject the assumptions made by the media that such a task was impossible. If our party wishes to survive it must win back the majority with the support of the people, also if we hope to win back the majority it must be done based on moral and democratic principles. But we do not have the luxury of 40 years to get our act together. Our nation could collapse within 10.