truthout Statement on the Mainstream Media's Coverage of the Primaries

[WilliamPitt]

Selling Politics
By Marc Ash and William Rivers Pitt

Thursday 15 January 2004

http://truthout.org/docs_04/011604A.shtml

The morning after Paul O’Neill accused George W. Bush of lying to the nation about his plans for war with Iraq, the headline for the San Diego Union Tribune read: "Dean Under Attack." This was an interesting whiff, and an example of a large problem. As the Democratic nominating process nears crunch time, we at truthout are wondering what the rules are. The Dean campaign, for one example, has charged that they are the target of coordinated attacks, not only by Democratic rivals, but by powerful corporate-owned media interests. Further, they contend, such attacks undermine the effectiveness of their efforts to empower ordinary citizens. Such charges, if justified, would be serious.

Many of Dean's rivals protest as well. Dennis Kucinich, whose grassroots efforts are legendary to activists nationwide, has been isolated behind a virtual iron curtain of media silence. He is left to wonder what might have possibly been had the Fourth Estate acted with true journalistic integrity. John Kerry, probably the most bona fide liberal power player in the race, finds himself faced with a media theme which focuses on the interior processes of his campaign, rather than the policies he espouses. Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton must wonder if the mainstream press is prepared to judge them by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. For Ambassador Braun in particular, this question has brought forth the endgame for her campaign. All candidates, it seems, must bear insults.

None of the Democratic candidates should hope to escape media scrutiny, or the slings and arrows of rivals. All are equals in the democratic process. If a candidate cannot fend off criticism from within his or her own party, that candidate probably does not deserve to stand as, nor will they fare well as, the national candidate in the general election. This is the purpose served by the primary system. However, truly "coordinated" attacks against any candidate from well-heeled media interests are not hallmarks of democracy, or arguably in the best interests of the voters themselves.

(snip)

But there is a way to be a professional, to be the guardian of political speech, and there are ways to fail in that endeavor. The 2000 campaign is instructive in this regard. If the mainstream media covers the 2004 election in a manner that causes unimportant stories to be overblown (the color of Gore’s suits as an allegory about his manhood), takes statements completely out of context (Gore never said he ‘invented the internet’), and fails to examine the meaning behind political rhetoric (do we yet know what a ‘compassionate conservative’ is?), we as a nation will have again been let down by the very entity that is supposed to protect us.

Furthermore, if the mainstream media deliberately works to narrow the race by reporting overblown stories about tightening margins, a process that would serve only them by manufacturing drama to bring in viewers, the process itself will have been pillaged. This kind of activity will serve to damage all the candidates equally, causing them to react to circumstances that were created out of whole cloth by journalists looking to make things more interesting. Things are interesting enough as it is.

Let us do better this time.

...more...

I covered this in some more detail in the overview:

http://www.truthout.org/overview.htm

[windansea]

1. thank god for the internet

:thumbsup:

[jmaier]

2. Your article is so on target but

what in the heck can we do other than keep up a ferocious letter writing campaign to all of the offenders ... and ... do they really care.

Their agenda appears to be most important: manufacturing the stories and races they want to cover because of ratings or whatever.

[BobbyJay]

3. William Pitt was the PM of England like 250 years ago I think.

[WilliamPitt]

4. My great great great great great great great

grandfather.

[BobbyJay]

5. Wow, that's very interesting.

I believe he was the PM during England's construction of the more modern prison/criminal justice system. It was talked about in a criminal justice class. I could be wrong. It was a few months ago.

[calimary]

9. Whoa! A pedigree! Cool!

Always wished I could trace my ancestry back like that. Hard to do when you're adopted. That is so cool! I'm jealous.

on edit -

BTW, glad to see you posting with gusto again.

[OhioStateProgressive]

12. interesting

I had a High School teacher who told me he was something like the great great great great great grandson of William Pitt

(on edit) he was also the campaign Director of Marc Guthrie, who ran and lost to Congressman Bob Ley a couple elections ago

[quaker bill]

6. Thanks Will

I agree and have felt for a while that the recent attack mode the media has delved into was based in an intent to keep the race close or make it seem close for ratings.

This problem was recently directed toward Dean. However, if the paradigm holds, it will spread to other campaigns as they rise in the polls. If for no other reason than the fact that your guy may be next, we should oppose this as a party.

[dsc]

7. But when people like me actually take the time

to debunk articles and post those debunkings here we are called bitter crack pots and worse. Astonishing.

[WilliamPitt]

8. Kick

[Walt Starr]

10. Excellent article

If the internet had not come along, we would be living in a fascist dicatorship right now.

Wit the internet, we still have a chance...

[dajabr]

11. Need to be vigilant about this...

This seems like a good place to add this article. Even if you don't like Dean, the theme will apply to the eventual nominee (links to analysis of Gore-ing within article as well).

The media vs. Howard Dean

Democrats haven't voted yet, but reporters have got the story: The former Vermont governor is angry, gaffe-prone and unelectable. How do they know? Republicans, and anonymous Democrats, told them so.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert

Jan. 13, 2004 | When the Washington Post introduced readers to Howard Dean in a long Page 1 feature July 6, part of a series of "meet the Democrats" candidate profiles, the paper went for the jugular, literally, with a cartoonish, unflattering description to open the article: "Howard Dean was angry. Ropy veins popped out of his neck, blood rushed to his cheeks, and his eyes, normally blue-gray, flashed black, all dilated pupils."

Six months later, an extended version of that campaign narrative, polished by Republican talking-points memos and echoed day after day by the mainstream media, remains a constant of the campaign trail: Dean is a sarcastic smart aleck with foot-in-the mouth disease, a political ticking time bomb. The former Vermont governor remains the front-runner among Democratic voters, but he's gotten increasingly caustic treatment from the media, which has dwelled on three big themes -- that Dean's angry, gaffe-prone and probably not electable -- while giving comparatively far less ink to the doctor's policy and political prescriptions that have catapulted him ahead of the Democratic field. Newsweek's critical Jan. 12 cover story, "All the Rage: Dean's Shoot-From-the-Hip Style and Shifting Views Might Doom Him in November," achieved a nifty trifecta that covered anger, gaffes and electability, all three of the main media raps against Dean.

More: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/13/dean_media/index_np.html

Get the day pass, it's worth it.

[bearfartinthewoods]

13. i'd like to take this opportunity to say how wrong it was for me to say

that Kerry jumped the shark with his use of 'fucked up'. it's a perfect example of what you are saying as that was actually the turning point in his campaign. the idea that a candidate has to swear to get notice and coverage is, well....fucked up.

[mmonk]

14. Good one

I need to send it to media outlets. But what do you do? Stop watching or listening to them?

[never cry wolf]

15. Sheesh,

first time I have posted in GDp2004 and I got the stop sign.

Anyway, just a kick for a great piece.

[Duder]

16. Good article Will

And it appears justified:

Watchdog study finds more criticism of Dean than other Democrats on network news

'Howard Dean received significantly more criticism on network newscasts than the other Democratic presidential contenders, who were the subjects of more favorable coverage, according to a study released Thursday.

More than three-quarters of the coverage of Dean's foes by the nightly news programs was favorable, while a majority of attention to Dean was negative, the Center for Media and Public Affairs found.

The study by the Washington-based media watchdog also found that network attention to the campaign was down by 62 percent compared to the last race involving an incumbent president, in 1996.

Researchers examined 187 stories broadcast on the ABC, CBS or NBC evening newscasts in 2003, looking at elements including quoted remarks about candidates and how they were depicted in profiles.

The study found that 49 percent of the coverage of former Vermont Gov. Dean was positive, compared to 78 percent of the rest of the Democratic field, collectively.'

[WilliamPitt]

17. Kick