Who thinks the media is picking "your next President" for you...?

[cthrumatrix]

Anyone who reads DU knows the media BS propaganda and lies that are spun for this Whitehouse.

Who in the heck thinks that the media does not or will not influence this election?

I think we are seeing it take place before our eyes. They don't Washington "outsiders" Clark or Dean. They don't want change. They don't want the people taking back America.

Either the media wants Kerry to win...or the "powers that be" are helping. These are the same ones that pull our "puppet in chief" strings.


The corporate owned media have an agenda ...and it's definitely not "for the people"....it's for the "sheeple".

[NNN0LHI]

1. I don't. They would love to, but I ain't letting them n/t

[cthrumatrix]

3. so you think now that the media took "truth pills" and "ethics pills"..??

[NNN0LHI]

7. What are you talking about? n/t

[cthrumatrix]

22. so you are either for Clark or dean or Kucinich? (sorry if I error ed)

[NNN0LHI]

44. Undecided n/t

[xultar]

2. I do! n/t

[windansea]

4. cartoon

[cthrumatrix]

12. I guess you don't analyze much in the media or how they propagandize

but nice cartoon

[windansea]

51. sure I do...the cartoon sums it up nicely n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

26. Oh man! That cartoon is so funny!

Spot on, too!

[Democrats unite]

5. I think they are trying...

But I don't think it's going to work.

[THUNDER HANDS]

6. um...no

Dean got enough good press in the months before the caucuses that he should have been able to hold onto his lead. And Clark, if he actaully thinks for himself, would have taken advantage of his high-profile annoucement ceremony and ran with it and campaigned in Iowa.

Instead Dean wiltered under the heat and Clark's engine stalled.

I don't think the media wants Kerry to win. I just thinks some supporters here are willing to blame anything but reality for why their candidates aren't showing better.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[otohara]

34. Not So According to Media Watch Dog

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

Thursday, January 15, 2004

(01-15) 17:12 PST LOS ANGELES (AP) --

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.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/01/15/politics2012EST0795.DTL

[eyeswideopened]

70. Get a clue buddy

It's obvious the media will do all they can to ensure that someone they feel Bush can beat wins the democratic nomination... then with that said and down they will turn on him like a mad dog and take him down before the 2004 election in November.

[LZ1234]

8. I agree...

I totally agree with you. I think you summed up exactly what is going on. I'm so fed up with the media's biased slant on things. They ARE telling us how to think. Maybe that's why voters did the opposite in Iowa - they voted against the media's winner, Dean. I wish the media would do what they were supposed to do - report the news - that's it, and keep their opinions to themselves.

[cthrumatrix]

10. none of their "corporatism bias" is new.... it's BS

[DenverDem]

18. Election 2004-Politricks As Usual!!

The choices will be between

Corporate Globalist Feudalism Bull Goose Loony Style

Or

Corporate Globalist Feudalism Lite.

[freetempe]

55. Can't hardly wait...

A repeat of 2002. May the best Corporate Globalist Feudalism candidate win!!!!

[TexasSissy]

11. Well, they picked the CA gov. But if you're talking about Dean

But if you're talking about unfairness to Dean, I don't agree. I think the media WANTED Dean to win the nomination because he's more colorful than some of the others and made for good stories.

The media still wants Dean to win. That's why you hear his name on every station, no matter what the content about the race. They love him as news fodder and would love that to continue.

But yes, I think they LIKE influencing the vote. The feeling of power. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

During the CA governor's race, Schwarzenegger's face was all over the media, especially Hardball. Even when Davis was occasionally mentioned, there'd be a photo of Schwarzenegger in the background or for the "shoot to" shot. They wanted him as governor, and they got it done. Yes, the media wants to influence, and influence they do.

[cthrumatrix]

15. you can't have it both way -- either they do or they don't

and if they do...then we are always seeing it.

And yes Arhhhnold is a prime example....spin city.

[TexasSissy]

40. My ans. is consistent. They DO...and they want Dean.

Hence all the talk about him, still, even though they are saying negative things. Talk about a candidate, negative or positive, keeps the candidate at the forefrunt, and they know it.

The candidates who have to worry are those whose names are rarely mentioned: Kucinich, Sharpton (and used to be Edwards and Clark).

[blm]

13. They tried all last year by giving Dean all the media oxygen.

Thankfully the Democrats woke up in time and Kerry out-maneuvered the media that declared his candidacy dead for months.

[nomaco-10]

24. Dean got the "media oxygen" because he had ...

something new and different to say. He stood up and spoke out against this bullshit war that your candidate voted for. He gave us a voice and the media could not stop the demand that he be heard. The media giveth and the media taketh away. Clark and Kerry are finding this out now and it's just starting for them. We'll see how they handle it in the ensuing weeks ahead.
In answer to the original post, yes, the media will pick the candidate the same as they tell us what brand of mouthwash to use and what pair of sneakers are "cool" to wear this year, but WE let them.

[blm]

35. Then explain why Dean was propping Bush up in 2002.

And why the media stayed quiet about Kerry's substantive attacks on Bush.


Kerry Shows Courage In Challenging Bush
Thursday, August 8, 2002 By: Joe Conason

New York Observer
>>>>>
But it was John Kerry who delivered the most interesting, substantive and challenging message. His subject was George W. Bush's shortcomings as a world leader.

The New York Times reported that Mr. Kerry "offered a long attack on Mr. Bush's foreign policy," although the paper gave short shrift to the details in the Senator''s speech. What he began to articulate was a Democratic critique of this administration''s blunt and myopic unilateralism, and a vision that restores international alliances to the center of American diplomacy.

>>>>>>>

He is, however, no naïïve internationalist who abhors military force. As he has done before, Mr. Kerry wondered aloud why the President didn't muster sufficient firepower in Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda''s army when the chance arose at Tora Bora.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
There is, however, at least one benefit for Mr. Kerry in speaking out on those faraway places and problems. While his rivals sound as if they''re campaigning for the offices they already occupy, he sounds as if he is running for President.
Whether Mr. Kerry can engage the electorate in a discussion of America''s global responsibilities is far from certain. His own dispassionate style may hinder him. Yet he deserves great credit for reclaiming international leadership for his party when others cannot or will not.

***************************

Here's Dean's response when shown clips of Kerry's attacks on Bush's leadership. July 2002.

 MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the military operation in Afghanistan has been successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: Yes, I do, and I support the president in that military operation.
       
       MR. RUSSERT: The battle of Tora Bora was successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: I’ve seen others criticize the president. I think it’s very easy to second-guess the
       commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don’t choose to engage in doing that.

[nomaco-10]

42. Dean "propped bush* up in 2002"

You have quotes from an interview where Dean is shown as having supported the invasion of Afghanistan to fight Al Queda and find Bin Laden. This is nothing new and has absolutely nothing to do with the war in Iraq.
It is futile to try to change the subject and skew the facts in evidence just to advance your candidate's agenda.
I will not ask for an "explanation" from you about your candidate's vote and subsequent support for the war in Iraq as I know you'll just drag out the Biden-Luger Resolution and it's become all to tedious to keep beating that dead horse, I have better things to do.

[blm]

45. Wrong. Dean KNEW that Bush failed, yet he wouldn't back up Kerry

for his own political reasons. It was Dems like Dean who PUBLICLY sided with Bush's leadership that kept Bush's numbers high.

The point is also that Kerry WAS attcacking Bush first and most substantively and yet the media didn't let him be heard.

[freetempe]

59. Thats an interesting article

from August of 2002. If Kery was so critical of Bush's foreign policy why did he endorse is a few months later by enabling Bush to make war on Iraq??

Sounds like Kerry talking out of both sides of his mouth, one of his best traits.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

74. If "having something new and different to say" was the

defining feature of a media-promotable candidate, then that doesn't explain the blackout on Kucinich--even before Dean started raising all that money.

The mainsteam media would compare the platforms of the candidates they considered the "electable ones," namely Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, Dean, and occasionally Edwards, again and again. Again and again they would either ignore Kucinich entirely or just say stuff like, "Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, and Carol Moseley-Braun were also present." When DK appeared here in October, we had to beg the local media to cover the event, and yet only one network TV station out of five in the Twin Cities covered a rally that attracted 1600 people. The others had a more "important" story about some domestic scandal with a local law enforcement official.

Supposedly JK, JL, DG, HD, and JE were "electable" and DK wasn't. Only now we know that DG wasn't actually "electable."

In my opinion, Dean has little to complain about. At least he gets mentioned. The criticism seems to fire up his supporters, so it may even help in the end.

I don't think the media have it in for Dean at all. They like him because he's the "safe" form of rebellion for disaffected Dems, the one who puts on a good show but won't actually challenge their power.

The media are jackals, and they are quick to pounce upon any sign of weakness. When Dean finished worse than expected, it was his turn to be attacked by the jackals. If the situation is reversed in New Hampshire, with HD coming in first and JK coming in third, you can bet that the jackals will be all over Kerry.

In the end, what the media like most of all, aside from sensationalism, is the perception of backing the winner. In 2000, all the polls said that Bush was going to win the popular vote, so they cheerled for Bush. A month ago, indications were that Dean would sail to the nomination, sweeping aside all eight other candidates with a wave of his hand, so the media cheerled for him. Then Kerry won, and now he can do no wrong.

If someone other than Dean or Kerry wins New Hampshire, he'll be the new golden boy, and the media will be savaging Kerry and Dean--and, of course, continuing to ignore Dennis Kucinich. Which may not be a bad thing, come to think of it.

[Lorien]

47. See post #34

Americans didn't "wake up", Kerry is the media's (and DLCs) "chosen one" and our Bob Dole. The media attacked leveled against Gore will be a fond memory compared to what they'll do against "boring, French looking, new-england Ivy league elitist, skull and bones corporate friendly, anti-gun, bank funded,career politician, bad hair Kerry" once he gets the nomination.

[nomaco-10]

50. Yep, they're about to find out and it ain't gonna be pretty.

[snoochie]

14. Of course they are

That's what they do. They have a stake in the game, so they're trying to get the most favorable outcome for them.

Does Kerry talk about ending the corporate monopoly of the public discourse? Dean does. Kucinich does.

Do any other candidates even mention this?

It's SO important.

[cthrumatrix]

19. I want a candidate "by the people" ..."for the people"...not by the corp.

media and the powers that be.

Anyone who can't see that this is so...better start reading DU more often.

[Desertrose]

84. Has it ever occurred to anyone that they love JK,HD,WC ...

.....the media would ultimately be ok with any of them...
Kerry is a DC insider...Howard Dean is a corporate kinda guy...Wes Clark is a military man...Edwards,not sure....

Who is the one the media "disappears"?

Who is the one the media absolutely ignores or belittles every chance they get....?

DENNIS KUCINICH

Ever ask why he is spun as "unelectable" when he has as good a chance as any listed above??

He has consistently voted against big special interests, against corporate gov't. The media would have the most to lose if Kucinich were elected....thats why you never her anything about him.

For all those who buy into the unelectable BS...think about why you are buying into it...


Kucinich- the only one for real change....

Peace
DR

(I feel the flames coming already on this one)

[tkmorris]

85. I couldn't agree more

And the sad part is that even here, the home of all peoples Dem, there are many who say silly crap like "I love Kucinich, but he's not electable so I'm supporting _______ ".

It drives me batshit. It truly does.

[bicentennial_baby]

16. It sure looks like that

I can't say I'm surprised though. We need a united front.

[Cocoa]

17. the media hates Kerry

they personally dislike him the way they did with Gore.

Also, Kerry is a strong opponent against Bush, and not an easy guy to tear down. They will try, however.

[cthrumatrix]

20. exactly...so they prop him for GE.....and tear tear tear.

this is their guy.

Welcome to America...home of the corporate owned govt and media.

[Cocoa]

28. they're not propping him

they're tearing him or ignoring him.

And people at DU are joining in with the tearing. They're making the same arguments the whores are making, that he's inconsistent on Iraq.

[emulatorloo]

38. I don't see much propping up of any of the Dem candidates.

Seems like equal opportunity tearing down. They are just playing the news like a soap opera -- they think that is the best way to sell it to get better ratings to sell more ads.

For the most part, TV news is driven by the desire for ratings.

The desire for ratings is driven by the desire to sell ads. The higher the ratings, the higher they can charge advertisers.

They feel that the way to get ratings is to make things as dramatic as possible. What makes the best story in terms of Narrative Drama. They make everything out like a big soap opera.

For a while the soap opera was about the handsome outsider doctor and how he is sweeping the nation. All the other suitors were ugly and dumb.

Now it is about how the handsome doctor fell from grace. The other suitors are still ugly and dumb, and aren't getting near the fabulous press I keep hearing about on DU.

Are people bamboozled by this? I don't know -- Iowa belies it to a certain extent. Some people don't like the media to tell them what to do. Fox viewers are another issue.

But most importantly, what are we going to do about it -- let's get the message out, talk to people, counter the Rove talking points and move ahead,

[vi5]

21. I wish someone would explained to me why the Bush/Rove media

would want to build up John Kerry and tear down Howard Dean. Is there any friggin evidence of this whatsoever, or are certain democrats attempting to pull the Rove/Repug inspired move of "If we repeat it enough times it will be true, despite the lack of anything even remotely resembling facts."

[cthrumatrix]

27. simple....you have to look at "who is bush puppet master" -corporations

Corporatism in media, government, policies etc...has never been so rampant in our history.

Look at the medicare reform bill...look at the gifts made to the pharms and corporations in that bill...and how it screws seniors.

There at the "lie and manipulation" with the help of the non-invesitgative media to push the war. There were plenty of experts that said NO wmds...keep on quarantining Sadam...but that's not waht happened..O"neills book clealry showed the intent of bush 10 days into office..and the media hides the book and ignored the content...which is a treasure.

Money has always been in politics and the senate, congress are not oblvious to this and compromised in many ways.

I can go on and on...I'm sick and tired of the BS media spin...and a govt that craps on the people until election time.

[vi5]

30. Wow. What a surprise...not even close to an answer to my question....

Really...explain to me what it is about Kerry that the media really wants him to win and Dean to lose? Factually speaking what even slightest shred of evidence is there of this?

I think they want any f'ng democrat to run and they don't care because they are going to tear each and every one of them down equally. And clearly if this place is any indication they will be doing it with the help of a lot of people calling themselves democrats.

[Lorien]

49. See post #34

there is evidence.

[Karmadillo]

23. Dunno. Maybe that would explain the media's continued focus on Dean

and the possibility of a comeback even though the Iowa speech and his People magazine interview have given the Republicans excellent attack points for the general election.

[cthrumatrix]

29. well...many who don't know who owns the media...better start learning

becuase they have the influence in more ways than you can imagine.

[mitchum]

25. No, it's we Witch Doctors For Kerry working our evil voodoo...

on all of you good righteous people. Couldn't possibly be a logical explanation, could it?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mitchum]

32. Ooga Booga!

[Dover]

33. The media likes Kerry. They have from the get-go.

He is the insider, and all the talk about the GOP being afraid of him is hogwash. Kerry has embraced a number of Bush policies with his vote and was one of the few who "believed" he would keep his word regarding the War Resolution...despite all the evidence to the contrary. What's to fear?

[blm]

36. That's why they declared his candidacy dead to dry up his fundraising.

They really want Bush to have to face the one man who exposed more government corruption than any other lawmaker in modern history. Yeah...Rove must be jumping for joy.

[emulatorloo]

41. And that's why they wrote so much about JK "imploding"

campaign last November and ignored his speeches positions and records for so long.

[pansypoo53219]

37. Dean wouldn't play their games

so they HAD to take him down.

[emulatorloo]

39. See Post #35 n/t

[Dover]

43. Yes, Dean has spoken out against the big media mergers...

.....

[no name no slogan]

76. Yet his biggest contributor is AOL/Time-Warner-- don't hold your breath

I highly doubt Dean would do much to reign in big media once he got in office-- maybe the cursory slap on the wrist for a couple of them (like ClearChannel), but I doubt he'd actively work to make any significant changes.

Dean is not the candidate of significant change, as he's shown through his platform and position statements. He's for the band-aid approach, fixing a little here and there, but not for changing the way things are done.

The band-aid approach is fine when you've got a cut on your leg, but doesn't do much good when you've had your whole leg torn off.

[emulatorloo]

46. Please, I am serious, I really need this explained to me

This is not a slam, or a trick question. I like Howard Dean a lot; it is clear that he isn't my first choice for the nomination.

But he does appeal to me a lot, and he will have my vote and my volunteer time if he is the nominee. I guarantee you that.

Can you explain your position that Howard Dean is the only candidate that the Media must destroy, and that there is a conspiracy to get him because he is the only one who can unseat Bush?

His message is the mainstream message of the Democratic Party, and if you look at it in broad strokes, it isn't that much different than the other top 3. If anything, he is the most conservative in his views.

He is running as an outsider, but all Govs who have run against Senators etc run as outsiders. To be pure about it, it is hard to really call a Governor an outsider. He's a seasoned politician, and quite frankly that is a good thing . .To be really pure, Sharpton is the most outside of them all.

His war position is not that radically different than the other top three, other than he didn't vote for the IWR and he says he wouldn't have. But none of them are for unilateral pre-emptive war, and have been pretty consistant about if from day one.

He has criticised GWB, but so have the others, as effectively as he and apparently from what I see in post 35 as long as he has.

So why is he singled out by Corps Etc to be destroyed, while the others are their secret choices? To me it seems equal opportunity slams frm the media -- please help me see what i am missing.

On edit. clarify

[emulatorloo]

64. Anybody? This is a genuine plea n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

80. See my post #74

I don't think the press is especially harsh to Dean. They're just being harsh to Dean now after building him up above all the other candidates for months.

They'll do the same to Kerry unless he places first in NH.

[emulatorloo]

82. Thanks Lydia

Interesting analysis, and they will eat any Dem alive.

Dean supporters? can you answer my question and help me "get it?" Walt is helping me elsewhere in this thread but I would like to hear more.

[poskonig]

48. Dean and Clark are responsible for their losses in Iowa.

Blaming the media is always a path to loserdom. I tell this to everyone, no matter who says it.

[LZ1234]

52. Are you denying...

that the media is powerful? Maybe you're too smart to be manipulated by the media but can you say that for the general public? Some people are too busy to research, investigate the truth, or even read. They depend on what's on TV.

[eileen_d]

57. LOL - you said it better than I could!

:yourock:

[BuelahWitch]

79. Clark didn't participate in the IA Caucus

But he was getting slammed pretty badly at the last debate. Plain to see their out to de-rail his grassroots train too. :eyes:

[Crunchy Frog]

53. I think that this primary season

is the most heavily manipulated one that we have ever had in this country. The corporate media is really choosing who does and who doesn't get exposure, and is definitely trying to steer things to their own preferred outcome. Their agenda is definitely not to promote what is best for the Democratic party to say the least.

I have a real sense of helplessness and disenfranchisement, I feel that the corporate media will work with the repukes to make absolutely sure that Bush holds onto the presidency.

I'm feeling very depressed right now.

[Walt Starr]

54. Conservatism and Liberalism in government is a myth

It's all corporatism all the time. There is one party acting like two parties keeping the rabble in line via fear. Fear of terrorism, fear of activist liberal judges or fear of the loss of choice, fear of a homosexual agenda or fear of a loss of basic freedoms.

Corporatism found the single emotion to most easily rule the masses, fear.

And the Corporate biased media will pick a corporatist candidate for the Corporatist Democrats to run against the Corporatist Republicans.

There is not two party system any longer. There is only global corporatism.

[emulatorloo]

62. Democratic party same as Republican Party?

Walt, I used to think that there wasn't much difference either. And then Reagan got re-elected.

Please show me evidence from the websites of any of the top 4 Dem candidates that they are:

Anti-activist judge or three branches of govt
Pro-patriot act as implemented by Ascroft
Afraid of homosexuals or against civil unions
Anti-women's right to choose

[Walt Starr]

63. I say those issues are part of the scare tactics

Reproductive rights will not be altered appreciably by any corporatist candidate.

Homosexual rights will not be altered appreciably by any corporatist candidate.

Both sides will do more to consolidate power in the hands of corporatists. If not Patriot, then some other act.

Corporatism is all about the facade of issues that never get any sort of final resolution in order to keep the status quo.

I've watched for a quarter century while boths sides played the fear game. Their ideal is for less than 10% of the populace to actually bother voting.

[emulatorloo]

67. Ok, Thanks. . .that helps me understand. . .

your position a little better. I'm real symphathetic to what you are saying but don't think the Dems are as bad as you make out. . .

What makes Howard Dean, Wes Clark and Al Sharpton the radical break you are looking for? To me they seem to be pretty mainstream Dems.

[Walt Starr]

69. They are all going to the people

Look at who the big corporations support and who is getting small donations from regular folks.

Populism trumps corporatism, hence the attacks on Dean and Clark.

Populism is the only thing that can overcome the entrenched corporatism running the world right now.

[emulatorloo]

71. Ok thanks - another question then

I am pretty clueless about how to interpret contrib data -- I don't understand much about how contributions are reported so help me out.

I went to the Center for Public Integretity to see what I could about who is contributing to the diff campaigns.

Here's the pdf I downloaded from there:

http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/docs/bop2004_updated_career_patrons.pdf

All of the candidates have Corporations listed as patrons except, as far as I can tell. DKucinich and ASharpton

So for example:

Listed by Clark' name - Citigroup
Listed by Howard Dean's name - Time Warner, Microsoft, IBM

If you have come across some of my non primary 2004 posts at all you know I am not big on MS :)

So what am I missing here re interpreting this stuff?

THANKS

[eileen_d]

56. "If my candidate doesn't win, it's a corporate media conspiracy"

Of course the corporate media is influencing the elections; no sane person would deny that is is a huge factor in people's perceptions of the candidates and who is the current frontrunner.

However, the media isn't the only force at work here. There are actual people behind the scenes. It's sure easier to blame a big faceless entity though.

By the way, I don't consider Dean or Clark "outsiders" (but then again, I think insider/outsider is a useless distinction, so YMMV)

[mandyky]

58. I don't THINK it,

I know it. These people are not even journalists anymore. They are propoganda spouters.

[Astarho]

60. definately

nt

[shance]

61. Totally***and the owners of the electronic voting machines.

We have work to do.

We can talk about campaigns all day, but if the instruments of Democracy are gerry-rigged, we are just pi***n in the wind.

The candidates need to wake up and see the writing.

[AP]

65. Yeah. Bush.

[anti-NAFTA]

66. I like John Kerry, but it would be ridiculous

to say that CNN, at least, doesn't want him to win. CNN is his third biggest contributor, as I've learned from a thread posted here a few days ago. I used to think that CNN was behind Dean, but I thought wrong. Kerry, although I like how his campaign, unlike Edwards's, doesn't contain any cynical appeals to the working classes, is CNN's candidate. End of story.

[curse10]

78. CNN is not anyone's 3rd biggest contributor

Piper Rudnick, a law firm, is Kerry's 3rd largest contributor

[eyeswideopened]

68. Dean Getting Second Look From N.h. Voters, Encouraging report

I just wanted to share this news so I'm not sure if there is somewhere more appropriate to post it or if I will include the link correctly. This is the hopeful news I have been desperately awaiting for the past few days. It's an AP story recently posted on Yahoo news. Dean Getting Second Look From N.H. Voters



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/dean

[ScreamingMeemie]

72. They will if we let them. If we listen to how "electable" this candidate

is over that one...If we listen to which issues take precedence over others...then we are letting them choose. Go with your heart. Forget polls, forget the media. It has worked wonders for me. :hi:

[ecstatic]

73. I got proof of it today

I conversated with my bf's friend (who is in the military) today and he was repeating all the right-wing talking points. It was as if all of his opinions came straight out of Fox News Channel's mouth.

I was so disgusted. He said he doesn't like Bush but since all of the Democrats are jokes, he will vote for Bush anyway. WTF? He said Dean is too mean and that he doesn't know much about Kerry or anyone else. He said he formed some of his opinions after watching the debates.

To solve this problem--we have to get the candidate's messages out there. The debates are not a good way to get the ideas out there-especially since there are so many of them!

[leyton]

75. Not me.

I refuse the blame the media for anything.

[curse10]

77. Just because Dean didn't win, doesn't mean that the media is picking

anything.

A month ago it was all dean all the damn time. Heck, leading up till Iowa all I saw was Dean on the damn news. The Dean campaign imploded in Iowa and Kerry worked hard to get what he did. The media doesn't annoint anyone.

[Skwmom]

81. I don't think it could be more obvious

It's the media driving the whole process, they are not reporting the news they are making it.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

83. Dean's lead was largely helped by the huge disparity in coverage

Disparity in FAVOR of Dean. Sure the media is attacking him now, but they attack all Dems. Oh and the media does worse to some candidates that threaten them the most, ignore those candidates almost completely.

TWL

[MessiahRp]

86. I agree

Because of the anti-war nature of DU I think a lot of people are so hellbent on Dean they are failing to see the truth...

John Kerry sat in the middle of the pack for a very long time when the Media pushed Dean as the frontrunner and basically annoited him the winner before a vote was even cast.

The reality is now votes have been cast and it appears the voters disagree (so far) with the Media's original assessment.

Kerry has done a good job of getting back on message and has looked very Presidential to many with good speeches (and I thought had the best televised Democratic response to Bush on SOTU night).

Dean's speech hurt him and whether or not the media has overblown the incident by making it a joke, they didn't make the speech. Not to mention Dean was sinking like the titanic in Iowa a week before that speech.

So we can't honestly sit here and whine for Dean because he was given the benefit of the Media declaring him the winner because of his money, etc. and now because Kerry is leading and getting more coverage (which is fair when you see how he has surged in the polls the past two and a half weeks) you can't honestly blame the media for pushing him. He's just getting a little bit of the rub that Dean was given for HALF A YEAR!

Oh and by the way, Fox's pitbulls on the Beltway Boys, and Repubs all over political TV have started burying Kerry and to a lesser degree others by using their immature namecalling tactics that they ignorantly accuse us of. "Kerry is arrogant", "Kerry is pompus", "Clark is a rumor mongerer" (for that Michael Moore comment about Bush deserting), "Dean is an Angry man", "Edwards illegally took trial lawyer money".

They have been nonstop about spinning their bullshit on everyone and yes their message is now about lying to the public about Kerry by painting his as arrogant and pompus (ahemm... Bush, the most arrogant President ever... Pot... Kettle... WAY black....).

So with the good of more coverage comes the bashing that is bound to occur and it's not always a good thing to be the target of everyone by being #1. It has torpedoed Dean's campaign a bit and I am sure it will hurt Kerry once we get past NH.

Rp

[justsam]

87. Fox news

would suck up to Saddam if he was a republican, they say very little that is positive for the dems and if they do say something good, they say 15 things negative to keep the public from thinking about the positive statement.