The media bias against Clark - For supporters and non-supporters.

[Bread and Circus]

Poll question: The media bias against Clark - For supporters and non-supporters.

I think there is an incredible bias against Clark in the
media. Except for the Clinton family, I have never seen such
a charade of ignorance, lies, and vitriol. It is very, very
frustrating. I understand Clark is a long shot but he has done
very well for himself by placing third and beating professional
politicians who have no history of ever voting for the GOP.

To people who have actually paid attention to it, there appears
to be an orchestrated attempt to harrass, ignore, lie, or spin
Clark's candidacy into oblivion. It seems to be coming from the
Right but also the left and mainstream media.

The question is "Why?" but I don't think there is an easy answer.

First off, Clark and his campaign has made alot of mistakes, gaffes,
missteps, and bad calls. I am not saying he is perfect. However,
he has not done this any moreso than even Kerry or other major
candidates. This post is not about the quality of Clark's candidacy
but rather the "Why's" regarding this overt bias against anything
bad he does and the belittlement, refutation, or lying about
anything good.

Please choose a scenario from the following or add your own post:

[TacticalPeek]

1. Takes your pick.

Many on the left will never want a general to be elected President.

Many on the right will never want this general to be elected President.



edit: That would make the first case blind, principled rejection and the second blind, unprincipled rejection.

[krkaufman]

25. No, second case is unprincipled clear-eyed rejection

> That would make the first case blind, principled
> rejection and the second blind, unprincipled rejection.

No, the second case is unprincipled clear-eyed rejection. They know exactly who he is and that he would decimate Bush/Cheney; therefore, he must be stopped via "Case 1": by having the media constantly harp on his not being born a Democrat.

Let's all remember, 59% of the population voted for Reagan in 1984. We're not going to win a lot of elections with 41% of the vote -- our maximum if we reject all those who voted Republican in the past.

---

http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/U/U.S.-presidential-election,-1984.htm
1980 - 50.9%
1984 - 58.8%

[codegreen]

2. crowded field, late start, strategy...

i think it's sort of just that we have a crowded field this year.

we have alot of great nominees to choose from!

Clark got started too late, and maybe skipping Iowa was a bad strategy in retrospect.

i think a Clark campaign would kick *'s ass, but so will Kerry.

also, i think the sweater should have been canned earlier, it got overblown. too bad he couldn't have gone out in uniform, damn that would rock!

[EllieDem]

4. I'm sorry to burst some Clark bubbles

but Clark has screwed up all by himself. He interviewed with Brokaw recently and Brokaw was incredulous as to how Clark was trying to spin some of his obvious flip flops. I mean c'mon!!! He wrote an op-ed piece in british paper saying Blair and Bush out to be so PROUD of what they had accomplished in Iraq and how great this was for the Iraqi people. I'm sorry but you can't "spin" your way out of that one. And there are plenty more.

[Bread and Circus]

5. So am I correct in saying that you think there is no bias?

[Justice]

7. Sorry,

this post is lacking in something very significant - the facts.

[Qutzupalotl]

9. "proud of their RESOLVE in the face of so much doubt"

...not their judgement, mind you...plus "serious questions that need to be answered"...like, where are the WMD's. And he was writing in a foreign publication, while still a TV military analyst.

[_Jumper_]

17. Moreover

Wasn't that comment made in reference to Bush and Blair deciding to continue to the march to Baghdad in face of a severe sandstorm, not in reference to the decision to go to war?

[krkaufman]

27. That is correct

When many people were thinking the sand was about to hit the fan.

(Though, the best part of that sandstorm, was how frazzled Bush was. He was seriously producing bricks.)

[mikehiggins]

42. None of that would explain Tweety/Novak/Carlson and all the rest

steadily and consistently downplaying, disparaging and openly fighting against any chance of Clark winning. There is something more at work here and while I'm not 100% its a GOP plot, it is most certainly and blatently an unspoken agreement among all of the commentators and pundits and pollsters to downplay Clark.

I liken it elsewhere to the treatment Ayn Rand's character, Adam Rourke, goes through in the Fountainhead (I know, I know. I'm sorry I referred to Rand on DU). I consider Tweety, et al, like a pack of jackals biting at the heels of an authentic man whose very authenticity is an affront to them.

What does it take to be a "journalist" these days, anyway?

How does one "break" into that aerified level of glory inhabited by the Pat Buchanans and Bob Novaks of the world? Whether you like Wes Clark or not, what empowers these clowns to pass judgement on him?

They aren't journalists; they only play them on tv.

[Bread and Circus]

3. Kick, this is sinking too fast -- C'mon Clarkies help me out :)

[BootinUp]

6. Nice poll choices, I picked: doesn't fit the script

[MrSlayer]

8. Definite Bias.

They treat him worse than a dog.

[Justice]

10. Definite Bias

It is just the need to spin statements into the negative, or the need to point out that Clark is new at politics.

It is the absolute intense need to kill his campaign.

It is the fact that he didn't get any policy questions at the debate in NH.

It was never so clear as the debate questions, and then again last night when they just couldn't figure out how to say - Edwards did okay but Clark did not - when Clark edged Edwards out.

[MidwestMomma]

22. I agree, their efforts last night were painful to watch

But I noticed they did figure out a way. On CNN they would report Kerry as winner and talk up how he's a shoe-in now. Then they would report Dean as second and how he now sucks and should drop out. Then they would report that Edwards and Clark were in virtual tie and then, with no other mention of Clark, go to a report on Edward's chances. Then straight on to Lieberman.

They did the exact same thing on NPR this AM.

But of course if you point this out, you're whining. It's not 'cool' to be outraged at the media anymore. Go figure....

[boxster]

11. kick

[maxr4clark]

12. The first four, plus

Clark is seen as supported by Clinton. This is yet more Clinton bashing.

The main thing is that Clark doesn't help their bottom line. They would have to go out and do research on Clark to have major stories on him; they already have all of that ready to go for Kerry, Dean, and Edwards. Besides which, the ownership of every media company funds Bush. It is in the interests of the media companies for America to be divided, not united.

[Bread and Circus]

19. Oh yeah, I forgot about that one

Clark is seen as supported by Clinton. This is yet more Clinton bashing.

[texasmom]

13. They clearly want to take him out

but I've been surprised by their vehemence. Not just the overt right-wingers in the press, either, but the "mainstream" variety have stunned me. Still, one of the reasons I've been with Clark since July is that I feel like he can handle the press. Whoever is the nominee has to handle the press, because they are going to be not just against us but against us with a vengeance in the fall.

I first realized it in 2000, and I've watched it for the past three years. Whoever the nominee is has to be able to deflect the attacks with a smile, proper amount of reflection, proper amount of righteous anger and strength, and still be the guy the average voter wants to invite into their home or sit around and drink a beer with.

Clark's campaign, and frankly Clark, too, should have anticipated a lot of these attacks and had good comebacks and responses for them. They've done a tremendous amount in an incredibly short amount of time, but they just have to handle the press.

[NashVegas]

14. Clark People, Don't Hate Me For This

But while all the world was talking about Dean's gaffes, I couldn't help but notice that in cable news interviews, Clark was often going even further than Dean in his criticisms of Shrub. And he was doing it with, yes, raised temper.

Those people who bought into the "Dean's Angry" meme will have made the coming "Clark's Angry" meme possible.

[leetrisck]

16. It isn't just bias, it sounds like pure hatred

I like Clark & I like Dean (also Edwards). I don't buy into this angry garbage and that we don't like it. We better be angry and I am about what has been done to our country.

[krkaufman]

29. Hell, I'm ANGRY

I *want* a candidate who's angry at this administration. If they're not angry, they obviously don't give enough of a sit!

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. This has KKKRove written all over it. n/t

[JohnLocke]

18. "There is no bias and Clark supporters are being paranoid/whiny"

[robbedvoter]

21. Yep. Spoken like a true teflon wearer. remember, dems only

get it TEMPORARILY. Believe your own press and you're in for an interesting ride. Please, believe it! ;-)

[mikehiggins]

44. A reasonable man would have to be blind not to see it at work

last night. It was open, plain to see and consistent from beginning to end. There really is no discussion.

If you didn't see it, you should have your eyes (and attitudes) checked.

[robbedvoter]

20. Not paranoid, nor whiny, I'll fight them. period

[Jerseycoa]

39. Just look at that

The cartoonists have noticed. Gee, maybe there's something to it, huh? :D

[adamrsilva]

23. I'm a Dean supporter, but I believe there is a bias

And I believe Clark should go kick the media's ass.

[Abigail147]

26. Because Clark is an outsider like Dean.

The political crowd in Washington think they have some sort of entitlement to run the world the way they think it should be run. Clark came in third, and I did not see one little bit of coverage on him.

[Leilani]

24. There is a right wing hit squad

& that's to be expected, but there is also establishment media bias.

I think it is because he is not a politician, so they have written him off. He does not exist in their little world, where all the media & political insiders gather.

Dean, as a governor, has had second most skepticism directed towards him as Clark. However, Dean paid his dues. He has been campaigning for 2 yrs & so he is somewhat accepted. Clark came from nowhere; he doesn't know them, they don't know him, & I think he is just written off, because the intelligentsia knows that an outsider cannot become President.

[paulk]

28. doesn't fit the script...

The media wants, at most, a three man race. It's easier to cover; easier to "script" with the public.

At first they needed the "anti Dean", and it looked for awhile like Clark would fit that bill. Then Iowa happened.

Now they need the "anti Kerry" and Dean fits that role. They also need a "dark horse" and Edwards' audition in Iowa went really well. Clark is the odd man out.

[slinkerwink]

30. there's a definite bias against Clark and Dean because they both

threaten the establishment!

[Turkw]

34. I am starting to think that this may be where Dean and Clark supporters

can work together. going after the media. Going to have to think on this. (Warning, stream of conscious like post to follow)

For that matter, Kucinich has been treated pretty unfairly also, don't see any reason why his supporters can't join in. Humm,

OK, so what do we need to do to make it effective, emails alone won't work, have to be fair to the candidates- take an equal number of issues for each candidate, let's say one or two a week, that would be three or six letters, emails, whatever.

emails, especially mass ones, will not be taken seriously alone, actual letters, some handwritten (not me, my handwriting is horrible, and my pencil doesn't have spell check) have to go as well. A telegram supposedly really gets attention.

which ever candidate's supporters want to participant in a serious group, one or two supporters would not work, would have have the advantage of numbers.

OK if we banded together, took one issue with one media treatment a week for each of candidates who have a group representing them, two or three, email for the other candidates, send snail mail for your own, (or telegrams if you have the money and are really pissed off) wrote not only to the whore, but to his/her boss as well. If we got a positive response, this might encourage other to join in. Might be worth trying for a couple of weeks?

Suggestions, thought, comments?

[arewethereyet]

31. "he has not done this any moreso than even Kerry or other..."

... major candidates".

This is a joke right ?

Kerry cussed.
Edwards has done nothing that I'm aware of.

Clark and Dean have been shooting their own toes off at an alarming rate since they started. None of the others have.

There is no bias, there is a font of stuff to make fun of. Start acting like a real polititian and this will stop.

[dsc]

33. Both Kerry and Edwards blew up in front of reporters

yet nothing on TV. Kerry gets botox treatments nothing. Edwards has an attack manual after telling us he is Mr. Clean. Next to nothing. Dean gives a loud speech in a loud hall and we hear 908 times. Clark wins third and is ignored. Yep nothing here to see.

[Bread and Circus]

36. Thanks dsc, I see you laid post #31 to rest...and put it to bed..

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Reminder to Du'ers: Despite what the media says
these days Kerry and Edwards are not perfect.
They are fine candidates, but they are not perfect.

[dsc]

43. You are welcome

I suggest the daily howler for yet another great example of our biased media (this time against Clark).

[arewethereyet]

45. Edwards has an attack manual, you're kidding right ?

Edwards WAS Mr Clean.

Did he use the manual ? No.
Is is wrong to have contingencies ? No.

Kerry's supposed Botox ? Yeah thats as bad as it gets.

Clark gets nothing but happy vibes for months leading up to his announcement and nothing better to do with all that time and money than make an impact on NH and comes in a sliding third. He throws in a dizzying series of flip flops, lies and blunders just for good measure.

Dean has a rich history of blunders leading up to his collapse in Iowa and he punctuates it with a memorable reminder of all his problems.

The sooner everyone realizes that each candidate needs to take responsibility for their campaign's actions (as Edwards did you'll recall) insted of trying to pay blame anywhere they can figure, the sooner theie guys can start making progreess.

[dsc]

47. Yes Edwards did have one

He admitted it's existance on CNN. I have no idea if it was used and neither do you. We saw two caucuses on TV (I only saw one but two were on CSPAN). There are literally thousands of them in Iowa. I find it very hard to believe someone went to the trouble of printing the thing and then didn't use it.

[arewethereyet]

49. I don't doubt its existance at all, I applaude it

I also don't doubt that if it had been used that the slighted campaign would be hooting and hollaring about it.

If you actually doubt that a campaign would not take the time to produce some contingincies then you really need to go work in a campaign. They all have people whose job it is to think through what if's and to have a plan ready to go to the candidate with as the situations require it.

What do you think they spend that money on ? Its not all stickers and phone lines. There are people on the payroll to think of everything.

If there was NOT a book ready to go to Edwards with in case things were falling apart I would be hugely disappointed. The fact that it was not needed was immensly gratifying.

Either way Edwards is my guy. He has the only realistically executable platform fr a republican congress.

[dsc]

50. Evidently it was an equal opportunity attack thing

only Kucinich was spared. And it wasn't a contignency. It was part of the offical manual given to every Edwards precinct captain in Iowa. Again all of these were admitted to by Edwards.

[arewethereyet]

52. Yes, and your point is ?

If it was not available to the captains to review and be able to execute as needed then it would not be a very effective contingincy would it ?

Ball players bring the extra gloves and bats with them on road trips insted of leaving them at home so that they will be there when they need them.

Really, consider working a campaign on a volunteer basis part time, very educational.

[dsc]

54. I have no idea the extent to which it was used

BTW just how would we know it had been even if we were there? The one caucus I saw didn't show the Edwards guy attacking other candidates, just the Gephardt person. But unless you saw the manual you might just blame the particular Edwards person in your precinct. Since no one really bothered to report the story it is likely many people upon whom the manual was used had no idea. BTW Edwards seems to disagree with you in that he said he would fire anyone who produced anything like it again.

[mikehiggins]

46. We are not talking about making fun of something,

We are talking about a deliberate and consistent attempt to erase a candidate and a campaign from this election through lies, misstatements and deliberate deception.

Sure Clark has screwed up, and when he's gotten called on it he had it coming.

But the RNC gave a lie to Drudge and Drudge gave it to the press and nobody bothered to check it out until after the damage was done.

But the media treats the charge of "not a democrat" like it was a serious question, even after Bill Clinton and George McGovern and all sorts of other folks who certainly know what they're talking about welcome him to the campaign.

The list goes on and on. You can discount it as "same old, same old" but not when it is this pervasive and this universal. Name one voice on tv last night that was giving Clark credit for coming in third in a race dominated by two well known and regionally popular professional politicians? Need help? So does everyone else.

This is a real effort to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Clark supporters across the US and I think you are naive or disingenuous not to admit to seeing it.

They aren't journalists; they just play them on tv.

[LWolf]

32. I'm sorry.

I can't buy into the media bias thing against Clark or Dean. Look at my avatar, and you'll know why. You want media bias? How about mainstream media "forgetting" to even include the man's name in stories about the primary... and forget whether he's considered major or not...it's been this way since the beginning, before anyone was "major." If the media ignored your candidate to the point of either never deigning to notice his existence, or writing short little pieces portraying him as way more left, or way more "fringe" than he is, I could understand your beef. But I've read plenty of press about Clark (and Dean), and most has been positive.

After the way the Kucinich campaign has been treated, Clark and Dean have been pampered.

[Bread and Circus]

35. Yeah, actually there is a huge multi-faceted bias against Kucinich.

I will grant you that.

[knight_of_the_star]

37. They are afraid

You can see it whenever they try to ream Wes on national television. They FEAR him. And I bet they don't like having someone running that for once doesn't seem to have any serious skeletons in his closet and isn't from inside the establishment. He is something they can't understand, a man running because of principle. That and the fear comes in from because it is human nature to fear what you do not understand for one, and for two I bet they were watching him assman Asman and after seeing that were most likely thinking, "He's dangerous, he doesn't play by the rules of the game, we MUST take him down!!!"

I think it is that and because Rove hasn't been helping with that because he KNOWS that if Bush and Clark get up on the same stage Clark will make Bush look like the idiotic shallow lying sack of shit that he is in front of the entire country and Rove CANNOT let that happen if he wants his little puppet to win.

[AbbeyRoad]

38. This is an interesting piece...

about the Clark media bias.

http://moderateindependent.com/v2i2media2.htm

[jpgray]

40. I'm sure they're smearing him--I'm not sure why

There are plenty of theories, but I haven't seen one that fits yet. :shrug:

[andym]

41. Combination of factors

Clark is only learning how the "press" works, so some of the responsibility lies with how he has responded. Some of the media are out to get him, they recognize him as a great threat to maintaining the base of the Republican party. The rest passively participate in simpleminded stereotyping.

------------------------------
First, there are several things to understand about the media:
1) most of the press are lazy and unthinking
2) most of the press write stories that follow simple bromides,
things are black and white only, cynicism is the rule, and sensationalism sells
3) the injection of simple-minded punditry into political news stories is rampant
4) the way the media works, the second tier of writers and commentators look to a first tier for guidance. Some of the members of the first tier either work for William Randolph Hearst wannabes, or are themselves political ideologues, who envision themselves the political equivalent of Walter Winchell, the late Hollywood columnist who "ruled" Tinseltown in the 40s.

OK, the first thing that happens to Clark is that he enters the race and is viewed as a political neophyte. Therefore the press expects mistakes, big mistakes (cynicism and simple bromides). Clark tries to explain his positions with nuance, but falls on deaf ears (Iraq war "vote," General Shelton) because of simple-minded cynical press who want black and white answers.

Right wing pundits feed stories into press about Clark being a "Republican." Story is picked up by press, and by some of his opponents. At the same time, background stories under mainstream press radar are created in right-wing outlets to show Clark has no integrity, is crazy, was member of nefarious organizations (SOA,NED, Axciom lobbyist etc) to reduce the chance that he will be nominated by Democratic purists.

Clark has trouble fighting off Shelton smear (no specifics, therefore nothing to challenge-- and Clark refuses to impugn fellow officer), and "Republican charge" (he did speak at a Republican event, but did so in a non-partisan capacity-- does not compute with simpleminded press, and just reinforces suspicions that the pacifist segment of Democrat party would have for any military man)

Dean then ascends to front runner status, sucking up most of the media attention away from the rest of the candidates-- Clark is marginalized by press.

When Clark does gets mentioned, he is disrespected by right-wing pundits who both don't want him to be the nominee and are "softening" him up should by happenstance he is the nominee.

Clark's 4th quarter fund-raising totals, his tax plan, and his time/ads in NH bring a rise in the polls that bring Clark back to the media's attention. Some positive press. Media remembers Clark is a "beginner" and welcomes any evidence to show he is gaffer.
Iowa elevates Kerry and Edwards, as Dean's major challengers. Media pundits predict his demise (some because they are simpleminded and look only at the very last election result as all important, others because they have an agenda that doesn't include Clark). New script it is a Dean, Edwards and Kerry race.

Republican hitman Dole (Nixon lite) gets Clark a little upset with an insulting joke, which is then blown out of proportion and used to diminish him. Fox sponsors debate in which they decide to go after Clark (two reasons, right-wing agenda and fulfillment of gaffer stereotype). Clark survives but Clark is put on the defensive and is not able to sell his positive message. Fox news for political purposes (and for the entertainment of their conservative audience) spin Clark's responses as devastating blunders. Debate costs him votes in NH.

[Tatiana]

51. This is a brilliant, brilliant analysis.

I would encourage everyone to read it!

[tishaLA]

53. Excellent.

I don't think I disagree with a word of it.

[TacticalPeek]

55. I wouldn't disagree, but add

the press copycats, plagiarists, frauds, and dictation/line takers.

[no name no slogan]

48. You MUST be kidding

Clark is a CREATION of the news media. They were all over his announcement-- every network carried it on their evening broadcast, every paper carried it, etc. They continue to fawn over him like he's the Clark Kent of the Democratic Party, here to save it from the "politicians" and "leftist wackos".

Contrast that with Dennis Kucinich, who has raised more money than Clark and has a long record as a solid, stand-up Democrat. Not only does he not get positive press, he doesn't even get NEGATIVE press, although he has some truly innovative ideas on how to fix the problems that plague this country.

I don't mean this as a slam on Clark, because I do admire the man and will gladly vote for him come November if he's the nominee. But his whole campaign has been nothing but one extended media hype with little or no evidence of support, other than from a few big-buck contributors and Clintonites.