Is there media animosity toward General Clark ? If so, why ?

[kentuck]

Could it be that he scares them because he is different? He has worked with cable news (CNN) so he knows them. Maybe it is just paranoia on the part of the Clark supporters? Maybe it just appears that the media is giving the General short shrift?

If they are really showing animosity, then why? Are they afraid of his independence? Are they fearful of his message? what are they afraid of? ?????

[bicentennial_baby]

1. I don't think it's paranoia

My mom, who is ABB and usually critical of Clark, keeps asking me "Why do they hate your candidate so much?" She watches Inside Politics and Crossfire every day, and it's blatant to her. :shrug:

[For PaisAn]

2. As Rolling Stone magazine said

Clark could be Bush's/Rove's worst nightmare. I firmly believe that is why they are either trashing him or disregarding him more than any other candidate.

[elsiesummers]

3. Yes there is.

Clark is not my candidate - but yes - Brokaw deliberately mischaracterized his position.

They are trying to pin him as a little off his rocker - which is screwed up. They don't like it the way he doesn't simply work around the edges but goes straight to the heart of something.

Clark is not my favorite, his message just doesn't quite reach me, but the way the media are going after him is shocking.

[Jerseycoa]

9. It's true

Brokaw used a snide tone just about every time he spoke to Clark, as if Clark were someone not to be respected, not to be taken seriously, as if he begrudged even speaking to him. I found it surprisingly blatant.

[kentuck]

11. I'm glad I'm not the only person to pick that up....

There was just a different tone when he asked Clark a question and he seemed to be in more of a rush to get him to finish his answer...

[Eurobabe]

19. Brokaw was completely dismissive

Brokaw was a complete jerk to Clark in last night's debate. He let everyone else ramble on, but kept cutting Clark off and needling him. I stopped watching NBC a long time ago, I have no respect for Brokaw at all. I'd rather watch BBC or Lehrer. NBC sucks.

[mikehiggins]

4. It really is a mystery. There are lots of theories around, including

mine which is that the phony bastards that infest the news media these days are infuriated by a man who has held true to his values all his life, like some sort of middle aged boy scout.

There are very few real people on the air, whether tv, cable or radio, and Clark is very real. When you have spent your life compromising your childhood dreams (not to get too philosophical about it) your can work up a real head of resentment when you deal with someone who hasn't.

Plus, the media and the "professional politicians" have spent their lives in careers in which lying is matter of course, standard behavior for everyone.

Clark is an affront to these people and there is nothing to be done about it. They will hate him until he drops out, and then they will mock him as a newbie and a poseur and a loser. The only way to get back at them is for him to win. Then they will come crawling on their bellies to get his attention.

Strike a blow for a truly free press! Vote for Clark!

[John_H]

5. It's too shamelessly obvious to be paranoia.

The reason is that a)the GOP shills are assholes but they're not stupid. They know Clark will be a serious threat to chimp. And

b)They know TBD loves Clark and thus they hate Clark viscerally.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. There is media animosity

towards all Democratic candidates.

[Toucano]

7. Certainly.

There has been an attempt to marginalize his candidacy.

I haven't heard a single negative thing about Edwards in the media. They have all dropped to their knees for him. That's not Edwards' fault, mind you. But shouldn't he be "vetted" like Dean and Clark have been?

Kerry was dismissed as dead, but that was when he was sinking in the polls and had organization problems. I've heard very little in the way of attack on him since his resurgence outside of the superficial cosmetic thing.

The formula they used on Clark was to ignore him when he was doing poorly, attack him when he was rising, and dismiss him when he declined. Tucker Carlson said he should drop out before any votes had even been cast in New Hampshire. I didn't hear anyone say this about Lieberman who was also doing poorly in the polls.

Why do they appear to have his number?

I think it's the same reason they went after Dean. He upsets the view of the world they are trying to shape by saying the truth. That threatens them.

I also remember (:tinfoilhat: time) Clark said in his first NH townhall meeting that he would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. That would require them to give equal time to opposing views. You may remember, Reagan eliminated it. Does that threaten the media? I think so.

[Jerseycoa]

10. Fairness Doctrine

Big time.

[elsiesummers]

17. I don't agree about Edwards

they have had him on ignore forever, and only when it appears that Kerry has it in the bag will they give him two cents.

As for Clark - I think he lends credibility to the no Iraq war sentiment, so the goal is to paint him as a little screwy in order to reduce his credibility.

[kentuck]

18. And they were , more or less, cheerleaders for the war..... WHY?

What would they have to gain form the war? MSNBC? Part of General Electric? Defense contracts? No conflict of interest there....

[bhunt70]

8. here's a cospiracy for you...put on the tinfoil hat.

What if they are protecting him?

Get this, they keep him flying under the radar until the right time to let him loose. They don't gove Rove/Bush the chance to even think that he'll actually win and they'll be expecting one of the others Edwards/Kerry/Dean to get the nod. Then when the time is right and it's inevitable, they let loose with Clark-goodness.

Maybe they are trying to peak him at the right time.

wouldn't that be a kick, the media actually being more suave than we give them credit for.

edit- addition.

The attacks you see about him, the misquotes, the shelton crap, the war questions - all planted to make it seem like the media is doing roves dirty work. That way Bush and co pay even less attention to him.

[Ivote]

13. Maybe they have

a guilt complex. Comes with paranoia

[Tatiana]

14. No, it's too personal.

I've watched the shows. Jennings was personal, he was visceral in his attack questioning. Bob Dole was personal, he deliberately tried to mischaracterize Clark and bait him in a way I have never seen a commentator bait any politician before.

They HATE him. The question is why?

[Toucano]

15. Yes, that was a personal affront.

To degrade the rank a person has worked so hard to achieve was truly hostile.

A lot of people were glad Clark smacked him down for it, but in hindsight, I wish he could have just laughed it off, made a mental note to hate Bob Dole, and been through with it.

It gave Kerry an unfortunate boost.

[kayleybeth]

12. Yes, there is media animosity toward Clark

because they know he could beat the snot out of Smirk in the general election.

[kentuck]

16. What should he do to counter this?

If he doesn't do something, they are going to continue their present tactics. Should he just ignore them? Should he call them on it? If so, what should he say? He doesn't want to look like a "whiner"...

[NV1962]

20. There is, because they don't like to be proven wrong or off-guard

It's supposed to be a "horse race" - and in sports journalism, the reporters are supposed to know all the facts, the statistics and the quality of each and every player, passing judgement play by play.

Alas, in this reality, there's an additional factor of smoke and mirrors: polls.

So, you have all these "savvy" and "experienced" and "senior" journalists, who see the wild ride and the polls and don't know which way is up, and still they're expected to put out a story line that appears as sensible, consistent and realistic.

With all the attention given to faux crystal balls and faux prophets tripping over each other, it's no wonder nobody can make sense of anything anymore.

Journalists are clueless, and that's the last taboo: that's not supposed to show.

So, they resort to simplification: either by playing up the "front runner" and the "runner up" or by ignoring "the rest of the pack" just to be safe, or doing both when the audience is particularly large and therefore advertising money stakes are much higher. The simple truth is that political journalists are neither clairvoyants nor in control of the situation, and it shows; the media corporate structure hovering over their pointy heads is even less supportive of a professional job. As a result, journalists resort to irrelevance, irreverence and incoherence. Their artistry is cross-dressed as craftmanship, there's nothing to show for it.

The emperor is naked because, well, because he has no clothes on.

Most journalists are clueless about what can realistically be expected to happen the very next day, and we're supposed to follow their script as a breathless detective novel? I don't think so.

The media empires remain stark naked, and it's time to call 'em on it. It's not just the Presidency that is at stake, it's national sanity - so let's go and do the crazy thing, which is kicking the monkey out with the clowns and the other circus distractions, and give the asylum its original name again: Office of the President of the United States.

Soon enough, media will follow the example, with reports on really weighty issues, such as stained blue dresses, murder trials of former quarterbacks, and grassy knoll revivals because, you know, having a conscience is like outrageously good sex or peace in the Middle East: mostly a good idea.

I have no clue what this post is about really, but I think I'm ready for my weekly corner in the Washington Post now.

[FrenchieCat]

21. What we do about it ?

we fight like hell. We call, we fax, we email.....our complaints..that's what the Right Wing Does. We don't let up...and we don't assume someone else is taking care of it for us. We do it ourselves. I called AP tonight after the debate AP article only had two lines on Clark. Got many supporters to call...and next think you know, there were to articles that got put up by magic of our voices. One was a positive all Clark article, and the other was a debate review with Clark's quote at the top. So Media mongering does work.......like a Republican would tell you.

Here's the letter I wrote to AP managing Editor:

Dear Mr. Silverman,
I am becoming alarmed at the press coverage of Democratic Candidate, General Wesley Clark. It appears that either he is ignored or smeared continuously by the media. That includes your organization, and in particular one of your reporters, Adam Nagourney. This is the same reporter that started the "flip/flop" story on the day that General Clark announced. You know, the story that attempted to end Clark's presidency before it began.

I also saw Mr. Nagourney on the Charlie Rose show the other day. It is clear that Mr. Nagourney has an agenda that does not include a viable General Clark as a nominee. Exactly who chose him to play as one of the kingmakers in the Democratic nomination process? The problem is that he is very transparent in his bias against Wes Clark. Whether it's personal, I shall never know, but I don't believe that it is his job to so greatly influence our democratic process. For that matter it is not anyone's JOB in the media to INFLUENCE voters. But that is CLEARLY what is happening.

There are currently thousands on the Internet as well as many of my acquaintances that are commenting on the media's OBVIOUS bias against this particular candidate. Following General Clark being smeared and ignored at various intervals of his candidacy, he has now been assigned to 2nd tier candidate status by the pundits. There is no factual reason as to why this is happening. The campaign has plenty of money, is doing well in many state polls, and has an excellent candidate.

A southern patriotic General with Foreign policy experience, national security expertise, charisma, a masters in Economics and intelligence is the perfect Democratic candidate to go against President Bush. Clark actually has not committed any "Gaffes" other than the ones fabricated and sensationalized by the press. He is not a politician....and maybe that's why there is so much bias. But it appears that the media is attempting to talk and write this candidate out of the race. Is there collusion going on with various media organization to currently praise Edwards (without criticism), boost Kerry (with mild criticism), trash Dean (total devastation of his own making) and ignore Clark (Dismissive and disrespectfully) ?

It's deeply disturbing that this 38 years public servant of our nation should be treated so shamefully for the purpose of political expediency. I though that 9/11 had changed everything. Can you tell me what has changed? Have the changes been for the better? I dare think not.

Concerned reader

PS: Also inform Mr. Nagourney that if he wants to editorialize, he should get himself a column. I believe that the New York Post is looking for someone just like him.

[TexasPatriot]

22. you rock frenchie!!!! nt

[Jack_Dawson]

23. Great Fucking Letter!

Sorry for the profanity but I'm fucking fed-up with the blatant disrespect for such a decent man.

[NV1962]

24. Zut alors, ça marche!

Excellent letter. Thanks Frenchie, that's very well done!

Great example set - we have much work to do until February 3rd, and beyond.

[OKNancy]

25. Could be this?

http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=39479

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. (AdAge.com) -- The consolidation of American media companies should stop, and rules that safeguard local media company independence need to be reinstated.......

[Jack_Dawson]

26. LOL - yes that just might have something to do with it. (Ya think?)

[maddezmom]

27. OKNancy ~ I think your on to something :) n/t

[robbedvoter]

28. Larry King: The 4 candidates: Kerry, Dean, Edwards and Kerry

[snippy]

29. The obedient media is spoon fed by Turd Blossom Rove.

The media no longer seeks and acquires information on its own. It is supplied with information by its sources. A journalist would much rather have a source than a thought.