Clark's News Blackout: NYT's Adam Nagourney Responds

[Jack_Dawson]

Adam,

Why is the mainstream media (and you) so dismissive of Clark? Even though Clark came in third (3rd) in his first-ever election, all we hear about it Dean, Kerry and Edwards. Clark is leading in 3 of the 7 Feb. 3rd states, and still we hear nothing positive.

Clark supporters seem to think it's a conspiracy fueled by Karl Rove telling you guys what to write about. In other words, he would much rather face Dean than Clark. I really want to believe that's not the case.

Why does everyone seem to have it out for the General? He's the only candidate promising any kind of real change. Just wondering.

Thanks for your time,

JD
San Diego


Thanks for your note. Can't say I agree with your point here.

General Clark has been the subject of EXTENSIVE coverage in the New York Times -- a series of front-page stories, and a number of day stories on speeches he gave and positions he took. The only story that I can think of that was dismissive of him in any was the one written in New Hampshire, where he tied for third place after spent a month campaigning there. The story just pointed out that he did a lot less well that he was hoping to do. Just a statement of fact.

Adam

[returnable]

1. Actually, I kinda agree with him for the most part...

The NYT has been fairly decent about covering the Clark campaign, in my opinion.

[KittyWampus]

8. Clark's Tax Plan Was Lumped Into An Article About Kerry In The Times

The day after Clark's Plan was announced they put it into an article that then went on to talk about Kerry.

It is the most Progressive and different of all the Tax Plans and yet it recieved little coverage.

The Times also is the paper which had a title about Clark "FlipFlop" on Iraq but the text went on to say the EXACT OPPOSITE.

I get the Times every day and must strongly disagree with you on their coverage.

[returnable]

9. Fair enough

Like I said, it was just my opinion - compared to the other national media outlets, I think the Times has been fairly decent in their treatment of Clark. Not great. Decent. He's at least on their radar, which is far better than some of the other so-called "news" outlets.

Yeah, Nagourney launched the whole "I would've voted for the Resolution" thing, but the fact is Clark DID say that.

Anyway, I agree that Clark's tax plan didn't/hasn't gotten the coverage it deserves. That's a shame.

I remember the day he announced it he appeared on "Hardball". Matthews didn't even bring it up. Instead, he wasted about 10 minutes grilling Clark on what he thought about the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal :crazy:

[BootinUp]

2. That was a rude response!

To your very reasonable letter. Just reinforces the impression he is an *sshole and media whore.

[goodhue]

4. He can get a whole lot ruder

when explaining why he never ever mentions DK!

[ajacobson]

3. IMHO the print media has not been that bad

its the electronic media that has been disgusting.

[kentuck]

5. As long as it is put in perspective....

Joe Lieberman moved to NH...and he was the VP candidate in 2000..and Clark beat him quite handily. Also, Edwards was coming off a race in Iowa where he had more momentum than anyone, and Clark finished ahead of him also. So, relatively speaking, I think it is difficult to put a "negative" spin on his 3rd place finish...

[Bread and Circus]

6. I think Adam is not paying attention...

I disagree with him and I think his "evidence" is
weak -- see post #3

[Wickerman]

7. I'm still waiting for NPR to realize he and Kucinich are

actually in the race. Our local MPR did an hour on who Clark was, but then he dropped off the radar, never to be heard of again. Kucinich? Haven't heard of him since November or so. Its so bad that the announcsers still can't say his name correctly. They do mention Sharpton, mainly because he gives such great audio clippage.

[jenk]

10. Clark is leading in 1 state, Oklahoma

the rest are Kerry, Edwards leads in SC.

What Clark should've done is compete in Iowa, and for the most part keep his mouth shut and not make crazy allegations and promises he couldn't keep. Look what was happening in NH, Clark slipped from the mid 20's to 13%, Edwards had a rise from 3-4% to 12%

[returnable]

11. And...?

The bottom line is Clark leads in one state and your guy leads in one state.

It's a wash coming out of NH for these two guys.

There's no evidence that had Clark competed in Iowa, we'd be looking at a different picture. Shoot, Edwards got a HUGE bounce coming out of Iowa and still couldn't get past a guy who has never run for office before. Wow.

Clark "slipping" from the mid-20s to 13% had more to do with Kerry supporters hopping back on the bandwagon after his Iowa win than anything Clark said.

[jenk]

12. Clark in Iowa, could've pushed Dean to 4th

Dean might've not even been viable in Iowa, that would've been a massive blow heading into NH. You think Dean is wounded now, if Clark ran in Iowa Dean might've bowed out by now. That's when Wesley still had some sort of momentum

Edwards got the standard 8-9 point bounce in NH, at one point Clark was at 20something and Edwards at 4%, and in the end they were separated by 700 votes despite Clark spending so much time and money there.

[returnable]

13. If Clark ran in Iowa...

...maybe he splits the anti-Dean vote with Kerry and Edwards, and Dean squeaks out a win.

There's simply no way of knowing how that would've played out.

I do, however, think it's safe to say part of the Clark strategy in skipping Iowa was predicated on the belief that Dean & Gephardt would finish 1 & 2 there.

That obviously didn't happen.

"at one point Clark was at 20something and Edwards at 4%, and in the end they were separated by 700 votes despite Clark spending so much time and money there."

It's all a matter of perception, then. From where I sit, I see a guy who entered the race only 4 months ago finish ahead of guy who had poured TWO YEARS worth of time and resources into New Hampshire :hi:

Either way you slice it, both Clark and Edwards need wins on Tuesday. What came before is immaterial now.