The media is NOT in Kerry's corner and never have been.

[blm]

Interestingly, the media declared Kerry's candidacy as "dead" for months, and rarely aired positive developments for his campaign, as in the Fire Fighters endorsement or Gary Hart's and Joe Wilson's. Tough for Kerry because the negative reports dried up much of his fundraising.

Could it be that the media was deliberately skewing our primary to keep Kerry from gaining the national stage because of his opposition to the FCC?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 2, 2003

Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"
Commission decision may violate laws protecting small businesses; Kerry to file Resolution of Disapproval

Washington, DC - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.

Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:
"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy." 
 

[Mairead]

1. I'd think it's obvious that they're not 'in the corner' of any non-GOP

candidate. Not Kerry's, not Dean's, not nobody's. The history of this season has been triviality and kingmaking/unmaking. They gave a big hoohah to Dean for awhile while they savaged Kerry over and over, unmercifully. Then just before Iowa they built up Kerry and Edwards while disparaging Dean. And of course they studiously ignore or ridicule Kucinich all the time.

But they never really touch Smirk except with kid gloves, do they.

[blm]

2. The press HAD to cover the truth on the ground in Iowa the week before.

Can you imagine how their credibility would have been completely destroyed if they didn't play some catch up with the truth?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. the NYTimes did a very good job catching the Kerry surge

I think it was hard to ignore, and they seemed to really catch the intangible aura sweeping Iowa.
They did a great job covering the rallies and the town halls.

[Mairead]

8. Well, they don't seem to have any problem spinning anything else

Why were they doing these smirky hit pieces on him for so long? Oh he's a loser, he can't find his arse even if he uses both hands, he's cooked. Why didn't they have a problem ignoring his massive record and the substance of his campaign for months? What could have forced them into switching and saying good things about him just before Iowa? It's not that he became a different person.

[liberalnurse]

4. I disagree......it's easy to puff him up

and take a democrat out, one-by-one then he will get his due turn....

I think Kerry is the least electable.....save the easy part for the finale. The media has a game plan and if you look close enough, you'll see it. The Tenet speech proved that.....

[capriccio]

5. Propaganda 101

Here's a prime example of how it works. The most recent Newsweek runs an "investigative" piece by renowned Clinton hunter Michael Isikoff, entitled Cash and Kerry. Check out the picture...Kerry looking sinister through some black curtains. Check out the novelistic opener of implied insidious dealings between Kerry and foreigners. But don't stop reading until you get to the half-way mark where the reasonable and fair-minded person says, "Wow if this is the result of your investigation, why did you go to all that trouble to dress it up like you had just found the second gunman at Dealey Plaza and the 18-and-a-half minute gap on the Nixon tapes?"

Excerpt:
In a 30-year career untainted by scandal, Kerry's encounter with Chung and Liu would turn into a political embarrassment. Federal investigators later discovered that Liu was in fact a lieutenant colonel in China's People's Liberation Army and vice president of a Chinese-government-owned aerospace firm. And Chung, who visited the Clinton White House 49 times, went on to become a central figure in the foreign-money scandals of 1996. Chung eventually pleaded guilty to funneling $28,000 in illegal contributions to the campaigns of Bill Clinton and Kerry. According to bank records and Chung's congressional testimony, the contributions came out of $300,000 in overseas wire transfers sent on orders from the chief of Chinese military intelligence—and routed through a Hong Kong bank account controlled by Liu.

There was never any suggestion that Kerry knew about the dubious origins of Chung's largesse....

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4121890/

[SOS]

6. Re: Kerry and the media

Since Iowa how many times have we heard the expression "Massachusetts liberal"? How many times have we heard the expression "Texas right-wing extremist"?

If Kerry becomes he nominee, the corporate media will work around the clock to destroy him.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. We've heard those phrases 1/150th of the times we've heard

the term "electability." Softballs for Kerry.

[JNelson6563]

7. The media prefers the GOP

that is why they are being oh-so-nice to Kerry. They like Bush. Or, to translate into Kerry-eze: Theeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyy liiiiiiikeeeee Buuuuussshhhhhh. *yawn*

Julie

[mikehiggins]

9. The media is on no one's side, except possibly Bush's

We'll see how groveling Russert is on Sunday to get a good take on that one.

My question is why is the media so determined to chop up Clark?

My other question is why are they so blatent about it?

Fifty empty suits on tv and in print are trying to black out one candidate and I simply cannot fathom why.

Hearst would have loved Clark's come from nowhere campaign. These guys act like they are offended that someone would run for President without their approval. Amazing.

[Duder]

10. This article disagrees...

Why the media turned on Gov. Dean

[TexasSissy]

11. Aw, come on, now. They've known him for 20 years & gotten info

from him. They might question him hard occasionally, but they like him, and so far they've given him an easy ride. Very easy. Which is a good thing, if it carries through to the GE.

[maxr4clark]

12. Back in early 2002, Kerry was the presumptive front-runner.

When Dean had such an easy time drawing support away from Kerry, I think it was a logical conclusion that Kerry's candidacy was "dead", as in wooden, lifeless, uninspiring, especially in comparison with Dean's very energetic candidacy.

Now, the vast majority of the major media are predicting that Kerry will win the nomination. Kerry can claim he isn't the front-runner all he wants, but he is, and if he can't stand the heat, he should get out of the race--because it is only going to get worse in the general election.

I have heard of the fire fighter's endorsement of Kerry, as well as Gary Hart's and Joe Wilson's, in the mainstream media MANY times. Can you tell me you have heard from the mainstream media who has endorsed my candidate, Wes Clark? He has many, many impressive endorsements, not the least of which was a recent group of 55 former ambassadors, as well as prominent African Americans and the most coveted endorsements from the Native American population.

John Kerry has been the candidate least ignored or slighted by the mainstream media, in my opinion.

[RichM]

13. Kerry: the well-behaved Democrat who knows his place. Not "angry."

The media isn't "in his corner" relative to their enthusiasm for Bush. But relative to other Democrats, they find Kerry entirely acceptable. He doesn't make any trouble for the real holders of power, yet appears on the surface to be a respectable member of the "opposition." For that role, he's right out of central casting. This is very useful to the Establishment, because it helps perpetuate the charade of "American democracy working."

The media approves of the idea of the Democrats nominating someone who's entirely toothless, yet who doesn't appear toothless. That's far more effective than someone toothless in a blatant or transparent way. And of course, it's necessary, from the media's point of view, that we not nominate any of those "angry" ill-mannered Democrats. They're liable to bring up dangerously real issues. They don't know their place.

[Raya]

14. Kerry is a professional. That is why is not making stupid mistakes. Prob?

[arendt]

17. Yeah, a professional waffling, poll-driven insider

The media is all happy now that they've stopped that pesky
Dean guy from messing up their carefully orchestrated
selection of Kerry to be the punching bag for Bush. For
a year, the press kept waiting for Kerry to catch fire, but
Dean had issues, grassroots, and backbone.

So the media invented the "electability" meme and started
beating Dean up with it a couple of months before Iowa.
Two negative news magazine covers like "Is Dean Electable?"
The people who get their news from the media fell for it.
Now the media get to run their Wurlitzer to wipe out the
progressive wing of the Democratic party and turn it over
the DLC, who will promptly lose to Bush because they
are wishy-washy campaigners whose own hands are
dirty.

I echo everyone else in this thread. The media hates Dems.
If they are pushing Kerry, it is only to destroy him. That is
why media-annointed "electability" is a death trap for any
Dem.

arendt

[blm]

24. Dean is a corporatist and centrist. He can go back to licking their boots

because he made an unbelievable populist. No record of governance to match his coopted language from internet message boards.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

26. And Kerry is a believable populist?

My side!

[Hoppin_Mad]

28. Kerry has taken more special interest money than ANY other Senator

[bornskeptic]

30. Some people think differently.

Kerry Ranks Near Bottom in Senate on Money From PACs and Lobbyists


Statement from Nick Nyhart, Executive Director of Public Campaign Action Fund; Chellie Pingree, President of Common Cause; and Joan Claybrook, President of Public Citizen

According to a Jan. 31 Washington Post story, presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is beholden to the very special interests he says he will dismiss from the White House if elected. The Post based its erroneous conclusion on an analysis of the money Kerry has raised from lobbyists while he was a senator.

But the Post paints an inaccurate picture using an arbitrary statistic. A more accurate indicator of whether a candidate has ties to special interests is whether that candidate receives political action committee (PAC) as well as lobbyist money, and if so, how much. An analysis of PAC and lobbying contributions combined shows Kerry is near the bottom in receiving such funds when PAC money is averaged from 1993 through the present and lobbyist money is averaged from 1990 through present. Further, the lobbyist money that Kerry has taken in the presidential campaign is less than 1 percent of his total money raised.

Not only has Kerry historically refused to take PAC money, but his record shows that he been a leader for more than a decade in full reform of campaign financing, advocating for clean public money not only for presidential but also congressional campaigns.

(more)

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1639

[blm]

15. So you like to say. I disagree STRONGLY.

Making sure his fundraising dried up with their barrage of "dead candidacy" stories for most of last year? THAT is being in his corner to you?????

I question your perception.

[Larkspur]

16. Then how come in Iowa prior to the Caucus, Kerry got 78% favorable

coverage to Dean's 49%?

[Mairead]

18. Because they're jerking us around!

It's exactly the same reason they were giving Dean everything but a harim earlier. Dean didn't change, Kerry didn't change. Only MediaInc's tactics appeared to change, deflating Dean and inflating Kerry.

Their goal is No Substantive Change, and they'll make sure that anyone who doesn't signal submission will be dealt with harshly.

[ludwigb]

19. The mainstream print media seems to hate Kerry

I don't know as much about the talking heads. And this isn't good.

[Horvo]

20. Puff the Magic Dragon

How about if we imagine that the media replaced the video of Dean's "I have a scream" speech with the video of Kerry pretending to smoke a joint a couple weeks ago. Do you think that might have changed the race a little if that video had been showed 500 times? According to the media execs Dean's speech was an "unscripted moment", but Kerry's toke was not.

I also don't see how anyone can refute the statistical study by the media watchdog group which quantifies how negative Dean's coverage was when compared to the other candidates. That's the only objective measure and it couldn't be any more clear.

[blm]

21. HAHA...That was a SCIFE-FUNDED study that was BOGUS PROPAGANDA

meant to make Dean supporters feel aggrieved and divide the party further.

The "study" never gave any details and lumped all the other candidates data together just to make a case. BOGUS.

[Horvo]

22. You deny that the media coverage was different?

Are you saying the statistics sited here are wrong? What basis do you have for that? This wasn't what you saw from the media at the beginning of the year?

Go to the site and check it out, seems pretty clear:

http://www.cmpa.com/pressrel/EW200402.htm

[blm]

23. HAHA...you believe SCAIFE? That "study" doesn't have any DETAIL does it?

The fact that they LUMP all the other candidates together to try to make a case didn't clue you in?

I'm still shocked that anyone would BELIEVE a Scaife funded "study" of the media.

This propaganda is meant for only ONE thing, to splinter aggrieved Dean supporters from the Dem party.

[Horvo]

27. Nice fact check

How do you square your position with the same site noting that W got better press coverage than Gore? Is that more right wing spin?
The study doesn't lump them together. Kerry is at 96% positive and Edwards was at 100% positive.
I guess I am just not as insightful as you.

[Hoppin_Mad]

29. Good point - Corrupt corporate media loves Kerry - 2 of a kind -nt-