Campaign Roadkill: Pay-To-Play Formula Steamrolls Underdogs

[no name no slogan]

http://progressivetrail.org/articles/040206Karr.shtml

The murky relationship of money, media and politics becomes crystal clear when it comes to advertising. If a candidate can't deliver cash to buy political spots from local broadcasters, his or her run for office is dead on arrival.

This is compounded by the news organizations whose journalists in the last week have decamped in droves from the campaigns of lesser runs to hitch a ride with the "contenders".

MediaChannel/Media Tenor analysis of network coverage in January shows that anointed contestants John Kerry, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark and John Edwards received 93.8 percent of Democratic candidate coverage by CBS, NBC and ABC's nightly newscasts. Candidates Al Sharpton, Joe Lieberman and Dennis Kucinich, on the other hand, garnered a cumulative 6.2 percent of coverage in January.

Back-of-the-pack candidates vying for more exposure in the media mix, must turn to local affiliates to get their messages across to voters. But these broadcast outlets are doing little to help. In the 2002 mid term elections, local television stations jacked up the prices of political ads by an average of more than 50 percent, according to a report by the Alliance for Better Campaigns. The biggest culprit of them all was Fox affiliate KTXL in Sacramento, which hiked advertising rates more than 250 percent prior to the 2002 elections.

More proof that the media sucks.

[Desertrose]

1. our news media sure is creative....as in it CREATES the news

Yes ...the meida sucks...there for we need to find away around it...
grassroots politics...thank god for the internet!!!!!


Good grief...Dennis .94%


Peace
DR
edit for that damn decimal point

[4morewars]

2. Let's stop this madness !!!!!!

How about ending all paid advertisements for elections ? Most of them are in extremely bad taste anyway. But the costs are insane!! Who in their right mids would pay MILLION$$$ to get a job that pays, what, $180,000 ? Leaving us to choose from the corporate whores that sucked the most money from their masters. Is it any wonder, then, that our government is pretty much run by these same corporations?

From the article...
"In the 2002 mid term elections, local television stations jacked up the prices of political ads by an average of more than 50 percent..."
-snip-

Didn't we used to call that practice, racketeering ????

Here's another...
"The biggest culprit of them all was Fox affiliate KTXL in Sacramento, which hiked advertising rates more than 250 percent prior to the 2002 elections."
-snip-

"Fair and balanced" my ass !!!!! :wtf:

The entire process is corrupted by this "easy money" but we the people are the ones that suffer, and ultimately pay for, what has become our government of, by, and for the corporation. Just look at the whole Iraq mess !!! Ultimately, when one strips away all the bullshit, it's ALL about the money !!!!!

[stickdog]

3. When it comes to winning a primary, the only thing worse than no press

is consistently bad press.

http://progressivetrail.org/articles/040203Schecter.shtml

The Not-So Democratic Primaries
by Danny Schecter
Published by Media Channel

...

Consequently, style, not substance, is what dominates. Images are recycled and repeated endlessly, creating reinforced archetypes: Clark the General, Kerry the Vietnam Vet, Dean the Flake, etc. Issues quickly turn into buzzwords and itemized talking points that are designed to sound good and give you the impression that the candidate has carefully weighed the pros and cons.

In some cases, you will have fierce confrontational exchanges like the ones that drive Tim Russert's Meet the Press. CNN' s Crossfire, MSNBC's Chris Matthews or Fox's Hannity and Colmes. They are gladiatorial contests where quick repartees are more effective than quieter reflection or thoughtful analysis. In some cases, the goal is to embarrass, not explain. It's about scoring points, not illuminating character or competency. In others, veteran reporters like CNN's Judy Woodruff, an NBC-journalist- turned-PBS -host-turned-CNN host tries to go deeper, adding occasional flashes of context and background or interviewing voters in diners and quaint living rooms, the folksier the better. These forays elicit attitudes, but rarely look at how these attitudes are shaped and what information people draw on for their opinions. Those that do get to dump their knowledge of the political landscape -- Jeff Greenfield or pollster Bill Schneider -- must do it in short intervals.

No one looks too closely at electoral "institutions." Or the larger political system. Or who the big donors are. The undemocratic character of the Iowa caucuses, the ease with which Republicans became "Democrats for a night" and voted for candidates they think can be more easily defeated, electoral turnout, campaign financing, the list goes on and on. The same polls are cited again and again with no independent assessment of their gaps and deficiencies. It is as if there is one template that prevails.

When some anomaly occurs like the Dean Scream Event the networks are all over it, with commentary that is often inflated and rhetorical. Rarely is any attempt made to give the violator of some unspoken code of behavior a chance to explain or defend their 'egregious' violation of what is supposed to be ordinary protocol. For example, when Dean is viewed from a camera angle at the rear of the chaotic crowd he addresses, the volume of his voice makes more sense than when you saw it close up.