"The media" doesn't play favorites. They 're just stupid and arrogent

[Armstead]

There are a lot of conspiracy theories about the media. They pumped up Dean to help the GOP. They defeated Dean because he is against media conglomeration. They pump up Kerry because he who the GOP really wants to run against....etc. etc.

IMO the problem is a lot more basic than that. Here's the dirty little secret. They are arrogent, greedy, ignorant smug shallow morons.

And because of that they repeat each other endlessly and try to develop "story lines" to feed the advertising beast.

That's a lot different than thinking that they carefully orchestrate things to nominate or elect anyone.

They over-hyped Dean, and were wrong. So they overreacted to their own assine assumptions by destroying him. And make no mistake -- the media did destroy Dean.

They also bought into the conventional wisdom about Kerry, and what a sorry campaigner he was. They became like vultures picking Kerry's bones while he was still alove, dwelling on all of his mistakes and faults while giving their pre-mature obituaries.....In fact, Kerry was quietly out there retooling and reenergizing himself and his campaigns.....But the media whores again got it wrong. So, when Kerry started to make progress, they jumped on board the bandwagon. And again overreacted -- anointing him as the nominee.

They also ignored Kucinich, and treated him as a vanity candidate. A Ross Perot without money. They ignore the fact that he actually represents the believes of a significant portion of Democrats and independents -- and even of the hearts of many mainstream "swing voters."

I believe they're pushing Kerry now to make up for their earlier screw ups and blindness and mistakes in writing him off too soon. So they have fanned the flames of his legitimate progress into the bandwagon of "unstoppable momentum" and the buzzword of "electability."

I don't think people are stupid. But we all do rely on the media to shape our perceptins of the world beyond our own personal reality. Those who are inherently interested by these things pay close attention, and look for many sources of information. But the average person doesn't have the time and inclination, so they trust the Corporate Media.


The truth is that Dean was neither as storng as he was once portrayed as, nor as irrelevant as they have made him since his downfall. The same with Kerry, in reverse.

And they're not purposely marginalizing Kucinich because they are afraid of him. They're just too shallow and self-involved to understand what he represents.

But the media refuses to deal with the complexities and shadings of reality. And therefore they have made politics seem to be little more than the latest WWF Steel Cage Death Match.

And it contributes to the cynicism and detachment that average people feel from public life. Why bother when it's all predetermined, they decide?

And those who are interested and passionate get burned out -- not by losing. But by the phony reasons that create conditions for those losses.

Somehow, the real challenge, regardless of which candidate one supports, is to break up that Iron Curtain of smug elite insiders who sit around tables with their smirking cynicism and tell us what we are supposed to think.

[janx]

1. As Dean said very well, the news is not news anymore--

it's ENTERTAINMENT.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Frances]

2. Then why was the CEO of GE

on the NBC set the night of the election in 2000?

And you can't tell me that Murdoch doesn't push the Republican agenda.

[Armstead]

7. Maybe I should have added....

that the pundits are also scared little weasals who DO twist things to satisfy their corporate massas.

But they don't have a set plan. They just absorb and reflect the wishes and worldview of the corporate bosses.

In the old days, the people at NBC News would have probably told a Jack Welch to leave the room if he butted in like that.

Murdoch and Fox News are a different beast. They are avowedly conservative, despite their "Fair and Balanced" motto. They bother me a lot less than the rest of them, because they at least do not disguise their propaganda. It's all "yes we're balanced (nudge,nudge, wink,wink).

It's people like the the Howard Finemans and the Tweeties and CNN desk props who are the real problem.

[el_gato]

3. and yet you thinks it's because they are stupid and arrogant?

They purposely try to prevent people from being informed and
they purposely ignore important information.

It is not a result of stupidity or arrogance. They serve their masters.
And they do it well.

[CWebster]

4. And they have an agenda

If it wasn't obvious to most, it should be with the release of the pravada corporate media bankrolling Kerry's campaign and Kerry's pre-Iowa pow-wow with major media.

Otherwise

What they succeeding in doing was to scare people away from Dean.

They marginalized him by their round the clock attack. They strung him with the scarlet letter--except this time the letter is "A" for anger which equals unelectable. It was a public humiliation, an ostracizing. Now ask me who that was serving? And now ask me if I am going to vote for who that served.

It was a human disgrace and even if the rest of y'all are denying it, it strikes a deep chord of disgust in me that I am just not willing to get over and move on.
Shame on you, if you are.

If this is wrong, Kerry will be strung up and flogged in the same manner--except it may not happen until he locks up the nomination.

If it doesn't happen, will you still stand by your random stupidity and greed story?

[Armstead]

9. The do serve the corporate agenda

And I share your disgust at that. But I disagree with you that it is as blatant as determining to "demonize" Dean.

Rather the corporate media hires and showcases nitwits who basically absorb the "conventional wisdom" simply because it is convenient.

In that case the corporations set the agenda. But they don't have to actively manipulate the news, becauae they know they have hired idiots with no real soul or curiousity.

I think most of those media morons really DID see Howard Dean as unacceptaly angry, because they never botehred to do their homework.

It's an important distinction, because to really attack the problem, we have to undrstand it.

The problem is that we have turned the media over to immense corporate empires, and we have also removed all requirements that they be responsible or serve the public interest. That has creatd a culture that is a distorted and perveted view of the world based totally on commercial values.

It's ultimately the same thing you are saying, but I think it's a diversion to believe they actually tinker with the news to satisfy specific agendas.

What we really need to do is cut them down to size, increase the number of owners and re-install demands that they fulfill social obligations.

[rucky]

5. This is consistant with Western thought in general

Dualistic thinking has clouded our sense of reality. The media "reports" reflect our hard-wired thinking patterns to cartoonish levels - much like Bush does. That's why the media (and many many people) like Bush. Everything is black & white. Winner/loser. Good/Evil. With us/against us. Winner/Loser.

When those perceptions start to get muddied up by inescapable facts - or a change in public opinion, the media (and people's thinking) shift gears to the opposite end of the spectrum.

[Skwmom]

6. They are not just stupid or arrogant.

If you follow the news coverage closely you will see that there is a well orchestrated plan in place to manipulate the primary process. Unfortunately the people who work for the media *hores have sold out their country for the almighty dollar.

[redqueen]

11. And equally if not more unfortunately

it seems people do not want to face up to this unpleasant bit of reality.

[salin]

8. can I add another adjective to that descriptor?

stupid, arrogant, and a bit "lemming-like".

To all of the claims of media setting up x or y candidate or pulling down x or y candidate... in almost every case a strong alternative explanation falls in the "jumping on the bandwagon of the theme du jour".... Dean suddenly blasts out of the park in the third quarter fundraising area... and boom every story is Dean.... Dean.... Dean... (good and bad) at the exclusion of other candidates. Clark speculates about getting into the race late... and boom every story is Clark... Clark.. Clark... but then returns quickly to the fundraising momentum and the singsong Dean... Dean... Dean... Indeed the sudden burst of Clark stories explode so that the day before he announces it is the lead story - which is the same day of the Actual announcement of Edwards who suddenly gets NO coverage.

Then all eyes on Iowa... horserace with Gep/Dean... and the horserace in NH with Kerry/Dean.... daily polls... and because Dean is part of both equations the coverage is Dean Dean Gep Dean Kerry Dean Gep Dean Dean Kerry...etc.

Now a week before Iowa... new big change.... Kerry takes public lead... and *gasp* Edwards (who is he... we didn't even cover his announcement... isn't he that good looking young guy?)... are running well and gep may be pushed out? So the lemmings shift to ... Kerry Kerry Edwards Kerry Dean Dean Gep Kerry Edwards Dean Dean Gep. Clark doesn't even return to coverage until New Hampshire but now the Kerry story takes over.

All of this said - I can see the reason for each of these switches in tone - they were REAL stories. But what gets odd and disconcerting is the sheer volume and dominance of those particular story lines pumped on and on at the exclusion of nearly all other stories.

Hence - lemming-like.

[Armstead]

12. Exactly Salin

You described what I was saying.

The media corporations hire lemmings. The bosses don't have to micro-manage them because of that.

They just let the lemmings behave like lemmings.

[Mairead]

10. I disagree, Armstead. I think we sell them short at our peril.

It's not our imagination that they beat the drums shamelessly for Smirk in 2000, or that they supported Coup2000, or that there's little or no opposition to SmirkCo's murderous rampage today. They're really doing it all, and intentionally, too.

I doubt they all just happen to be motivated by a personal arrogance that coincides with the needs of the ruling class. On the other hand, I don't believe in a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' either, or at least not in the sense of a centrally-managed one. If I had to bet money, I'd bet that there's a social filtering process going on...that people are selected for senior consent-manufacturing posts based on their attitudes about how the world should work.

[Armstead]

14. That's what I'm saying

In terms of candidates, the social filtering process of the media has a bias towards politicians who are "safe" and conventional.

Hence they just don't "get it" about someone like Kucinich. So they shove him off in some little corner.

With Dean, I think the pundits really did believe that saying "We are no safer now that Sadaam has been capitured" was reckless and irresponsible...Even though Dean turned out to be exactly correct.

[goodhue]

13. yes to stupid and arrogant

They play favorites only in that they feed bandwagon mentality, such that whomever is up suddenly is way up, and whomever is down is suddenly in the ditch. But I concur that the media is just in it for the horse race and has no real axe to grind, other than ignoring and belittling DK and Sharpton who are a real threat to their worldview.

[madfloridian]

15. They were more than that when they took us to war.

Don't you remember the war rooms? The drum beats? That was not stupid, that was planned with a purpose.

[salin]

18. and titles on the cable shows like... "Countdown to War"

and other similar drivel. From late fall through the actual invasion - the cable news shows treated the war as a given.

[redqueen]

16. So what is the lemmings' motivation for this?

Primaries up to WA were reported on CNN Headline News by a ticker at the bottom of the screen, showing candidates' names with the votes and percentages, as well as how many precincts were reporting at the time.

Since WA (when Kucinich placed 3rd), no ticker.

Also, seemingly in a beyond-bizarre coincidence (to you), they stopped announcing the top three candidates 4 out of 5 times, and only said, "x won 1st, y won 2nd, followed by z a b and c". Every fifth time they mentioned the results, they'd actually SAY that Kucinich won 3rd.

Same for ME. All of a sudden their method of reporting changed.

Why?

What was the impetus for this, if they're just follwers reporting the story?

Do you really not see this as them attempting to shape the story?

[salin]

19. I would explain it

with Walt's explanation - lazy and craven.

In their arrogance - perhaps they now only perceive the top two the story (as the top has no comparison if they don't give the second.)

I believe they DO end up shaping the story - but I don't know that the explanation for the choices made to shape the story are always conspiratorial - as much as arrogant and obnoxious. Arrogant and obnoxious in the ("no one cares about the other candidates whose percentages are low... lets focus on the headlines!")

My alternative explanation in no way condones the behavior, nor underscores the net effect of the behavior (shaping the story), nor gives the lemmings any escaping of accountability. The way they have covered these stories has been inexcusable, has been from shoddy to irresponsible to downright deceptive.

[redqueen]

21. No

Look at the situation, salin.

We had had TEN caucuses / primaries before this point. They ALL were reported the EXACT same way. ALL results posted, only the top three finishers discussed widely.

When the results changed, the method changed.

There is absolutely no way you will convince me this has anything to do with laziness or arrogance. This is by design.

[salin]

23. Not to worry, I am not trying to convince you

only offering an alternative explanation. Just what I do - try to look at various explanations to different phenomenon... Tend to think in the end - the reality is a blended one with bits of truth from different 'reads' on situations. Just offering one up here, as an alternative explanation was requested... doesn't mean I think it is the only explanation...

[Walt Starr]

17. You forgot "Lazy" and "Craven"

The idiots don't understand the phrase, "investigative reporting".

[Cheswick2.0]

20. it is not either/ or Armstead

It is both. They are stupid and greedy and they do conspire to kill canidates who do not serve their interests. Just look at how they propped up bush all this time.

[SeattleRob]

22. You're wrong..

The media doesn't play favorites?

Check out www.thedailyhowler.com

read up on the Election of 2000 and the orchestrated smear of Al Gore. Tell me there were no "favorites."


The media is involved in misinformation and propaganda - pure and simple. Look at the news in the run up to Iraq war. There are still a large percentage of people who beleive that Saddam was involved in 9/11.


Until we the people realize that the American Mainstream Media is no better than the old Soviet "Pravda," we will continue to be in the dark on most major issues.