MEDIA = John Edwards, John Edwards, John Edwards......all of the sudden!

[FrenchieCat]

Corporate Pundits all aglow with Edwards praise on the TeeVee today....
In fact, the CW Pundits are starting to sound like a choir reminiscent of the "Hillary is inevitable" chorus we heard a few weeks ago, and the "Obama is a rock Star" opera of yesteryear.

Why is the Corporate media all of the sudden talking up John Edwards, the candidate that has been named as the one who they most afraid of?

Why is a candidate said to be running to the left of the party so popular with the corporate media out of nowhere, and why is Nader allowed to come on the news and further talk up John Edwards, while almost totally ignoring Kucinich?


What's your theory on this development, shortly prior to the first primary vote?

PS. I'm already on record as predicting that Edwards will win Iowa.

[maddiejoan]

1. Media wants

Iowa to be a 3 way cage match.

They are in it for the ratings.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Yes, but if the media is so afraid, why after they have taken the time

of deconstructing Hillary....and in lesser form, Obama (and by reporting on each and retort between Hillary and Obama), is it to their "interest"(considering their supposed fears) to start promoting Edwards, when they could do the same with a candidate they fear less.....like a Biden?

[maddiejoan]

25. Media isn't afraid

They are in the driver's seat.

As for your question? Edwards is better television than Biden. Much prettier.

[FrenchieCat]

28. Key perception that I agree with; the Media is not afraid--they are in the driver's seat.......

[ihavenobias]

61. I don't see that at all

It's still all about Hillary/Obama in the media. Unless I misunderstood him, I could swear even John McLaughlin took a cheap shot at Edwards this weekend on The McLaughlin Group.

It was also funny last week when my local news showed some clips from the dem debate. They started by showing snippets of various candidate comments on a question about Iraq. They showed EVERYONE'S answer *except* for Dodd and Edwards (amazingly).

They went on to show a clip from Obama and one from Hillary on some other topic and nothing from any other candidates (including Edwards).

[w4rma]

2. I think that's BS. Is disinformation your full time job? (nt)

[FrenchieCat]

13. I'm reporting my observations, and being in denial as to what is happening on the TeeVee

will not help your name calling.

I am asking a relevant question regardless to whether you like it or not.

[EV_Ares]

39. That is all she puts out, how many anti-J. Edwards threads did

she start yesterday. Does she ever do anything other than an attack J. Edwards?

This is BS about the media loving J. Edwards anyway so it should sell as good as whatever she will try to sell on her next anti Edwards thread.

It really is laughable anymore.

[FrenchieCat]

46. What are you speaking about me in the 3rd person?

Why do you think this is effective? :shrug:

This is a political board, right prior to a presidential primary, for goodness sakes! Why do you expect me to toe your line drawn in the sand, if I feel compelled to communicate what I observe as our political process is underway?

My posts are relevant enough obviously, unfortunately for you. Doesn't mean you have to agree with anything I write.....but this childish "attack her, and maybe she'll shut up" is just not going to work. When I stop communicating on these boards, it won't be because of you and what you had to say about me.

[EV_Ares]

48. If you remember I have told you I am all for you putting out these kind

of J. Edwards post. Hey, doing this daily over & over is your right if you want to do it & I don't want you to stop because it helps as far as how credible they are.

Can you at least tell us what TV show you got all this info from? Thanks.

[flyarm]

75. it would be laughable if it wasn't so obvious and pathetic and following the foot steps of

the paid neo con posters of the past 7 years.

and yes most of us know who "they " are..they fool no one.

fly

oh and ps..they have not helped their candidate one bit ..they have turned most of us against their candidate.

[Little Star]

63. I also call BS. I only wish it were true!

[Mark E. Smith]

68. Agreed

It's garbage.

[Mojambo]

3. Like a circus ringmaster pointing to each circle in kind... n/t

[gateley]

4. Money. It's always the money. My guess is that because of his rise in the

polls, the media feels they can draw viewers because of the increased interest, and they can show that to their advertisers.

This just might be the BIG break Edwards needs!

[surfermaw]

34. Could it be Edwards supporter have complained

about the only coverage Edwards has gotten from Media is something they could bash him with, they are afraid they are going to have egg on their faces after Iowa, Again Edwards has never been behind in Iowa, with the coverage that Oaboma and Hillary has gotten, Edwards would be miles ahead, not to mention the millions both of them have spent in Iowa....

[surfermaw]

35. Or it could be that some were threating to stop watching the media

[FrenchieCat]

42. Sorry, but that's been tried, and has never worked......

See Fox News Boycott.

The Corporate news is not battling so much for ratings as much it is for control, IMO.

[cali]

5. they want a horse race. More viewers. More readers. n/t

[Cameron27]

6. You noticed it too eh?

You'd never know who got the Globe's & Register's endorsements by what's being touted by MSM.

[FrenchieCat]

18. One would have to be an old blind dog not to see the obvious......

anyone that switches on the TeeVee will see that Edwards is today's secret word!

[Tejanocrat]

7. Maybe it's because while all the other candidates overexposed their message with saturation TV

advertising all summer and fall while Edwards made the decision to focus on organization and issue papers all summer and fall and only started TV advertising in Iowa in November (after Obama had already spent almost $5 million on TV in Iowa and Hillary has spent about half that amount).

Maybe Edwards (and Huckabee, too, by the way) are proving that you don't need to buy the election if you run your campaign on a responsible budget.

[FrenchieCat]

22. You think that advertising is what "overexposes" a candidate?

or would you concede that the publicity via media reporting is much more apt to "overexpose" a candidate....and what the media reports about each candidate or doesn't report is even more key?

[Tejanocrat]

33. Have you ever been in Iowa or New Hampshire during primary season? I have. The advertising is almost

at get-a-restraining order level.

Having a story in the local newspaper is easily avoided by the average family in Iowa if they are sick of all the politics so it doesn't burn them out -- they can read as much or as little as the want.

Having wall-to-wall TV commercials for over six months before the caucus can wear a person out if they are not a political junkie.

[Botany]

8. Because John stands a real good chance of winning Iowa

And "they" don't want to look like "they" were 100% out to lunch.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Personally, I don't think they care about being out to lunch or not.....

as they know that providing media coverage BEFORE a vote actually helps that candidate. I doubt that if they didn't want to help him, that they would cover him in the way that they are.

They are not attempting to deconstruct him....which is what would follow if they wanted to get rid of someone they truly feared.

[surfermaw]

36. Oh they care!!

[FrenchieCat]

44. During impeachment, when the public had a 62% approval rating for Bill Clinton.....

the media did not lighten up.

In fact, they went on the attack like mad rabid dogs, more than they had before.

It wasn't until they "lost" that they kind of scurried away.

[flyarm]

78. bull hockey..they care they damn well care..the new hillary spin is that Iowa won't matter..

and to that i say bullshit!

so the media will spout the hillary bs that Iowa doesn't matter..

well they are the same folks that just a couple weeks ago..said Iowa was the most important win for Hillary and obama..

now all of a sudden it isn't??

i call bullshit!

Remember Iowa took it all the way for Kerry!..the big underdog for Iowa then.

but go ahead keep the spin going..Iowans know better..and they are not fooled by this bullshit.

fly

[AmBlue]

82. BINGO!!

If he wins this thing (and I think he will), they will look like a bunch of horses' asses for not covering the story all along.

The whole thing just speaks volumes about John Edwards' appeal and passion. If he can be a serious contender with less money with all the rest, and seriously less coverage just by delivering his message directly to the voters, just IMAGINE the wave he'll ride out of Iowa if he wins!!

He's our golden boy and he CAN win the whole thing. The media has known it all along and has been acting strategically (and in their own corporate interests) leading up the primaries. They just can't afford not covering him any longer.

[BigDDem]

10. The corporate media loves John Edwards!

[ChiciB1]

40. You Forgot Your "Sarcasm" Smiley! Corporate Media DOES Not Love

Edwards, and it's been said up front on major news programs, by major journalists! David Gregory, Chuck Todd, and David Schuster just to name some I heard say it!

[gmudem]

50. Are we having a competition?

Of just shouting out random things for no reason! OOOGY BOOOGY BOOO

[flyarm]

79. there went that sip of coffee i took..all over my key board..this is the laugh of the day!! eom

[onehandle]

11. Gosh! Maybe because he's projected to be the strongest winner in the General.

Maybe because he's in the top three.

Maybe because he was the vice-presidential candidate in 2004.

Maybe because he will take Iowa and come up from behind to win the nomination like Kerry did.


Maybe? You got another reason? A tired reason of your own?

[FrenchieCat]

26. So why now, and not three months ago, or two months ago, or last week......

Why now the name of John Edwards is on every pundit's lips in a positive way?

Edwards was ahead in Iowa before he got into third place. Part of how he got to third place was due to the constant media discussions about Obama and Clinton.

So why is Edwards being brought back into the equation, considering that many Edwards supporters have contended that the reason Edwards wasn't getting any airplay to begin with was because the Corporate media are afraid of him. Are they really afraid, or is that theory not holding?

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. I know your theory Frenchie

And I have to admit that meida coverage of Edwards has followed the exact pattern that you predicted here at DU a little while back, and you called it right BEFORE a wave of positive feature stories. One could say that it takes a lot of ignoring for a very long time to make 2004's Dem VP candidate suddenly seem like a fresh face newly being rediscoverd just in time for some final momentum heading into the Iowa vote.

Your case has not been proved, alternate theories are possible, but I can not deny that you have been spot on with your predictions on this.

[w4rma]

17. I expect Edwards to win and always have.

Frenchie's spin on *why* is what is disinformation.

[FrenchieCat]

19. My spin is what, exactly? Please do tell!

I'm interested in what you have to say, even if you dislike me and my posts! :)

[w4rma]

21. You're usual spin that fits with your blind hatred of the most progressive of the top 3. (nt)

[FrenchieCat]

23. Losta name calling in your post....and obviously dislike for me personally,

but, I'm asking you a question.....and thus far your answers are only filled with non answers beyond your characterization of me, a DUer.

I'm interested in politics and how they are played; not so much you and what you think of me. I don't believe that I have ever tarred and feathered you in my posts based on who you support or don't support.

[EV_Ares]

51. Maybe if you had some backup instead of just I saw it on TV, eom.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Thanks, Tom........

and yes, other theories are certainly possible....but thus far, I almost feel like I wrote the script to date.

[sandnsea]

14. Make sure Obama doesn't win Iowa

Watch for Hillary to be shoved up our butts around Dec 30.

[FrenchieCat]

16. That's another theory......

and time will tell.

That's the corporate media theory as well. Just heard it on Hardball by the kings of the kings of punditry; Chris Matthews et al.

[sandnsea]

65. The Newsweek spread says it all n/t

[GreenArrow]

24. I still think that the media

and its corporate masters are perfectly okay with an Edwards Presidency. If they believed he was serious about any of his spiel, he wouldn't get the time of day, but instead, end up like Kucinich or Gravel.

Though I have to say you've been spot on in your prediction of a media upswing for Johnny E. and wouldn't rule out that they are setting him up for a fall. I'm thinking Romney rather than McCain as his competition, though.

[FrenchieCat]

27. Yes....you may be right in terms of not necessarily McCain........

because to date, they are promoting McCain some, but have not gone all out...and they are running out of time if they want to have public opinion effect on Iowa....although McCain is 2nd in New Hampshire.

[Tejanocrat]

29. "Marsha, Marsha, Marsha . . . it's always all about Marsha!"

[FrenchieCat]

30. If I didn't make any sense or if my predictions weren't happening right on cue.......

I tend to believe that Marsha is who everyone is afraid of. I don't see it.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

31. New ! Improved!!

And I'm not talking about Edwards or his campaign...

The news is a product that the media is selling. Hillary is inevitable and Obama is a Rock Star are yesterday's products. To keep the news "fresh" and marketable -- shy of doing any serious reporting and analysis of the issues (shit, I crack me up!!) -- they're going to give you a new story line.

Edwards surging!
The dark horse candidate is moving up!!
Go Seabiscuit!!!

[FrenchieCat]

32. That's great for Edwards is this is the case......wouldn't you say?

but it renders the cries here on DU and elsewhere of the last three months that the Corporate media was afraid of John Edwards.

The best priceless and effective promotion is positive attention by the big media right before the vote. :shrug:

Are Media Out to Get John Edwards?
by Jeff Cohen
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/31/1570/

John Edwards Lost In The Media Shuffle?
http://www.stereohyped.com/politics/john-edwards-lost-in-the-media-shuffle-20071204/

How the republicans & media are keeping John Edwards down....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=76107&mesg_id=76222

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

67. It's good news until the media decides to trash him...

Remember a guy named Howard Dean?

[ChiciB1]

37. This Stuff Reminds Me Of When I Used To Dive In The Shallow Waters

and grass flats where scallops lived. As you were underwater the tide would make the grass sway with the water as you swam along. MSM seems to be just like it!

It seems that "perhaps" John Edwards IS THE SLEEPER and no matter what the D.C. Elites may think of Edwards, Iowans aren't listening. I saw a poll from there and what struck me MOST about the poll was the line at the bottom. I think it showed that over 50% of the caucus goers were UNDECIDED! As the time gets closer, the boots on the ground may be seeing a swell for Edwards, and MSM just can't be left out there hanging with the "wrong message!"

I have no idea, but that's what might be happening.

[FrenchieCat]

41. Who knows.....? I'm just surprised that the Media would conceed victory

to the Iowa voters, 2 weeks BEFORE the vote....unless it is a riptide that will overwhelm all predictions...which is always possible.

It would be something to see, because I've never seen the media throw up their hands in the air before, and pull out the white flags this long before the fact. Usually, the media attempts to influence, especially at the last minute and usually up to the last minute.

Of course, there is still time left for the media to change and turn on John Edwards. Guess that we shall see.

[ChiciB1]

64. Ya Know What It Is... THIS May Be Giving Clinton More Credit Or Control

that she really has, but maybe the Clinton campaign might be boosting Edwards to some extent because they don't Obama to win Iowa. This is some scuttle-butt that's being thrown around from various blogs and TV. If Obama wins Iowa, they think he's more of a threat than Edwards. They think Edwards is much weaker.

However, I DON'T feel that way about Edwards myself. If THIS is the strategy they may get burned in the end. I already thought I was pretty cynical about politics, but how the Clintons are running their campaign seems extremely contrived and they're carrying a baseball bat with them too!

They have a LOT on the line too... huge names with lots of money have hitched their wagon to their train so if she goes down, many people who control this country go down with her. I really do think they have the "power" make MSM sit up and listen when they want to! So perhaps they've whispered in a lot of ears, and Edwards gets the benefit for now!

I'm just speculating, but this is some real "gutter-ball" politicking, but I'm beginning to see "the dark side of the moon" here. Can't prove any of this, but my bones are feeling it... and I don't want to feel this way! I've read about this stuff in books, I've seen it in movies... but in my world, have never seen up close and personal.

Just my thoughts and they ain't pretty!

[yurbud]

38. most cynical answer: a stronger showing by him could undermine other two contenders

and corporate America wants to be able to pick the winner. If Edwards is stronger, it is more likely to hurt Obama than Hillary.

[FrenchieCat]

57. So you believe that the media is getting rid of Obama by promoting Edwards

because that is better for Hillary?

I like to hear more from you on this.

Please give me the scenario that you are thinking about. What happens in New Hampshire, etc...?

[bain_sidhe]

43. My theory, fwiw

If Edwards finishes third in Iowa, it's down to two--Clinton & Obama. But either of those could likely survive a third place finish in Iowa, so the media wants to bump Edwards up a notch so they can keep their "free for all" going.

Ritual disclaimer: I don't have a candidate, I like 'em all, and hate 'em all, by turns.

[FrenchieCat]

52. Certainly could be, if one buys the theory that the media simply loves a good story for the sake of

ratings, and if one doesn't quite believe that there is colusion within the various media circles to exercise their power of influence in reference to political results.

It is true that some believe that the media overarching interest is ratings (although news departments are not known for making money, even those on TeeVee) as opposed to manipulation for the sake of the power it brings to the corporate entities that own them.

[Lucinda]

45. I've been expecting it, and posted last week

that I thought it would be just before or just after Iowa. Now makes more sense to me. I also expect more negative press for Obama very soon. I'm not sure what they will do to Hillary.

I used to think it was just to create drama and ratings, but I'm leaning towards more manipulative reasons as time passes.

[FrenchieCat]

47. well, the messages from every news outlet really sounds too similar to be

nearly coincidental.....don't they?

In reference to Obama, the media is allowing the Hillary campaign and their own overblown reports (they = media) on everything that the Hillary campaign has to say about Obama to take its effect on both Hillary and Obama. Its a twofer!

[EV_Ares]

49. Are you ever going to tell us what media outlets where you got all

this info or do we just accept your poat for it. What exactly did they say? Who was it?

Oh and can you give us a hint of what your next attack post on Edwards will be?

Are you going to run the money one again, seems to be your favorite?

Thanks.

[FrenchieCat]

54. If you made sense, I'd respond......

but you don't, so I won't.

The day that you learn how to conduct political debate in a manner that doesn't personally offend whomever you are in disagreement with is the day that you and I will have further discourse. Got that?

[EV_Ares]

56. LOL, ok, I understand, I can't remember all the TV shows I see either, eom.

[Lucinda]

53. That's my take on it as well. Once I realized that a lot of Edwards

gains and comments should have been making the news and weren't, and how much stuff was being aired about Obama and Clinton that was just "made" news, I realized it was waaaay beyond coincidental.

[EV_Ares]

55. Are Media Out to Get John Edwards?

Today, elite media are doing their best to raise Edwards' unfavorable rating. But the independent media and the Netroots are four years stronger than during Howard Dean's rise and fall.

But I'm growing quite suspicious about the media barrage against Edwards, who got his wealth as a trial lawyer suing hospitals and corporations. Among "top-tier" presidential candidates, Edwards is alone in convincingly criticizing corporate-drafted trade treaties and talking about workers' rights and the poor and higher taxes on the rich. He's the candidate who set up a university research center on poverty. Of the front-runners in presidential polls, he's pushing the hardest to withdraw from Iraq, and pushing the hardest on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to follow suit.

Given a national media elite that worships "free trade" and disparages Democrats for catering to "extremists" like MoveOn.org on Iraq withdrawal, the media's rather obsessive focus on Edwards' alleged hypocrisy should not surprise us.

Nor should it surprise us that we've been shown aerial pictures of Edwards' mansion in North Carolina, but not of the mansions of the other well-off candidates.

Indeed, current media coverage of Edwards bears an eerie resemblance to the scary reporting on the Democratic frontrunner four years ago, Howard Dean. If Edwards is still ahead as the Iowa balloting nears, expect coverage to get far nastier. The media barrage against Dean in the weeks before Iowa -- "too far left" and "unelectable" with a high "unfavorable" rating -- helped defeat him. (I write those words as someone who was with Kucinich at the time.)

Today, elite media are doing their best to raise Edwards' unfavorable rating. But the independent media and the Netroots are four years stronger -- and have more clout vis-a-vis corporate media -- than during Dean's rise and fall.

AlterNet: Are The Media Out To Get J. Edwards http://www.alternet.org/story/52764/

[jenmito]

58. YES! I noticed. The most ridiculous comment was this morning, when on MSNBC they showed a Rasussen

poll, the national poll, with Clinton at 40%, Obama at 27%, and Edwards at 13%, and the TH's comment was something like, "Watch EDWARDS. These numbers are interesting. He may slip right between those 2." HUH? How 'bout, "Watch Edwards' numbers remaining stagnant even though he's doing well in Iowa. He does not have the money to run a national campaign, and judging by these numbers, he won't HAVE to."

[Tom Rinaldo]

70. That sure qualifies as "spin"! Sure, he "might" do anything...

...he "might" jump right to number one, he "might" fall to the back of the pack. Neither of those scenarios are plausible, so what makes this supposed scenario plausible instead? Maybe it is, but not just because some talking head says that Edwards "might". Where was the case for that reasoning? Meanwhile Bill Richardson and Joe Biden "might" overtake John Edwards in Iowa. I don't have to explain why I said that. No one can prove that it "might" not happen.

Great example jenmitto.

[balantz]

59. It's because the media know now that Edwards has run a solid campaign

in Iowa that is sure to win. They are climbing on board the bandwagon.

[Hieronymus]

60. Maybe it has to do with Hillary becoming very vulnerable. Lots of

missteps in that campaign.

[BeyondGeography]

62. Flavor of the beginning of the week

It's Dec. 17th and the caucus is Jan. 3. This too shall pass, unless you think that Edwards will get this kind of coverage for the next 2 and 1/2 weeks.

They'll be bored of their John soon enough; someone from the second-tier will probably be the next apple of their eye or Hillary's inner regular person will be discovered...whatever, the narrative is always changing and, sometimes, it's even real-live voter response that drives them.

[surfermaw]

66. Could be because Edwards has never ben behind in Iowa!

[Adelante]

69. Edwards had 100% positive press leading into the Iowa caucus last time

This is a repeat. I too have been watching for it and here it is. The media decides who to build up and when to tear down.

[AP]

71. Yes. He got 100% good press. But the total coverage was a fraction of what others got.

And none of it was about his policies (it was all about personality).

Then Stanford did an informed voter survey which showed that Edwards was the most popular candidate among a sample of voters who were "informed" -- who were given materials on policies, who had facilitated discussions with experts, who had their questions answered.

So, if a couple of poindexters from Stanford could get voters to like Edwards the most without even trying, why couldn't the mainstream media make him the nominee in 2004 with total information control over the American public?

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. Hi AP. Long time no see...

DU hasn't been the same without you - and no, I'm not being snarky, lol. I hope you've been OK.

[AP]

73. Thanks!

[chimpymustgo]

81. Hi AP!!!! Where ya been? Welcome back!!! It's truly great to see you here!

That said - here we go again!

John and Elizabeth Edwards: their time is now.

[Armstead]

74. Just the Echo Chamber -- It's his turn

I don't think it's anything nefarious. Just the screech of feedback from pundits who listen to each other rather than do any actual reporting and independent thinking.

[progressoid]

76. Whoa , whoa, whoa. It was just a month ago DU was declaring that Corp Media was afraid of Edwards.

Now we think they there is some nefarious collusion with his campaign?

Time for a chill pill people.

[0007]

77. ........and when John Edwards is the subject of a William F. Buckley Jr. article

yesterday. So it appears in my opinion that John Edwards is gaining power by leaps and bounds.

Populist Hour

By William F. Buckley Jr.

There is this to be said for populist oratory: it is generally directed against the big fella, and that is attractive to the American who lives in a world in which collectivity threatens all. The traditional threat of the collectivist dragon was as easy to understand, and as easy to loathe, as the porcine British king who kept on finding burdens for his colonial Americans to shoulder, and contributed especially to the resentment of his subjects by denying them any influence on the Parliament that supported him.

In more recent times, there has usually been a presidential candidate out there who took the populist line, endeavoring to distinguish himself from the establishment, and inviting followers to join him in heterodoxy. He draws attention to the special fragrance that rises from the fetid pools of power — big business, big unions. However, his remedies usually rely on another of those pools: big government.

More at link;

http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE0Ng==

[huskerlaw]

80. Yep. He's going to win Iowa.

Based on what I've heard from people on the ground there, I have very little doubt.

As for the media, you're rift about that too. Good Morning America just did a piece on Edwards as the "surprise" candidate. They also discussed how Hillary's "veneer of inevitability" was wearing off and that Obama wasn't grabbing the Hillary defectors, but Edwards might.

[Prophet 451]

83. Battle Royal booking

"booking" is a wrestling term for making matches. Any promoter knows that the key to making a successful battle royal is to keep as many entrants credible as possible. The idea is that the audience then has to pay to find out who eventually wins.

This is the same thing. If they can position Edwards as a credible challenger then the public will have to tune in on the night to find out who won.

[FrenchieCat]

84. I just don't think that the media gains a whole lot of money

compared to the power they get from having the right folks in office.

[Prophet 451]

86. Bit of both

They don't get money directly but they do get ratings which they can then pitch to advertisers.

And yeah, having people in office who are sympathetic to them helps a lot too.

[FrenchieCat]

88. Agreed......

Plus the 5 giant corporations are free to do "other" things besides sell to advertisers and stand to profit mightily with the right legislation in place, e.g., General Electric in the defense industries profited more from Bush's Iraq Blunder than via advertising sales made by it media arm; NBC et al.

[Prophet 451]

89. True

It's a confluence of factors. The ratings can be pitched to advertisers which is a nice bit of pocket change but the same media coverage can also be used to push for legislation which benefits them, create a favourable image for their company and so on. In addition, the media coverage can then be leveraged into cross-promoting other companies and products who own a slice (the nature of modern media means all the media megacorps are interconnected). It doesn't have to be as crude as Fox (the firm I work for was just brought out by Fox) makes it, you don't need to have anchors pushing particular products, you just need to frame the discussion in a particular way.

[LaPera]

85. I'm on record john Edwards will win the presidency - Not a doubt in my mind!!!

[FrenchieCat]

87. I'm not going to bet my house on it.......

maybe not even my lunch money. :shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3860147&mesg_id=3860147