Why did MSnbc change who they initially proclaimed was winner of Debates?

[FrenchieCat]

When the debate ended last night, Clark was declared as the winner by Finneman (enthusiastically) and even Matthews. However, this morning David Schuster and Craig Crawford (both of MSnbc)both said that Dean won the debate, and very little was commented about Clark's performance...except for as an afterthought.

Why is that?

I know that many here at DU also felt that Clark was the winner.

So my question is why isn't the media giving Clark any recognition?

read the NYT article reviewing the debate closely and tell me what you think of the slant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/25/politics/campaigns/25DEBA.html

I ask this question to those who's overarching goal is to oust Bush during the next election.

Those who have other goals need not respond.

[madrchsod]

1. one word

karl

[GregW]

2. Another word

Fear

[FrenchieCat]

3. But if that's the case...

why are not more Democrats seeing the pattern of Mediawhores ignoring Clark and promoting Dean?

Why are those that were smart enough to connect the dots to how we arrived at war in Iraq and witnessed the media's manipulation and cheerleader status then, cannot see manipulation from the press now?

[blm]

21. Frenchie, they've been doing it all year.

They've been trying to use their pumping of Dean to take down Kerry, and now they're doing it to Clark, too. You're just noticing lately?

Ask supporters of Kucinich, Edwards, and Gephardt how they get ignored for Dean, while Kerry and now Clark are getting bad press PLUS the marginalization in favor of Dean.

[Racenut20]

4. Yep

Even Rather said they are not asking the questions they used to ask the White House because of fear. Never thought I would hear him say that, but I saw it on tv one night in an interview.

[Cocoa]

8. they have very good reason to fear Clark

If Rove saw Clark overpowering Tweety last night he probably soiled himselft.

Clark even seemed to pause at times to let Tweety try interrupting him, so he could run over him. :-)

[AP]

24. I wish I had seen that interview.

One of the things about the media whores is that they're stupid and they're cowardly. Unfortunately, there haven't been many politicians who have been able to nail them.

Schumer is VERY good at it. Edwards was pretty good at it when he had his hardball segment. I would have loved to have seen what you've described. There's nothing like seeing a guy like Clark drop the baited hook out for a guy like Matthews to snap at, and then see the fish's reaction -- "should I bite? shouldn't I bite? I'm a stupid cowards and I'm scared."

[blm]

5. Frank Luntz told them to.

Why doesn't anyone understand that Dean was granted teflon by the corporate media for THEIR reasons, and not because he earned it? He hasn't won ONE debate, yet the corporate media, led by Luntz, has said Dean won all of them.

Nothing to see here?

[NNN0LHI]

6. Republican pollster Frank Luntz...

...who everyone seems to forget mention that he is a Republican pollster these days for some odd reason.

Don

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. 17th Paragraph

Admittedly many of those were very short dialogue centered paragraphs, but that's how long it took the NY Times to even mention Wesly Clark.

[AP]

25. shameless.

deciphering the whoreishness of the media is like math. One plus one and you have two.

17th paragraph. That's sick and it's blatant.

[democratreformed]

9. As I have said before, with Clark,

the media seems to follow this pattern: bash, ignore, bash, ignore, bash,... I guess we're back to the ignore phase.

[FrenchieCat]

10. But beyond that ....

Many here, in particular Dean supporters do not acknowledge the fact that Clark is being ignored and Dean is being given all of the ink. They rationalize that Dean "earned" his ink due to his organization and money raising prowess.

It reminds me of when Bush and Gore had their debates....and although most thought that Gore had won the debate, Bush was proclaimed the winner. Many politically savy Democrats did not fall for that propaganda. They knew then, what we should definitely know now.

But why can't many Democrats who witnessed that 2000 run up to the election now be in total denial that we are, again being manipulated.

What will it take for us to wisen up and not allow the corporate media to do this to us again?

[AP]

29. I'm guessing two reasons:

- one is that much of the internet strategy is probably coming from the top down. Obviously the Dean campaign is using the web to get the message out, so, of course, the Dean campaign isn't going to acknowledge the reality that the media loves Dean so that it can leave him after the nomination. (And imagine what the media will do if he doesn't get nominated? They'll STILL use him to divide the Demcorats.) Some of what you see at DU from Dean supporters is a filtering down of the campaign's messages.

- the second reason is that it's the nature of how the Dean appeal is formed in the first place. I don't doubt that the worst apsects of Bush are being emphasized, and exaggerated, and magnified and discussed ad nauseum to encourage a certain kind of democrat to get nominated -- one that responds to Bush, rather than puts foreward his own strong message (and responds to Bush on the one issue they want to be the focus -- Iraq). So, the same red meat that drives Dean's campaign in the first place (hatred of Bush) makes people feel justified in ignoring Dean's worst qualities (including the fact that the media wants him to win). Ie, it's become such a cult of personality, that people think there's a higher purspose that makes it OK to ignore the truth before their eyes.

[ieoeja]

11. Better Headline

Headline: Clark Gives Impressive Speech
Headline: Kerry/Gephardt Attack Dean During Debate

It doesn't take a degree in Journalism to figure which headline sells better.

[Nazgul35]

12. How's about the fact that...

you're talking about four completely different people....

Last time I checked....Finnemann and Matthews were not the same people as Schuster and Crawford....unless I missed something....

You might have a case if the first two individuals changed their stances when next they are on...after all, Matthews is on every night...so you shouldn't be too worried about not having Clark get recognition....

Perhaps we should stop worrying about appearances foisted on us by the media and create our own news....just like the Dean campaign has been able to do for months now! Get out and hit the streets and make the case for your candidate....

That being said, I thought both Clark and Dean did well last night, but both had some flubs....I support Dean but would enthusiastically support Clark, the same way I am supporting Dean...canvassing, sending cash, writing letters, registering voters....cause this is the only way we are going to beat the repugs folks....

Who cares what the pundits say about who won the deabte....no one watched it but us!!! The majority of voters haven't even become engaged in the campaign yet....

[economic justice]

18. but, but...

Doesn't Karl Rove control EVERYTHING?

I agree. Completely. The energy so many on the left expend watching right wing TV, listening to right wing radio, and reading right wing websites is actually kind of funny. The result? EVERYTHING is a conspiracy! Four talking heads = four different opinions. Karl Rove is thought to be omnipresent and omniscient to some. As for the debate, I can see the argument for both sides. I recently decided to support Clark so naturally I think he "won"........I got Rove's memo, but ignored it.

[dave29]

13. I will gladly explain why Clark did not win

and Dean did.

Clark had a great debate. Arguably better than anybody else, including Dean. Dean's objective, as it has been in every debate, is to ride the storm of inevitable attacks. Clark, better than any other previous outing was able to forcefully explain his position on the Iraq war, which he, unfortunately, has been having to do since he entered the race. Dean (as the front runner) won the debate by not losing any ground. Clark did well by putting an issue to rest, and putting some people at ease. He obviously had some of the best moments of the debate.

The fact that you people think Frank Luntz is calling the shots over at MSNBC is kind of sad. Not to mention the fact that you give any of their pundits any credence whatsoever. There's no conspiracy going on folks, just a bunch of inept wannabes trying to put the pieces together and seem like they are the cool kids.

[QC]

15. The Bush Standard

Remember how we were told again and again, back in 2000, that if Bush simply managed to get through a debate without wetting his pants or bursting into tears, then he would "win"?

[FrenchieCat]

16. No conspiracy...

as I said in my post....Dean supporters seem to be in denial...

But why?

These are the same smart people had enough insight to know that Bush and the media were leading us to war.

So why is it now that Pundits don't mean a thing?

When these same pundits were cheerleading and basically swayed public opinion into supporting the war.

Isn't discounting the media quite dangerous? because it can lead to war and elections where votes are not counted?

[Nazgul35]

22. your causality seems to only go in one direction...

that's why...

Your underlying assumption is that the media creates American perceptions in willing coordination with the right...

First, the bias in the media is not right or left... it is coporate! The advent of 24 hour news has created the need to sell commercials based upon the "if it bleeds it leads" news adage.... of course the media was in support of the war....when we go blow things up, Americans tune in in droves!!!! Is this the media's fault?! Or are they just serving the lowest common denominator in an increasingly competitive market?

Second, due to the need to raise cash, the media is allergic to anything that they feel would result in a negative backlash by the consumers...they see the same poll numbers we do, the have been doing market research for more years than politicians have and know how to work the market...in the period after 9/11 and the lead up to the war, the environment in which these corporations found themselves was heavily in favor of the Bush Administration, after all, they had their thumb on the scale....

Third, the lack of any response from the so-called "Democratic Leadership" of the so-called left completely abandoned their roles as party of opposition, creating a vaccum in which only the Bush regime was ready to fill...and they weilded the Bully Pulpit with great affectiveness....

Finally, Yes.. the media can influence the public discourse in this country....but they do so at their peril!!! Right now, no one is paying attention....hell even 2/3rds of dems dont know what's going on....within this environment they are free to act as they wish....if you want to change that...you must reach out and educate the public...and whinning about not getting your fare share is not an effective strategy....

I am greatly disappointed in the Clark campaign's performance to date....the media didn't reach out and pick the Dean campiagn and annoint him the heir apparent....he got noticed through his campaign's use of the internet, the grass roots movement and dundraising....

What some of you seem to forget is that there was a buzz about the Clark campaign....much to do with the draft Clark movement.....everyone was talking about Clark at the time, than he hobbled the draftClark organizers, and brought in the Dem elites who are running a traditional campiagn which moved the General towards the pack, and not towards the front....right now, the only thing holding him up (in my humble opinion) is that he is a very good speaker and distinguished American, but that's not enough to win....

Remember, when you point a finger at something else, you have three pointing back at yourself...look to the campaign to explain why the media is not paying attention...

[returnable]

14. To be fair...

...MSPNAC, er, MSNBC didn't "change" who they proclaimed the winner was, cuz MSNBC never declared a winner in the first place.

A few pundits on the post-game Hardball episode gave the nod to Clark.

Some DIFFERENT pundits are giving the nod to Dean.

That's not a change, that's a difference of opinion (however slanted it may or may not be).

If folks like Fineman, Matthews, Schwarzkopf and Jackson change their story and start proclaiming Dean won, THEN I'll be convinced the fix is in.

That said, I don't deny that Big Media is doing its best to marginalize the Clark campaign.

I just think in this particular instance, the example given is flawed.

[FrenchieCat]

17. So why is the progressive Salon giving

One kind of review on the debates

from salon.com's analysis:
Clark seemed to use this debate to launch a newer, more forceful
One kind of review on the debates:
image, loudly criticizing the Bush administration’s handling of the nation’s security. “Our great President Harry Truman said this,” said Clark. “He said, "When you're president of the United States, the buck stops here. Now, we know who did 9/11 and we know who is directly responsible for it, and that's Osama bin Laden. But the president of the United States is responsible for U.S. security. And I think that's an issue in this election. And the question is, is he doing and did he do everything he could to protect the people of the United States?”
He also tried to put to rest an earlier hedge on whether he would have voted in Congress to authorize the war in Iraq (when he said that he “probably” would have), telling moderator Tom Brokaw that he “bobbled the question.” And he grew uncharacteristically animated as he condemned the president’s handling of the lead-up to Iraq. “The real issue in front of us is that this president misled the American people and the Congress into war,” he said, practically yelling. “It's wrong. If you wrote this script in a movie, it would be rejected as being outrageous.”

and yet the New York times wrote a couple of lines about Clark on paragraph 17 of their review?

[returnable]

19. What does Salon or the NYT have to do with MSNBC?

Look, you said MSNBC "changed" its opinion of who the winner was.

I argued MSNBC didn't "change" anything - different pundits had different opinions.

The different pundits certainly have their own agendas. I don't deny that. If you read my post, I agreed Big Media is trying to marginalize Clark.

But to say MSNBC "changed" its opinion is misleading.

Show me where Howard Fineman has "changed" his opinion about who won the debate, and you'll have something.

[unfrigginreal]

20. I think Rove called Trippi who called Ailes...

and it was taken care of.

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[FrenchieCat]

23. and why

does the RNC not list Clark as a candidate?????????
on their website?????

http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/DemsInDepth/

[unfrigginreal]

26. Couldn't be because the last update to the page was 9/02/03 could it?

:tinfoilhat: :shrug: :tinfoilhat: :shrug:

[AWD]

27. To annoy you

It's all part of their master plan to annoy you and scam everybody else. You're their only target.

I've been a Dean supporter since LONG before the media would acknowledge him. Nobody "duped" me into believing in him, nobody "duped" me into donating to him, and it is not part of a master scheme to re-elect Bush that will force me to vote for him. I find him to be the best candidate, and because I have that belief, that seems to make me a lesser in your eyes, as attested by post after post after post by you.

I have no need for people who consistently tell me and my fellow Dean supporters that I'm a fool for supporting a man whom I believe in. I have a fully-functioning brain and I am able to use it to decipher through the bullshit and block out the propaganda. I am now using that brain to block out more bullshit. It's called the ignore button. Welcome to it.

[Julien Sorel]

33. Wow. I guess you showed her.

I bet she's all balled up and weeping her eyes out at the insult.

Did you notice those annoying swirls of red around the 'For U.S. Representative' part of your banner? It makes it look unprofessional. I'll be happy to fix it if you like, for free. It would only take a couple of minutes. This is a serious offer, by the way.

[Scott Lee]

39. Rather than your smarmy attacks on his intelligence...

Why don't you just suggest he decrease the JPEG compression on his original?

Oh that's right, it would rob you of an opportunity to look down on another lowly Dean supporter. My bad. Carry on.

[FrenchieCat]

35. ignore button...

isn't that like "DENYING" that someone exists??????

Like a consorted effort by the media to promote Dean....who at 16% is the undeniable frontrunner of all times and will sweep away the nomination.....as reported by the media whores?

[ieoeja]

28. Was Clark a Candidate by 2 Sept?

That website has two articles from the 2nd of September. Everything else is even older. I don't think Clark had even announced his candidacy the last time that page was updated.

[Julien Sorel]

30. Nagourney is the fucknut who was responsible for the

'Mary, Help' thing, which was apparently said in jest, but which he reported as if it was said seriously. He's been consistently friendly to Dean's campaign since a few weeks after Dean got slapped silly on Russert's show.

This was pretty unbalanced coverage. Last week, I saw the politics part of CNN, which Judy Woodruff and some other talking head hosted. Clark wasn't mentioned one time: the entire segment, about 10 minutes, was devoted to the 'Dean juggernaut' versus the stumbling campaign of 'his rival,' John Kerry. No other candidates existed, besides a mention that they'd be interviewing Lieberman later in the week, and they kept saying Dean was 'picking up steam,' and 'gaining momentum,' but didn't say exactly what was happening that made them reach that conclusion.

Woodruff: So what's going on?

Talking head: The Dean juggernaut just keeps going on, while Kerry's campaign is mired in mush.

Woodruff: Yes, Dean is really picking up steam.

Other talking head: His momentum really grew this week. His rival, John Kerry, just can't get it together.

Woodruff: Dean is amazing, and got better this week.

Other talking head: John Kerry sucks. Dean is really taking it to him.

Woodruff: How can Kerry turn this around?

Other talking head: If he has another week like this one against the gathering momentum and the juggernaut of Howard Dean, he can't.

Woodruff: Tune in next week, when we interview presidential hopeful Joe Lieberman, and ask him the important questions: in the complete absence of news, how does one 'pick up momentum,' 'build a juggernaut,' 'distance oneself from one's rival,' get credit for only having one rival when there are actually seven, be the only person who gets positive notice from the media, and, most importantly,
what he thinks about Howard Dean.


I don't watch TV, and am usually very suspicious of the paranoia that runs rampant on this board, but that 10 minutes was eye opening.

[FrenchieCat]

34. But according to some Dean supporters...

I am imagining it all. That there's nothing to any of it....and I'm just a big pain in their derriere! who discounts the great "No foreign policy, tax increase proposing former governor of a state smaller in pop. than San Francisco " wonderful advances in popularity in spite of the media.

[WhosNext]

31. Dean is an awful debator.

But he's getting a pass by the media because he's the perfect fall guy in '04.

[blm]

36. yup.

and taking the whole Dem party with him.

[Dr Fate]

32. Like CBS, they probably have to clear their content through the RNC

...

[mmonk]

37. MSNBC

has had a predictable pattern.

[FrenchieCat]

38. CNN Inside politics is on now

and it's all DEAN, DEAN, DEAN......Clark only, only, only as a last resort...like when they have to.....

[mmonk]

40. Clark would be a monkey wrench

in the repub patriotism spin election plans.

[salin]

41. because there are no objective winners? All depends on the individual?

So different people last night of one perspective... different than those speaking today?

I wouldn't read much into it UNLESS those who declared Clark a winner last night, suddenly change their tune today. Otherwise you are reading two oranges personal response to two apples personal response.

[FrenchieCat]

42. Wake up!

before it's too late.

why would Republicans be scared to run against a

1. candidate who has no foreign policy experience during WARTIME?
2. Who avoided the draft altogether
3. Who is running on a tax increase for the middleclass
4. Who won't be able to attract voters in the South
5. who governed a state with a population smaller than that of S.F.
6. Who is not charismatic at all
7. Who's only speech seems to be "You've got the power"
8. Who seem to be angry most of the time

They are not!

Wait till the media turns on DEAN!!!! You guys won't know what hit you!

[mikehiggins]

43. Absolutely right., Frenchie. That's why I'm for Clark.

For the life of me I cannot understand what it is that makes Dean supporters think that the average American voter will vote for Howard Dean as opposed to George Bush.

Just can't see it. When and if Dean gets up on stage and "debates" chimp what is he going to say that he hasn't said before? What is he going to put across that he hasn't done before? How is he going to go up against a man who many Americans beleive did the right thing after 9/11?

I know the polls are saying Bush is losing ground as far as popularity is concerned, but what exactly does that matter if the man opposing him cannot overwhelmingly confront him on the underpinnings of his corrupt reign, his position as COmmander-in-Chief of a nation at war.

Certainly Dean can go on and on about the mistakes, misjudgments and outright lies Bush has perpetrated on America but how does he answer the question that immediately comes to mind, i.e. who the hell are you to challenge the President on the war on terrorism? The ex-governor of a state of 600,000 population?

The hordes of internet folks who are supporting Doctor Dean are still only a small percentage of the voting population. They have no reason to be confident of gaining a majority of the registered Democratic voters, let alone the indies and the Repugs.

The Deanites have found a great candidate but they are not looking past that to see what it is that they are facing. Its like in boxing; you can't win the title unless you knockout the champ. Inspiring as he may be, Dean is no better in political terms than Bush is (I know he is a better person, etc., etc.--I'm talking politics here) in the eyes of the general voting population. Unless something really horrific comes out about Bush over the next few months (the dead woman or live boy scenario) what can Dean offer that will inspire America to defy history and tradition and turn away from their commander-in-chief in the middle of this "war"?

I just don't see it.