Do we all agree that media is trying to help Bush win 2004?

[AP]

We may disagree on what the media is doing to influence 2004 election, but, at the very least, do we agree that they have already started laying the groundwork for a Bush victory?

And if you answer yes, what do you think they're doing to ensure a Bush victory?

[JailBush]

1. Of course I agree - but what are we doing about it?

When I ran for office, I made the media a campaign issue. I refused to attend their sham endorsement interviews, and I buried them in criticism - not just name calling; I did a lot of research and put my findings on the Internet.

I'm talking about liberal Seattle, and not ONE other candidate has EVER followed suit, to my knowledge. Seattle boasts a left-wing media whore with a national following - Geov Parrish. No one cares.

Everyone knows the Seattle Times and Seattle P-I are corrupt - yet even the most leftist candidates lick their boots when they call for interviews.

What a way to reform a country.

[Newsjock]

2. I don't think it's quite that simple

The media are simply pro-profit. Right now, they think a Bush victory will increase profit. If, for whatever reason, they began to think otherwise, their support for Bush would erode quicker than a Northwest hillside in a rainstorm.

Just one media whore's opinion.

[wtmusic]

5. Agree

As soon as public opinion starts to turn against the war, they could turn on him.

It's the blind leading the blind.

[moondust]

10. Ah yes...profits first--truth last.

How utterly American.

(on edit: No offense to Canadian Americans.)

[kodi]

3. the media is setting the narrative for the campaign

it is generating specific themes and images that will allow the busheviks to tap into the stories and myths americans tell about themselves that make them happy.

we are a free people,

we are the best country,

we have the best health care in the world,

we are richest country in the world.

everyone wants to be like us

we stand on guard for freedom.

and so it goes, as kilgore trout might offer.

yeah, we got kilgore trout too!

WE'RE NUMBER 1!!

[JohnKleeb]

4. Yep I think the majority on us can agree on it

I dont trust the bastards :D.

[Virginian]

7. The press has never dug up any info on him.

Any of the dirty tricks are fluffed over by the press. They have not done any investigative reporting.

I bet the press could find out who the Anthrax mailer was and why the neo-cons are sheilding him.

The press could find out who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame.
But Bush said it would be difficult to find the culprit because the press protects its sources. Meaning they had better protect their sources because he didn't want his leakers exposed. The leaker could have even been Dubya himself. (Hey Ann Coulter, can you say treason.)

[CSI Willows]

6. They're helping him...

...for one thing, of course they're laying out the ground work for a Bush victory. I can tell that just by what they're covering on 2004 Election stuff that they're helping him.
The most recent example is how they went bananas over Bush going to Iraq...especially CNN and Faux. I barely ever hear anything about the Democratic candidates on either, that is, when I'm watching them. Never hear anything on local news. Yet, it's Bush this, Bush that. Maybe it's because he's the pResident.

[LibertyorDeath]

8. Well the American media is mostly an extension of corporate

America from what I see a PR firm for all things corporate if you will.

Bush is the best thing to happen to corporate America in generations so the media has a vested interest in helping him.

The whole system is corrupt from top to bottom.

America as seen on TV is a Facade.

[AP]

9. Does anyone think that the media is not trying to influence the primaries?

Any theories? observations?

[unfrigginreal]

11. Ahhh, we get to the point of the post n/t

[JNelson6563]

20. heh heh

;-)

[drfemoe]

15. Press tries to determine who should and shouldn't run for president

http://www.fair.org/extra/0309/democrats.html
--snipped--
Journalists and pundits, of course, do not create these storylines in a vacuum; their assessments of the candidates reflect opinion polls. Yet their reliance on such data is problematic. At this point in the campaign, when many candidates are still unknown to voters, it is inadvisable to declare someone unelectable because of low poll numbers. Early polls mainly serve to enable the media to stack the deck against various candidates while seeming to distance themselves from their role in weeding the field: Candidates who are unfamiliar to voters do not fare well in polls, prompting the media to discount their candidacies, leading to further poor showings in polls and continuing negative judgments in the press.

Discerning voters, regardless of their political perspectives, no doubt find this coverage frustrating. They likely long for stories that truly inform them about candidates' positions and platforms rather than casting them as characters in a narrative of winners and losers, likeable and unattractive candidates, serious contenders and dubious upstarts. Yet it is unlikely that the media will attempt to remedy their deficient coverage. Indeed, they seem to have already chosen the end of the story, presuming that Bush will win in 2004. Unless voters look beyond this script and attempt to rewrite it, they will be right.

[AP]

21. Interesting.

[FDRrocks]

12. Yes...

Yes yes yes yes yes. They are working against the modertates... and will work against liberals if need be. All media precednet I have found predicts this.

[Skittles]

13. I would have to say yes

they simply do not tell the whole story. If they did, this illiterate moronice piece of shit could never have been installed into the White House.

[drfemoe]

14. That's like asking if the

oil and gas industry has been laying the groundwork for his victory, isn't it?

39%-45% ownership laws? Who owns whom? Seems like a media monopoly, beholden to the 'government', is an ideal vehicle for mass "communication".

[Clark Can WIN]

16. No shit sherlock!

Oh wait, I thought this was the vitrolic hatred thread..........


Yes, I think the BFEE has slapped the media around and now has them firmly in their front pocket.

[VOX]

17. They've done everything but call the election!

In fact, they've danced around that topic too, with all the recent talk about the shift in electoral numbers, and how the 2000 map would now make * a winner by the electoral gains in some of the GOP states.

Sickening.

[tinanator]

18. not win, STEAL!

I think there is a difference worth noting.

[Dr Satan]

19. no

the media is trying to make money. that is their only priority.

[lostnfound]

23. Money not just by maximizing ratings; they suck up to advertisers

including by the way, the expectation of huge ad spending by the Bush campaign, along with a whole slew of right-wing feel-good ads that are just gravy.

Shows get cancelled sometimes just for angering the advertisers, even with high viewer ratings.

P.S. on edit: welcome to DU, Dr. S.

[AP]

30. I think major media would accept less money, so long as it's

a sure thing. At least they do this temporarily.

Big companies want to eliminate risk as much as they want to be super-rich. And they think that eliminating risk is a way to guarantee more profits in the future.

Democrats like level playing fields on which everyone can compete. There are no guaranteed outcome, except that democrats guarantee that everyone who works hard can earn a buck, and the harder you work, the more bucks you earn. Democrats also provide a safety net so that anyone who can't compete, or who tried and failed at least can live with dignity and not starve (it's the least we can do in such a wealthy society).

This lack of guaranteed outcomes, and rewarding of WORK (rather than of wealth) is an anathema to Republicans and to big companies.

[lostnfound]

22. Fourth day running of Thanksgiving dinner in Iraq..

If it had been Clinton, the immediate reaction of press would have been Blitzer asking questions like 'Don't you think that this publicity stunt is going to backfire on a man who already is disrespected by the military?'

Or perhaps, "Some would ask to what extremes will this president go to avoid answering a simple question about the nature of his relationship with Monica L.."

They would have stopped showing clips of Clinton at dinner within 2 hours, but would have continued the dialog of 'to what extremes will he go..' for 3 days.

[durutti]

24. No.

Sections of the bourgeoisie would be just as happy (if not happier) with any of the Democratic candidates, except maybe Kucinich. They don't really care about abortion or flag-burning.

[Donna Zen]

25. A good thread to pull it all together:

Q: Is the media laying the groundwork.

A: Absolutely. Some of the signs are still subtle and masked by occassional hits against bush. They are currently pushing the meme that the economy is great. Now, they could be doing some actual reporting on how the bleeding of jobs is effecting American workers. With media, it is as much or more about what they don't report. Also, they follow any bad war news with three or more spots about how great things are going.

At this point in the campaign, they are basically immunizing the monkey against later criticism.

The images they chose are very important, including the camera angles, the lighting, and the sets.

The reasons for this are varied. First, they want the weak FCC regulations so that they may wheel and deal without end. Many of the major shareholders are part of the MIC, and they have a vested interest in seeing george on his throne. The blow-dried drones are not actually reporters, they are over-paid, status-driven show pieces, who either are not political or believe in the dogma of republicanism. They don't want to pay taxes, and they could care less what happens to this country. Their motto: "I'm Okay so Fuck You."

Finally, yes they are deciding the outcome of the primaries. Today at Wolfys' round-table discussion they crowned Gov. Dean the winner. Absolutely. I think we can skip the primaries and probably the elections. According to the wizards of 24/7, they have spoken.

[AP]

29. That's what they do with Bush. How 'bout Dem candidates?

What do you think they're doing with the Dem candidates to help Bush?

[Donna Zen]

36. Hey, no fair! I was trying to avoid that one.

Okay:

CMB: Basically the are kind to her. Straight reporting and they haven't thrown dirt. They know that while she has some very strong supporters who love her, the campaign is not going to catch fire.

Sharpton: It is difficult to say because while they would like to see him split the party, he is a very effective bush basher. Sharpton goes right to the heart of any issue, and knows how to spin them. So they have treated him kid gloves, but kept down his air time.

Kucinich: He also gets very limited air time, first because he raises serious doubts about the direction we are going in, and also because he doesn't include enough drama for the ratings. Had he caught fire as a "peace" candidate, they would have bashed him and ignored him. Woodruff interviewed him a few weeks back and used a tone that was at once both patronizing and sceptical.

Leiberman: They really like him. Why? Because he reinforces all of bush's messages. They do have to have him on because he was on Gore's ticket, has name recognition, and probably has some close ties to the boardrooms. They do not talk over him. Notice that while his campaign is going no where, they never say that.

Kerry: The media dwells on anything that has gone wrong for him. Generally, they play got'cha with Kerry and ask him difficult questions. His name is usually prefaced with: A Massachusetts liberal who has been having a hard time getting his message out. That said, they could be much harder if they saw him making headway. Kerry is very liberal, and they know that they can use that anytime they want. He is already softened up. No mention of his strengths ever.

Edwards: They started in on him early with playing up his looks, and thus taking away his gravitas. Also, they hammer his background of being a lawyer. (Aside--why is it that viewers don't realize that everyone of these corporations have offices filled to over flowing with lawyers?) Anyway, they then took to ignoring Edwards. When they do talk about him, they often use the frame: John Edwards, who campaigning on his working class roots although he's a millionaire. Blah...blah...In interviews they try to trap him.

Clark: I know I'm biased, but I like to think I'm somewhat objective. I think they are scared shitless of this man. Any flaws get played and replayed. The interviews have been tough with questions that are tough. I'm assuming considering Clark's connection--and we are not talking the Clintons--that he has had some help getting his face time. But mostly they would like to ignore him. If he got the nomination, I don't see how they could stop him. If they lost 5-6% of the military vote in key states, bush could lose up to 6 states. Kerry could carry that same vote, but remember, he is perceived as a liberal. Clark is not. I noticed on the Faux slapdown that they were filming him from above...ever so slightly, but just enough to make him appear small. He is running second to Dean, and yet he is left out of all round table discussions. Nevertheless, on CNN, after a announcing that the race is essentially over with Dean the winner, someone asked who be the hardest candidates for bush. The answer: Clark or Edwards. We don't think the South is doable, but there are pockets of unemployment, and unhappy warrior families that could swing a state or two. Also, NC will split its votes this time.

Dean: He gets a variety of treatments. It is important to keep him softened up. So, while they always label him the "front runner" and have been doing so even before he was ahead in the polls, they also repeat the liberal meme. It's not true, but who cares? They avoid the "angry" pictures as much as possible, and instead point to his followers. His supporters are given a nebulous identity, and made to appear like a fringe group. In interviews, while they try for sound bites to be used at a later date, they also soft ball some questions. Basically, they have admitted to wanting Dean, but must keep the profile low. Mostly, they want to give him name recognition, as much as possible and keep the negative memes on a low burner.

(edit) It is interesting that both Edwards and Clark have high "Q" factores. n'est pas?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

26. of course. kick

[John_Shadows_1]

27. Our field of contenders is not helping much ...

... except Dennis, who they won't let reach 'serious consideration' status.

[AP]

28. How would you know if your perception is filtered by media?

Maybe we have some great candidates, but the meida isn't giving you the true story about them.

Kucinich is definitely one who is getting the shaft from the media. But he isn't the only one.

[Ksec]

31. They will always be on the Rethug side

Rethugs enact laws favorable to big business which media is a part of. Dems enact laws favorable to people. Big business always was and always will be on their side.

[sistersofmercy]

32. Yes but really I think...

It's all those people who can afford to pay for a lawn service but chose to do it themselves, cheap bastards! :evilgrin:

[AP]

I just want to go back to my origninal point on that issue,

which is in that other thread to which this post refers:

I think Dean is doing a GREAT job of countering the inevitable spin that he is richer than Gore (remember how Bush undermined the criticism that Bush is part of the oligopoly?).

I think all that Dean stuff is great. The rolled up sleeves. The messy house. Shoveling off the ice rink. Mowing the lawn. Being cheap. It's brilliant. At least his campaign realizes the problem. I don't think that it'd it work against Bush, but at least he's doing something.

My point was that he's actually part of the oligopoly too, and he didn't govern like a guy who rejected the oligopoly (as, say, FDR did). My other point was that you can spin his cheapness two ways. It can look bad too. Not that the Republicans or the media would spin it that way. But it can be spun that way.

[sistersofmercy]

35. Yes you are correct that it can be spun but

anything can really. I just hope whichever Dem gets office, they are fairly free of extra activities, if you know what I mean. The vindicative Repubs will be full force with bitterness.

[AP]

33. I just want to go back to my origninal point on that issue,

which is in that other thread to which this post refers:

I think Dean is doing a GREAT job of countering the inevitable spin that he is richer than Gore (remember how Bush undermined the criticism that Bush is part of the oligopoly?).

I think all that Dean stuff is great. The rolled up sleeves. The messy house. Shoveling off the ice rink. Mowing the lawn. Being cheap. It's brilliant. At least his campaign realizes the problem. I don't think that it'd it work against Bush, but at least he's doing something.

My point was that he's actually part of the oligopoly too, and he didn't govern like a guy who rejected the oligopoly (as, say, FDR did). My other point was that you can spin his cheapness two ways. It can look bad too. Not that the Republicans or the media would spin it that way. But it can be spun that way.

[Jacobin]

34. And in other news, the sun will come up in the morning....

I'm amazed that anyone would even hesitate on this one

[Donna Zen]

37. For the late night crowd

kick