Blaming the Media Does NOT Cut It Anymore

[Dr Fate]

If I hear another DU blame the media for why Bush scandals are not being discussed, I will FREAK OUT.

I don't mean to be a broken record here, but WHO is stopping Kerry, Hillary, Dean, Obama, etc from going on TV every night and repeat, repeat, repeating every single Bush lie and scandal?

WE KNOW why the media refuses to tell the truth about Bush, every night on TV, but what are our "leaders" excuses for not doing it???

I REFUSE to blame the GOP/media for not reporting how untruthful & corrupt they are- WHY would they do that? We would never expect any DEM to admit they are corrupt or not telling the whole truth- so why do we expect the GOP/media to do just that?

I DO however blame the top DEM leaders for not going on TV and saying what we all know are plain, simple facts.

Blaming the media does NOT cut it anymore folks. That excuse is PLAYED OUT.

Discuss.

[oxbow]

1. Here Here!

If the Dems are gonna sit on their hands and keep waiting for the Regressives to play fair, they've got another thing coming. Its up to us to take the power back if the "opposition" party doesn't start doing some opposing NOW.

www.approvalvoting.com

[Nite Owl]

2. So right you are.

I have been saying this since the primaries. The dems can't sit back and put the blame on the media. They can make the news but they are afraid to open their mouths. Same old faces like Biden and Lieberman on the tv all the time. Get someone on there with guts. They don't have to wait to be asked something they should just answer any question with what they want to say first. Call the boy king a liar. Loud and clear. Will they get flack? Sure but it will be talked about and get reinforced every time they repeat that that dem called the * a liar. So much they could be doing. Op ed pieces, stop the phoney comraderie on the Senate floor they aren't going to get their stuff passed anyway.

[Dr Fate]

7. And we don't have to make anything up either.

All we have to do is go on TV and tell the blunt, honest, unvarnished truth.

I guess telling the truth is "too radical" or "too leftist" for our leaders.

[montana500]

133. sorry, you are wrong

the media is hostile to Dem leaders. Their careers would be over.

[Dr Fate]

137. How do we know their careers would be over????

I'll bet they would have more support than ever.

People who don't take chances never win.

What is your plan- to continue to blame the media on a chat site?

Of course the media is hostile to DEM leaders- so what do we have to lose by calling them out on it, to their faces?

[FrenchieCat]

3. I understand your point,

But if you want to know what Clark says tommorrow when testifying, you'd have to watch C-Span.

Both Wes Clark and Russ Feingold will be on TV tommorrow speaking on important issues......but you'll have to watch C-Span.

So I guess the plan should get to get folks to watch C-Span that normally watch everything but.

[Dr Fate]

4. Clark spoke out against Bush WMD lies.

I have no real beef with that man.

He is not as famous as the DEMS I mentioned though- he can be easily ignored- not true with Kerry, Hilary, etc.

[chomskysright]

68. STAY ON LIES: lies linked to lies and the method:

http://100777.com/node/576
saturating the media with stories, 24/7; staying on message; staying ahead of the news cycle; managing expectations; and finally, being prepared to "use information to attack and punish critics. (and as per below, "If a story supports policy, even if incorrect, let it stay around." )

[jojo54]

5. I agree with you 100%

but I got dissed earlier today for dissing the Dems! WTF?

Anyway, I used to believe they never spoke up 'cause they didn't want the whiner/complainer tag hanging around for '06 or '08. I don't believe that anymore. Something else has got to be going on. Could it be that they know the repukes are going to self destruct and they're just bidding their time?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. You have a point there

If the national media are closed to them, the Dems on Capitol Hill all have near-automatic access to the local media in their home districts.

If I were Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, every Capitol Hill Dem would have an assignment for the next recess: go home and get your face all over the local TV and newspapers and blast Bush.

[Dr Fate]

8. Actually, we could be on national TV every night too.

No network show would refuse a Kerry, Obama, Hilary or Dean interview.

Once you are on the show, you can say whatever you want.

[NAO]

10. see my post #9 above, "Into the Buzzsaw"

If Kerry, Hillary, etc. want to go on the news, or the talking heads shows, or even the "Tonight Show" type shows, they are only going to be allowed as much access as the networks see fit. The White House does not have to send a written memo to let a network know that if they give them too much air time, or allow them to say very critical things, that network will be punished.

[Dr Fate]

19. Who has ever refused Kerry, Obama , Dean or Hillary an interview???

???

[sendero]

46. Exactly what..

.... would that punishment be? Denial of "access" to an administration that never tells the press jack shit anyway?

I agree with the original poster. The reason Dems get no airtime is that they say nothing of interest to the American people. Sure, that is largely the fault of the American people, but you have to play the game that is, not the game that should be.

Repubs go on TV and make sweeping, dramatic, vehement, passionate statements and Dems go on and wring their hands and get all nuanced.

TV producers know that nobody wants to watch that stuff. Even if half the crap the Repubs say is pure D bullshit, at least they stake out a position and defend it.

The Dems are too timid or too stupid, I cannot really tell which, to deal with the FUCKING OBVIOUS.

[Dr Fate]

72. BULLSEYE! n/t

n/t

[zanne]

49. You're right, NAO. We can't let the media off the hook.

It doesn't take a social scientist to see how media bias affects opinion. Until we can get some media time of our own, this country will be living under the impression that a clear majority approve of the Bush administration. The media is clearly biased. I have a Russian friend who immigrated her ten years ago. The other day, I had CNN on and she said "Lately I feel like I'm back in Russia".

[Dr Fate]

73. We cant let our DEM leaders off the hook either.

Which shows are refusing to interview Kerry, Hillary, Obama or Dean?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. And they can edit it any way they want

Very few interviews are done live anymore. :-(

[Dr Fate]

20. Demand live interviews to their faces. Call them on it when they edit.

Excuses, excuses.

[Leilani]

29. It's easier to blame the media

than to take responsibility for the ineffectiveness of the party.

[Stew225]

43. (robotic voice) I disagree. The party is

doing a fine job. They are tenacious.

(I rarely post anymore, since I can't speak openly without getting censored.)

[JohnOneillsMemory]

91. This is how bullying works. Don't stop criticising because of it!..n/t

[Toots]

58. Not just Bush* but the entire GOP especially Delay and Santorum

We need to run as a party against the Republicans not just individuals. Even if Bush* is gone it won't stop. there will still be all the other twisted souls trying to ram fascism down America's throat...

[NAO]

9. Read "Into the Buzzsaw" for a brutal expose of corporate media censorship

The book consists of essays by journalists who tried to cover stories that upset the powers that be.

Some stories that would seem to be offensive or hurtful to power are fine and even encouraged. But if a story came up that was on a subject that "was not to be mentioned" the story was killed. If a reporter tried to push for the story, they would get put "into the buzzsaw".

If Kerry, Hillary, Dean etc want to go on TV every night, they are going to have to buy advertising time at full rates for 30 second spots. The network may choose not to air the spots if they are deemed to be "too controversial". Remember the United Methodist Church's "Jesus Didn't turn people away - neither do we" gay acceptance ads? The networks would not run them, not for any price, period.

If Kerry, Hillary, etc. want to go on the news, or the talking heads shows, or even the "Tonight Show" type shows, they are only going to be allowed as much access as the networks see fit. The White House does not have to send a written memo to let a network know that if they give them too much air time, or allow them to say very critical things, that network will be punished.

Remember what happened to Dan Rather and CBS. They destroyed a stellar lifetime career journalist and shattered the creditably of an entire news network.

Seriously, check out "Into the Buzzsaw". And yes, I do wish Dems would (try) to buy 30 second spots to expose Bush and his corruptions. I would increase my contributions immediately if they started doing that.

[Dr Fate]

11. Which shows have turned down Kerry, Hilary, Obama or Dean interviews?

And if they did, who kept them from calling them on it when they did get on a show again?

WHO has kept these DEMS from saying the info in your post to Wolf Blitzers face?

Sorry, blaming the media does not cut it.

[ChiciB1]

12. A Perfect Reason Why We Need Get Rid Of Our Dems

who don't stand up for us. I've been screaming about how wimpy they've been for so long now and we need to take a stand!

It's up to us here to keep hollering. Down here in Florida, I'm all for working against Bill Nelson! I keep looking for an alternative because Nelson ain't gonna cut it with me anymore. Graham is gone and Martinez with the help of JEB pulled off another scam.

We just can't give up, we have to keep pushing back. Hillary is toast with me too. I know many will say that any Dem is better than a Repuke, but I really wonder. If they don't have the backbone then I say move over, we want a Democratic Party that will DO SOMETHING!!!

Hey, Arlen Specter looked better today as chairman of the hearing for the renewal of the Patriot Act. He did ask some pertinent questions and I must at least he wasn't spewing the RW claptrap of late. He actually sounded better than some of our Dems of late.

As a collective body here and other web sites, we have made some difference. They want us to go away so they know we're here. Let's be the MEDIA!

[Dr Fate]

13. DEMS who are afraid of Judy Woodruff have no place being leaders.

It's as simple as that.

[ClassWarrior]

14. So glad you've spoken. If you hold your breath real long...

...maybe the Corporate Media will go away.

NGU.

[Dr Fate]

17. DEMS can say whatever they want on the corporate media.

No one is holding a gun to their backs when they are guests on cable shows.

[mattclearing]

50. Tell that to Paul Wellstone. n/t

[Dr Fate]

74. Kerry, Obama, Hilary & Dean are alive & well...

Who is refusing them interviews on network & cable TV?

[mattclearing]

78. What does that have to do with my post?

I think my implication was clear - Democrats speak out at their own risk.

[Dr Fate]

89. If that is true, then they should say it on TV.

I personally think that the "If I tell the truth Bush will send me anthrax or crash my plane" is a pretty silly, lame excuse.

If that is really what is going on, then DEMs need to say that.

If this is true, then it is still no excuse- they will have to just start sticking their necks out- or let someone with courage lead.

[mattclearing]

103. You're telling me.

Agreed.

[firefox]

15. Exactly. There is a long list of impeachable actions.

Bush has committed a huge list of impeachable actions and nobody has called him on even one. But sure as hell, somebody will follow me and say that it is a Republican Congress as if that changes the responsibility of Congressmen to do their job-"But articles of impeachment would never get out of committee."

Well, part 2 will never happen without part 1, that is for sure. Even defend Bush if you think he is innocent, but how about talking about some charges- http://www.veteransforpeace.org/impeachment/impeachment.htm

[Dr Fate]

18. Exactly- but no one is stopping DEMS from asking the GOP:

"Why do refuse to investigate Bush- what are you hiding?"-

"Don't you think Bush should go under oath about this matter and clear this up-unless he is hiding somthing?"

"WHO forged the yellow cake documents, and why? Why do you refuse to fully investigate this so it does not happen again?"

"Why do republicans refuse to investigate fake, male prostitute reporters that Bush invites to the White House?"

[feelthebreeze]

21. Yes, Democrats should be more vocal...

But to say that the Corporate owned Media in this country is not to blame in a huge way for the quickly approaching Neocon takeover of our Democracy is not only unthinking but misguided. Do you really wish to pardon the unpardonable acts of propaganda that is flooding our National conscience? A rabid dog bites you and gives you rabies, do you excuse that dog and let it continue because it is it's nature to bite and infect? No Doc... You put it down so that it cannot continue to infect and then you go find that lap dogs owner and hold them accountable.
You need to re-examine your focus of anger at the true villains and hold accountability to that which is causing you real harm. And while you are at it, maybe glue that nose back on to your spited face.

[Dr Fate]

22. I KNOW the Corporate media is Pro-Republican.

And I know that they will lie and cheat for Bush- they will even put out fake info to help him start wars.

We can blame them for past wrongs- but we cant blame them for things that our top DEMS are too afraid to say.

Let's take the focus off of me & my hang ups-

Tell me why DEMs cant do the things I'm saying they should do- or explain why they should not.

[oxbow]

23. Liberals need to get ACCESS to the media, too, though

the conservatives have spent the last 30 years building up their media machine, while the liberals and the moderates just slept peacefully on their asses. Where did that lead us? The formation of FOX news, which led us to 2000 elections, which takes us to where we are today. Hannity, Oreilly and the others are on message, on point and speaking with one voice. We are pockets of resisitance with no acess to the airwaves unless we're famous.

When a few dozen pro-lifers outside the schaivo hospice get 24 hour coverage for 2 weeks straight, but tens of thousands marching in protest of the war get bupkus, something is seriously wrong.

I agree that democrats should be more vocal in their opposition, but a fair playing field is absolutely critical to winning the war of words.

[Dr Fate]

24. Who has ever refused Kerry, Obama , Dean or Hillary an interview???

Just how much more access do we need?

If they say something REALLY controversial, it gets repeated in the papers and on other shows.

[oxbow]

25. Those people are all pansies

They would make Gandhi, MLK, and all the other greats cry in shame. They need to grow some balls before I write the DNC any more checks, and I've told them so.

I'm talking about media access for normal people like you and me. See my comments re: war protests and schiavo protests. We can't take the power back ourselves without access to the public, which we need a mainstream neews outlet for. We need our own Fox News basically.

[Dr Fate]

27. I hear you & agree- and that is part of my point!

You and I cannot get media access as it stands- but who is stopping our so-called "leaders" from going on TV & backing up what we have all been saying?

DEMS need to get tough and resourceful, or we will have to fight for some new leaders who will.

[oxbow]

28. That's why I'm pushing voting reforms so hard DrFate

getting some viable third parties in there is the only way to fix the problem of money, media and politics all sleeping in bed together. But those in power aren't going to push for approval voting or other reforms because they already are in power, they dn't want to share the pie. If its going to happen, it has to be a grassroots movement. Theres no other way that I can think of.

[Dr Fate]

30. I'll always be a capital "D" Democrat.

I'll fight for my party back.

I still don't think now is the time to split the moderates/progressives/liberals/libertarians who voted Kerry.

:)

[oxbow]

31. I can respect that

if the Dems represent you and back you up, then by all means you should do the same. It's clear that they don't have your back on this issue though (and haven't for a while), so why should they deserve your loyalty? I prefer more choice personally, and I think it would make the 2 parties alot more responsive to the people if they had some serious opposition. As it is, I think elections are becoming more and more like staged theatre than a real and honest debate of ideas.

[oxbow]

35. BTW, there's NO way approval voting can split moderates/progressives/etc

read up on it. It works by people either voting yes or no on a candidate. That way, you can vote yes on Green AND democrat AND libertarian and the one who gets the most votes becomes the major candidate. It ensures that you can vote for who you want to, not just who you think will win. It's a great way to prevent wasting of votes without directly affecting the two major parties. Read this for more info:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/10/12/13248/089

[Skidmore]

48. Liberals need to DEMAND rebuttal time.

[Leilani]

26. I agree with you completely

The problem is the Dems don't have an echo chamber.

The NY Times may print a story that's not good for Bush, but it fades into oblivion. The Dems need to be all over, repeating & repeating the story.

The Press has not done a very good job, but the Dems have done a worse job. They could get the story out, but they don't.

[lala_rawraw]

32. How about not playing the blame...

Game and actually getting things done? Paper Chase, Paper Chase, Paper Chase. Not sure how many more ways I can suggest, ask, push for people to bypass all of the in-between and just deliver the news. Can you imagine the impact if everyone followed through on this project, which ends on Saturday by the way. Even if 2 people per city would work the paper chase, the difference would be visible.

As for blaming the media, sorry to say, the Dems cannot do much if the people don't have the facts. Conyers pushed for voting fraud investigations non-stop and got no media coverage and no issues were heard beyond the iron fox wall. Whomever controls the media, controls the truth and whomever controls the truth affects the people in one way or another. Take the Terri thing for example. The Dems stayed out of it, yet the media spun it in two ways (depending on the source):

1). The dems are murders
2). Both sides of the isle are guilty for making the circus (huh, what sides?).

So I have to disagree, although I do understand your frustration.

[Q]

53. The problem is not that the media didn't cover Conyers...

...and voting fraud. The problem is that the Democratic party didn't JOIN HIM in his fight.

[lala_rawraw]

63. This is not correct

The first time in a hundred years an election is challanged and the country does not hear of it, is a pretty good example. Like I said, playing the blame game is not productive.

[Dr Fate]

90. Who stopped kerry, Dean, Hilary & Obama from talking about this on TV?

??????

[Dr Fate]

86. BULLS EYE.

n/t

[Dr Fate]

75. Who is stopping us from GIVING the facts ourselves...

...every time we go on TV?

of course the media does not give the people the facts- we need to speak those facts oursleves.

John Conyers?

The average voter has "Never heard of him"- and that is the problem- news papers don't feel obligated to repeat quotes from "the fringe."

We need the top, household name DEMs in this fight.

[pacalo]

33. One possible explanation...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Operation_Mockingbird

This thing is probably bigger than what we first imagined. What the hell is really going on in this country?

[oxbow]

37. That's some scary shit right there

that and bohemian grove are gonna give me nightmares for weeks.

[lala_rawraw]

38. Liberty Lobby...

Comes to mind. I know this analysis very well and I have suspected the CIA as America, Inc. for a long time. The problem is, with regard to this theory, is that the entire CIA is not involved, the entire CIA is fully decapitated at this point, and the entire CIA did not provide the plants as journos and such. We are talking about the special plans "department" and this is why John Bolton makes me very nervous.

Read the Liberty Lobby case and the Marchetti article that LL published. Then read Mark Lane (I cannot believe I have mentioned him twice today, how odd). We are talking about a very small group of people, not the "CIA" as a whole body, which is now irrelevant having sold its already questionable soul by keeping silent on 9/11 and the War in Iraq (until it was time to write a book of "some" information).

I think what everyone seems to overlook is the Nazi influence and recruitment. What the question should really be (and one I try to not ask myself too often) is why did the CIA absorb the Nazi regime after the fall of Hitler? The other question is, given that American banks and companies helped finance (and were largely responsible for the military infrastructure and materials) the horrific and tragic success of that evil, who then adopted whom?

You see where I am going with this? I am going where a). I will be slapped down as a conspiracy theorist and b). to where most rational and ethical minds would not want to go.

Ask those two questions and see where you go.

[pacalo]

109. No conspiracy accusations here. I believe the truth is uglier

than we could imagine.

the entire CIA is not involved...We are talking about the special plans "department"

I believe this is the case, also.

Read the Liberty Lobby case and the Marchetti article that LL published. Then read Mark Lane

I’ll take a look.

Getting back to targeting the Democrats for the propaganda campaign going on...If you consider all three Democratic presidencies since JFK’s murder, Carter & Clinton were endlessly harassed by both the Republicans & the media. LBJ’s reputation was left intact because he was most likely privy to too much information surrounding JFK’s murder. Though I don’t believe he was a co-conspirator, I believe LBJ had to be involved in the cover-up.

In turn, look at how Reagan was given the kid-gloves treatment by the media -- practically canonized -- despite the scandals surrounding his administration. Why? Because he belonged to the party whose survival of power depends on viciousness & dirty politics. I don't think he was in the inner circle of the cabal members who do their best to dictate history, but he could be led in the direction they wanted him to go. I do think he was perhaps a good man, but he wasn't qualified for the presidency & was surrounded by the wrong people.

As for Nixon, I believe the Repugs’ viciousness & dirty politics would have come into play to save him from the Watergate mess if he hadn’t pulled out the troops from VietNam -- a big no-no for those whose eyes were filled with $$$.

I believe the same cabal members who participated in JFK’s demise are connected to those who installed WhatsHisFace in the WH in 2000 & again in 2004. There’s certainly no mandate for WhatsHisFace, but the propaganda in our major news sources is aimed at perpetuating that there was one. The continuous cover-up of their dirty business seems as well organized as the cover-up of JFK's murder.

The extent of their dishonesty & corruption has no bounds. I would even bet that Faux News’ viewer ratings are rigged to make them appear the most-watched news network, as they have earned the con-artist-in-chief’s loyalty by serving as the most reliable cheerleader for this administration’s dirty business.

[lala_rawraw]

123. That leaves

At least one person (at least, out of maybe 10) and during the bay of pigs, he named a boat after his wife, one after his city, and one after his company. By naming those boats, he places himself at the CIA before his supposed time there and he also is the only person on the planet not to remember where he was where JFK was hit, even though he was exactly in that same city and in his own state. Nice to see them keep it in the family or as Mike Malloy puts it, the crime family.

[pacalo]

143. Something tells me you've seen "JFKII"

That's mentioned in the film:

http://server2.reasonablehosting.com/jfkbush/

Ironically, it was because they placed such a screw-up in the WH that all critical thinkers began to examine the government more closely. It's also renewed my interest in JFK's murder & the Nixon administration.

[lala_rawraw]

144. JFKII?

There was a new one?

[lala_rawraw]

146. Check your IM ... n/t

[lala_rawraw]

39. One more thing...

That is not their worst operations. Think Anglo American PLC, its connection to Accenture, its slave trade in South Africa. Now let us consider why the CIA would overthrow Democratically elected leaders and appoint dictatorships? Not all of these countries are oil rich, but they are resource rich and that includes people.

There is also the looking glass version of reality... if we, Americans look at other countries, in comparison we seem free. Imagine if real democracies exited that actually practiced true democratic principles, what then would America look like to us Americans?

I think the worst operation is the one Dynacorp engages in as proxy for Murder, Inc. (and yes, the only national security protection they have provided is one that benefits corporations, nothing more). I find it so offensive that I cannot even write it. Google Dynacorp and its little adventures.

I am still angry about what was done to the Soviet republics after the fall of the union. I am glad to see Ukraine making progress and I hope the US leaves it alone long enough for the people there to find some moments of peace.

Okay, 4 AM, enough of my stupid talk/late night version:)

[oxbow]

40. Ha! G'night lala, Im in the same time zone as you and sleepy too.

[PowerToThePeople]

34. After 2006

If/When we get more seats in legislature, I think they will start doing allot. Maybe even impeachment. But, they do not want to come across as tin-foil hatted before the 2006 elections.

[Dr Fate]

92. No need for tin-foil hats- We can stick to plain, honest, blunt facts.

I'm not suggesting we go on TV and make shit up like the GOP/media does- I'm suggesting we tell the blunt, unvarnished, verifiable truth- and in a way that swing voters understand.

[Al-CIAda]

36. Just tapping this thread to say 'right on' Dr., right on. -n/t

[leftofthedial]

41. how do they get on TV to do that?

[Dr Fate]

76. Pick up the phone & say "Hi Wolf, Hillary Clinton Speaking..."

"...I would like to schedule an interview on your show- I'm going to say some pretty controversial things that are sure to get you some high ratings- I would like to Debate whatever Republican you have on that night as well..."

Lets TRY IT before we say it wont work.

[leftofthedial]

42. how do they get on TV to do that?

[w4rma]

44. Why do you think big media would cover Kerry, Hillary, Dean, Obama on

those specific issues? especially on TV.

You know darn well what big media will do. They will cut out all the substance of their speeches and talk over them when any points that might hurt Republicans are made. That's what they did to Sen. Kerry during his campaign for President.

[Dr Fate]

77. Which Cable news shows have refused to interview Kerry, Obama or Hillary?

And who is keeping them from demanding to Wolf Blitzers face that their interviews not be censored?

Who is keeping them from saying what you just said?

Who is keeping them from stating the points of your post and using that as a reason to demand LIVE interviews, to Wolf Blitzers face??

Lets TRY IT before we say it wont work.

[seabeyond]

45. gop=media. media is independent of gop

why would they tell gop lie. because that is .....their job, to report the facts. they arent suppose to be an appendage. now if dems were fucking up, would the media report. ya...........

kinda like the monica witch hunt

[Dr Fate]

79. Which Cable news shows have refused to interview Kerry, Obama or Hillary?

And who held a gun to their backs and told them what to say or not say about the literally hundreds of Bush lies & scandals???

[karynnj]

47. Not true - look at how they played the Pope tributes

Kennedy gave a wonderful tribute from the Senate floor as a Catholic who had met the Pope. When the Pope dies Kennedy had issued a statement. Kerry issued a statement when the Pope died as well - also a thoughtful statement from a Catholic.

Other than on DU, where did hear or read these statements? On CNN I saw (or heard them read) various Republican statements, from non-Catholics such as Nancy Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sen. Frist. Surely, as the 2 most prominent Catholic political leaders, Kennedy and Kerry should have been sought out for comment - even if they hadn't issued the statements they did.

Also, look at the commentary - the Pope was like Reagan and Bush. He fought Communism. I don't remember the Pope being very supportive of either Reagan or Bush. With Bush in particular, I think the Pope had at least as much problem with the death penalty and the Iraq war as he did with abortion and gay marriage.

[moggie12]

54. Very well said

Cutting through the spin these days is an uphill battle. The Democrats can talk all they want, but the media frames it the way they want.

[Dr Fate]

96. I see- so we give up then?

I suggest we try a new approach before we just give up like that.

[Dr Fate]

80. Which Cable news shows have refused to interview Kerry, Obama or Hillary?

I'm not talking about Senate speeches- I'm talking about going on Network & cable shows everynight and saying waht we at DU say every day.

Of course they ignore kerry's speeches- but how can they ignore him when he is sitting right there, in front of Wolf Blitzer or whoever?

[karynnj]

124. You are saying one thing, I'm making a different point

The Pope died. The cable stations over the weekend were wall to wall Pope coverage. I have no problem with this - my problem is that they had a huge number of Republican statements. The President's 2 statements were repeated frequently, but he is the President. My point was that Larry King had Nancy Reagan (a non-Catholic) commenting, basically that he was like Reagan. Others talked about bringing down communism and spreading freedom. The latter was the most egregious as the Pope was strongly against Bush's spreading freedom, which he called by its real name an unjust war.

When they had a segment reading tributes, they opted not to include either Kennedy's or Kerry's. They did read Frist's. This was not a case of anyone calling the stations, but of them selecting which to read.

As to your point, Kerry recently did a 10 minute live Judy Woodruff interview - I would guess that he limits his exposure to get interviews that are live and more than a few minutes long. Why? Do you really think that interview where Kerry made his points and did a great job criticizing Bush on SS and warning that Iraq's election doesn't mean that everything is great. (Also, saying the death of Arafat rather than Iraq is responsible for whatever improvement in Israel.) If this were canned Kerry's best points and Judy's gaffe would have been cut out. Kerry was also great on MTP. The snips of interviews with Candy Crowley et al during the campaign rarely showed Kerry at his best - fortunately for him, he was rarely too bad - or that would have been all we should have seen.

Most of the cable people have an agenda and if they are controlling the mike it is hard to both look like a reasonable, mature person and to make your points. If you noticed they are usually about 3 Republicans to 1 Democrat and they control who speaks, Also, viewership on the cable shows is not very high - so it may not be the best place to go.

I think that it would be good for Kerry to be on the network shows more often. He does seem to be working very hard getting some things in place. I would rather trust him to know when it's beat for him to push an issue. That said he will either be able to push some Democratic issues or he will lose out to people who can. In which case, rather than bashing Kerry as if he was Bush, it would be better to say that you don't want him as the nominee (or even as a party leader), but he is a Senator with a great deal of seniority from a safe seat who usually is a solid liberal vote. (IE if the scale was -10(Bush) to 10 (the best person), Kerry is in the positive range, as are all the others you mentioned.)

[Dr Fate]

139. I have nothing to disagree with in that post.

And since Larry King etc says one thing- it's up to us to say another.

I'll bet Kerry's Woodruff interview would have been in every newspaper the next day if he had said

"Judy, Bush is lying about the SS crisis- just like he lied to the American people about the WMDs. We need honest leaders to fix SS, not corrupt liars who are bent on destroying it. That's right- I said "the L word"- but the truth hurts. I'm going to keep on speaking the truth, I cant help it if some in the GOP & media don't think the American people deserve that."

You cant tell me that a statement like would have been ignored.

[karynnj]

150. Kerry did talk about SS in very clear terms and called Bush on it

Here is the transcript:

Woodruff: You say get rid of the fighting, but Democrats have made it clear, you and others, you oppose the president's plan, and yet it's clear that Social Security in the long run has a real solvency problem.

Kerry: Sure.

Woodruff: You've got people, baby boomers retiring. Don't Democrats have an obligation to talk about what you would do?

Kerry: Sure, and we have and we will continue to. But what we're opposing by the administration's own admission does nothing, nothing -- understand that -- zero, to cure the problem of solvency.

Privatization is not related to solvency. And so what we're trying to do is stop something that requires borrowing $2 trillion or more, adding to the debt of our nation and putting Social Security at risk.

That's a moral responsibility. That's not politics.

If the president will stop pushing the privatization and admit it's not going to pass and it's a failure, and move to a broad discussion of how we strengthen Social Security for the long run, he'll have a lot of partners here. We're ready to do that.

Woodruff:: So you're saying that will happen?

Kerry: I'm convinced. But you know what, Judy? The real crisis facing America -- you know, once again the president is out selling something in an artificial way. The real crisis facing America is not Social Security. It's health care, it's Medicare, Medicaid, and that's why I'm pushing so hard to get 11 million children who have no health insurance at all, to get them covered.

Woodruff: But this is a point. You call it Kids First.

Kerry: Right.

Woodruff: And you just put this plan out there last week. It would cost $22 billion a year. Is that realistic, Senator, at a time when we are in such -- this country is in such tight fiscal constraints?

Kerry: You bet it's realistic. You bet it's realistic.

You know what the president's tax cut that he hasn't yet given to people to make it permanent costs over the next 10 years? $1.6 trillion. Just next year alone, the president's tax cut for people earning more than $1 million a year costs $32 billion.

So this is a value's choice. What are your values? What are the values of the American people?

Do we cover children with insurance who are not getting immunizations for diseases that we know we've cured, who don't get medicine for asthma? One out of three kids doesn't get medicine for asthma. Do we cover them or do we give millionaires a tax cut? That's the values choice for America.

And I know where I stand, and unfortunately we know where the president stands. He wants a tax cut for millionaires. I want to cover children.

------------------------------------------------------------

Kerry is strongly disputing Bush's SS Crisis. His tone of voice and the way he said that privatization does NOTHING NOTHING ZERO for solvency was very very strong. (when he was saying "by the administration's own admission" he sounded like the 71 Kerry)

No, this statement did not get MSM coverage. It's not your sentence but it very specificly addressses the lies, going further in saying what the Democratic agenda would be.

[Dr Fate]

160. Nothing that makes a "hot" headline though.

How about have him say what *I* said- that really would have gotten repeated.

We need to cut the "nuance" and speak in blunt language that will get noticed.

"the president is out selling something in an artificial way" SAY WHAT?

How about saying "Bush is lying again, just like he did with the WMDs" instead.

[karynnj]

170. I agree to disagree

I don't think ANY set of words would have been repeated. If you are correct that exactly what you wrote would be the perfect thing to say, Kerry is not the right person to say it. Even in the 70s, when he was not constrained by maintaining the dignity he views as appropriate for a Senator, he used strong language, but not the blunt, rude language of most of the anti-war movement. That said, his words were strong in their condemnation of the war. Kerry is very articulate and proved in the debates that he can clearly and concisely make points. Kerry should be Kerry. (Yes, this may mean that his long term role is to be similar to Ted Kennedy's, an articulate, intelligent Liberal voice from a safe Senate seat.)

Kerry made several comments in strong enough language that they would have been repeated IF THE MEDIA HAD ANY INTEREST in spreading on opposition view. The day that Bolton was nominated, Kerry put out a very angry statement calling the choice "inexplicable" as well as giving several very good examples of why he was a bad choice - the comments were in the initial NYT article on the web - they were left out of the paper the next day, leaving only a far weaker Reid comment - and at least 3 Republican comments.

On the budget here are 2 Kerry quotes:
This budget is like an Enron budget - smoke the numbers, cook the books, hide the truth and hope no one finds out.

Honesty, opportunity and responsibility were all cut from this budget.

Either of these are as strong as your statement while retaining a certain eloquence. Did you see them get major play? (These quotes are from a Kerry speech on the budget and were also repeated in a few editorials, Kerry wrote for some MA papers.)

[Q]

51. Ah...the refreshing truth...

I started a thread with this same premise about a year ago. Few wanted to listen and continued to blame the corporate media instead of Democrats that had seemingly lost their voices.

Democrats are heard when they WANT to be heard.

[MollyStark]

52. Wrong

The democrats do say the things that need to be said. The stories never appear on the news. The media never investigates.

[Dr Fate]

81. WRONG. I've never once heard any DEM call Bush a "liar."

It needs to be said.

Where are the DEMS saying these things? In "letters?" On CSPAN? the DNC website? At small town stump speeches?


A great start, but I'm suggesting they say it in a way that will actually get noticed.

The GOP was never afraid to say it about Clinton or call Kerry a "flip-flopper"- and they did it ON TV- every night.

[Lerkfish]

112. FWIW, I recall Edwards doing just that.

but it was buried.

don't get me wrong, I agree with you, Dr. Fate, but I think it has to work in tandem:
BOTH dem leaders AND the media has to be reconditioned.
I think, in a bizarre way, the Schiavo debacle did a little bit of that to the media, but the dems were NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. What an opportunity wasted.
Obviously, the american people were against govt. intrusion into private matters. IF the dems had spoken publicly against the Delay crapola, even if to point out that you cannot write a law that pertains to one person....but zilch, nada, zippo.

The media is guantletted against the dems, but ALL THE MORE REASON that the dems have to be hitting against the armor every day in every way, until they find the chinks in the armor.

It appears as if there are only two political parties: the republican whackjobs and the republicans who are embarrassed by the whackjobs but support them anyhow.

[Dr Fate]

114. He should have said it 100 times- and got 100 other DEMS to say it too.

Then it would not have been ignored.

That is the rub- saying it once and then dropping the matter is not how it is done- did the Republicans mention various Clinton scandals just once?

For the most part, Edwards rarely appeared on TV during the campaign, relying on local news media outlets to cover his stump speeches- I liked that strategy, but in retrospect, he should have been doing via-sattelite interviews on national TV every evening as well...

[tinanator]

55. so do you prefer bipartisanship to govt shutdowns?

im increasingly in favor of govt shutdowns myself.
like blaming the network anchor/"reporters" for toeing the line, blaming the figurehead dems for biparyisanship/party complicity is somewhat inadequate.

[Dr Fate]

82. I cant blame Wolf Blitzer for what Kerry or Obama won't say.

Explain to me why I should do that?

[tinanator]

175. oh heck no, and dont blame Wolf for his chosen profession

Blaming a front man for the actions of the fucks behind the curtain is part of what they get paid for. When people start focusing their attention where it belongs and quit being foolish we might just get somewhere on the road to democracy.

[MadHound]

56. I agree with you to a certain extent

The media isn't going to make our case for us, our so called leaders need to step up and speak out. Of course that is going against the wishes of their corporate masters, so thus, they stay silent.

However I do take issue with the media when there our hundreds of thousands of people in the streets protesting this illegal, immoral war, and all the media can see fit to cover is the circus surrounding Shiavo, which involved relatively few people.

I also find the media responsible for spinning the news in the most favored light for the RW and fundies in this country. Plus I find that the big medias' financial stakes in this war to a huge conflict of interest, leading to poor reporting.

But yes, our so called leaders aren't speaking out, for they fear to risk their corporate cash flow. Thus, it is up to all of us to step up and speak out.

[Q]

57. Many Dems will continue to blame the media...

...instead of the FACT that when certain Democrats speak out...they're left to face the opposition alone (like Conyers, Kennedy or Byrd) while the rest of the party is silent or has a different message altogether.

The corporate media will NEVER cover the complaints of one or two Democrats. But they WILL cover a group or a majority of Dems getting together to make their voice heard.

[Dr Fate]

88. Things get real simple when you are through making excuses!!!

Thanks Q!

[KoKo]

173. Agree. Our Democrats must swallow differences and stand together so

that the Media can't give the message: "Democrats are divided on SS, on Voting Reform, on Family Values, etc. etc. etc.

The Media Rules these days lockstep with their Corporate Masters and infiltrated and corrupted by "Operation Mockingbird." Flush with their ownership they exploit every Democrat by using Lieberman, Bahy, Dodd and Biden as Spokespersons for the Party on the Talking Head shows. When do we ever see another Dem voice? Rarely do we see the Black Caucus or Byrd or Durbin and the few others who speak for the "rest of the party" on important issues.

Until we stand together the Media/Repugs will continue to triangulate our message, cutting us into factions for the American public with only the Democratic Corporate Leadership...Biden, Lieberman et al, being allowed to speak.

[spunky]

59. AMEN! If you read Banana Republican and other books about

the organization of the Right, you will see it is their constant repetition of the same talking points on every show that will have them that gets their side of the issues so widely proliferated.

If the left is incapable of setting up weekly meetings like Grover Norquist and his cronies, and get out there on all the annoying political talk shows, we have no one to blame for our lack of media coverage but ourselves.

[rucky]

60. The sooner we realize the lines are drawn by CLASS, not party...

the better off we'll be.

[LibertyorDeath]

61. Dean does a pretty good job but Jon Stewart beats them all......

[The Gigmeister]

62. You're out of touch!!

It's not the media, stupid! It's Deibold!!

Why we even try is beyond me. We CAN'T beat the Boogie Man...He NEVER dies!!

[Dr Fate]

83. Who is stopping kerry, Dean, Hilary & Obama from talking about this?

...ON TV, and in a accusatory manner so it will get repeated?

[Festivito]

64. Go ahead, freak out. Unless, you've something better to do.

Yes, I think our Dems should drop Washington and go on media. But, the deck is stacked. It's effectiveness will be marginal. But, again, I agree with you because marginal is better than nothing. Except for the thought that CONs will implode, and the subsequent epiphany will be as fast as Germany's Hitler epiphany. Not an excuse, this a real possibility.

There are editing concerns, poisoning the well concerns, and the CON's best: immediate lies that never get a follow-up.

It's just easier to push a lying agenda and remain on target, than to have every fact clear in mind.

They have illicit money. We have sweetness and light at the end of our tunnel. If it doesn't get stolen before we get to the end of yet another tunnel, after another tunnel, after ...

The media conglomerates have interests in military profits, i.e. their profits, consolidation, and rich friends with illicit money.
They can afford to prop Rush, Hannity, etc.

Do you think there are no CIA agents in the media? Think all of them are tested on their having read the Constitution? Who do they report to? Our Congress who pays them, or their old director's family.

The media is key. It may not be the only the key. But, I don't see you saying what is the key. The key is NOT FREAKING.

[Dr Fate]

84. We don't know if the effect would be marginal or great.

First we have to TRY IT.

I see a lot of DUers giving up on a new idea before we even try it.

At least I'm not wringing my hands- I'm trying to develop strategy, not excuses.

[Festivito]

97. Suggesting the 4pm cable to fight the 6pm news.

See if O'Reilly will have D Sen. new-each-episode on each episode.
Maybe Hannity will share a mike on his screed.
Rush would love to shut up and and have someone going: "uh, no, that would be true if..."

More likely, Rush, O'Reilly will make some stat based on the Paris Review, leaving a confused Dem assenting with silence. Only to find out later that stat was made up, and the Paris Review, does not even exist. (O'Reilly did that)

And, while these guys poison the well, and will not let Dems on without editing them with impugnity, the 6pm news will dismiss CON scandals in a phrase, while amplifying a Dem investigation -- never to report the Dem investigation being dropped for lack of a shred of evidence. Pretty hair-blown silver voices.

Then, whoopy. Now a statement from the Democratic side... Every common error looks like buffonery. Imperfect voice sounds, imperfect. And, the smart guy, well, he isn't as pretty as the movie stars usually in these roles.

And, you suggest leaving the media alone through all this.

Your thread title is not: "Get our Dems out on the TV Radio circuit."

If, it were, I'd say, those Dems should take more than a few hits at the media while they are one it.

At least, that it's NOT a liberal media.

[Dr Fate]

99. I never ever suggested leaving the media alone. I suggest CONFRONTATION.

Who is stopping these DEMS from going on TV and saying exactly what you just said???

[Dave Sund]

65. YES!

The media isn't liberal or conservative. It's all about what gets ratings. And what gets ratings is CONFLICT.

Unfortunately, our party is unwilling to stand up and fight. It's not the media we need to be concerned about. It's our own lack of conviction. We have a wing of the party who is thoroughly convinced that the only way we can win is by being more like the Republicans... and they're wrong.

The only way we can win is by standing up to them.

[Tactical Progressive]

69. Just simply not true

The ratings for the Clinton impeachment hate-fest that the media went on non-stop for over a year were in the tank. People were sick of it from the get-go and interest dropped rapidly from there. Clinton's approval stayed at about 70% and nobody wanted that witch hunt or wanted to hear about it, let alone incessantly. When questioned on this a media head explained that even though their ratings were way down that this was an important Constitutional issue and they were going to cover it even if people weren't interested.

The 'ratings' excuse, like all of the media's other excuses, are nothing but self-serving rationalizing, specific to whatever anecdotal situation they find themselves in. Inotherwords, bullshit, like all of their other excuses. Just like how the non-stop assault on the Clintons was just the cables natural inclination to cover controversy to fill their insatiable need for 24/7 coverage. Sounds plausible - I believed it - until Bush and every bit of controversy that drunken, AWOL deserting, cokehead, wife-cheating, repeat business fraudster, Texas-wrecking, tax-cut lying, leave America open to terrorist attacking, WMD lying sack of almost pure corruption was amazingly, of absolutely no interest for that previously voracious cable news cycle. It's all excuses they use for whatever depraved indifference to journalistic integrity they currently need to justify.

There are hundreds of exploitable years-long controversies on this administration that could be on the cables from dusk to dawn. They aren't. Stop pretending that it is anybody's fault for not forcing them to do it. They choose not to. They choose what they want to put on and why, and it isn't ratings, the needs of the cable news cycle, the good of the country, journalistic integrity or anything else they say. It is whatever reason they pretend it is for that particular situation, and it doesn't have to match whatever else they said it was earlier, or what they will say are the reasons later. Dems can't make them do anything, for ratings or for any other reason. There are different excuses for every choice they make, and all those choices are moving ever farther rightward.

[Dr Fate]

85. Yes- the media is indeed Pro-Republican, no doubt. Still...

That still does not excuse DEMs from not saying what we say at DU everyday.

Wolf Blitzer, to my knowledge has never held a gun to Kerry, etc and forced him not to talk about these "exploitable controveries" that you mention.

No one keeps DEMS from using "hot" controversial language that would gurantee to get those statements repeated "in the papers."

[blm]

66. Sorry, Doc, but you're crazy if you think they can just "get on tv" any

time they want. They can't.

Kerry has held TWO big press conferences and not ONE network from the broadcast media reported on them.

Kerry sent press releases denouncing the lies of the administration during the Rice hearings and again on Negorponte and Bolton and then on the lies in Bush's budget and no broadcast media invited him to discuss it further.

YOU are under the impression that any name Democrat can get camera time. The GOP controlled media has production teams set up that prevent that from happening.

Guests on shows are INVITED on to speak about a certain subject of the producer's choosing. That is why you will see Al Sharpton chosen to represent a Dem point of view or an editorialist like Boehnert or a lesser charismatic congressman before they will invite an influential lawmaker. And when an influential Dem voice IS on, the questions are crafted to steer away from the idea that Bush is lying.

Everytime I have seen the Dems speak out forcefully against Bush, they are spun like crazy afterwards as partisan hacks. They also disappear from the invite list....remember Maurice Hinchey?

Sure, Democrats can call up a program and say they want to be put on the show to discuss an issue where they would like to bring up Bush's lies. No program will let them. Even Olbermann's producer would put up a wall.

[NAO]

70. This is EXACTLY the Problem. You can't just "go on TV".

Producers control the content of the news and news magazine shows.

I saw this repeatedly during the 2004 campaign. Kerry would announce and then deliver a powerful speech and a scathing attack on Bush. The media would not air even one sound byte. If they reported on it at all, they merely repeated some of what he said.

On the other hand, when Bush announced that he was going to deliver a speech, the networks GAVE him nearly a full hour of direct access to the TV. He did not have to buy ad time - they just live broadcast his stump speech.

TV news shows and talk shows are by invitation only. Check out the recent interview with Phil Donahue at Democracy Now! for a rundown on what happens when you invite the "wrong" kind of guests. Donahue was the highest rated evening talk program on MSNBC and they still killed his show, because his guests and his message was "the wrong focus, the wrong agenda".

Democracy Now!
http://democracynow.org/

[Dr Fate]

87. Which Cable news shows have refused to interview Kerry, Obama or Hillary?

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[NAO]

93. I think agents have to book appearances on shows

Now I am not directly privy to the mechanics and logistics of the production of TV news, but I do believe that if Kerry or Obama want to be on a show they have media liaison personnel who contact the production staff of the network and try to arrange for their client (Kerry) to be on the show.

If Kerry's agents try too frequently to get on shows, and it becomes widely known among the production community, we will start hearing stories on the news about how Kerry is "grandstanding" and trying to show-off or is "promoting his 2008 run". Yes, they would make a story out of his attempts to get himself booked, and they would spin it in a very mean and destructive way.

I'm not trying to defend Democrats who do not speak out, I'm just calling for recognition of the real-world conditions in the corporate media that make it difficult for progressives - even moderate Democrats - to be heard on TV.

If you have not seen it, I highly recommend Noam Chomsky's DVD "Manufacturing Consent". How many times have you seen Chomsky, "the most important intellectual alive" on TV news? Has his name ever been even mentioned? What about Paul Krugman, who is very outspoken in his NTY op-ed pieces? He has been on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show", but that's it for Krugman on TV, AFAIK.

I'd like our best spoken Democrats like Kerry to be on TV more. I suspect that they do try, through media agents, to book appearances. Further, I'd bet that if they tried to buy 30 second ad spots, there would be subtle covert censorship and outcry from conservatives to "stop the partisan warfare" - never mind that they wage partisan warfare 24/7.

[Dr Fate]

95. no problem-They can alternate appearances then.

Hilary on Monday.

Kerry on Tuesday

Obama on Wednesday

Dean on Thursday.

Bill Clinton on Friday.

See-Problem solved- Thats how it is when you decide not to make excuses anymore- you become solution oriented.

Before you say "it cant be done"- lets TRY IT.

We DEMS need to be solution oriented instead of blame oriented.

If the media is really refusing interviews (and you have shown me no proof that they are), then it is still DEMs fault for not calling them on this alleged censorship or refusing them equal time.

[Dr Fate]

71. Which Cable news shows have refused to interview Kerry, Obama or Hillary?

Of course the media ignores press conferences & "statements" and "letters."

I'm talking about getting around this going directly on cable or network news shows.

Exactly what is the flaw in my strategy- which dbate or interview shows have refused kerry, Obama, Hilary, etc??

I luv ya BLM, but this is an excuse. I will no longer blame the media for what our leaders refuse to say themselves.

[blm]

94. You think they can TELL a program they want an interview?

I loves ya back, Doc....but, that is NOT how it works. Only the administration gets away with that kind of bullying of the networks.

You think Kerry's press office didn't tell the programs that he'd be available to follow up?

I am quite certain he was denied follow up. "Sorry, but, that doesn't fit in with tonight's discussion."

Tweety's last producer went to work for Bush in 2001. He was rewarded with a WH job. That producer helped to steer the discussion throughout the 2000 campaign. It was no coincidence that Hardball generated the most negative stories against Al Gore out of ALL the media.

And its not just sheer numbers, but, influence. Those negative stories become the fodder and groupthink throughout the rest of the media.

BTW....they DO say alot of what needs to be said. YOU are blaming them for the media not reporting it.

Let the media off the hook. That serves them and the GOP just fine.

[Dr Fate]

98. If true, Kerry never mentioned it. His fault.

Assuming this is true...

In Kerry's next appearance he should say- "Your network denied equal time to Democrats- we requested a follow up but you refused- why are you biased, Wolf? Why is your network censoring dissenting voices, Wolf- is this Russia or somthing? What can we we do to fix this problem, Wolf?"

What am I missing here- are they holding guns to their backs and telling them not to repeat factual DU style talking points?

Let's TRY IT before we give up and say it wont work.

I'm trying to come up with solutions here- not excuses- if everyone knows that the media is Pro-bush, then we need to figure out how to fight it. Perhaps a start is SAYING IT- on TV- loud & clear and in plain, blunt language.

YES- the GOP/media is at fault- but they do not keep Kerry or any other DEM guest from saying what the media refuses to say.

[blm]

100. I agree. Media has to be called on it and it should be done en masse. ALL

Dems should get on that page. Solidarity against the GOP control of the media will win the day.

I really expect that Dean is working on a battle plan. I know that when Kerry was overseas and picking the brains of the Labour party on successful tactics for the opposition party, he was also in constant contact with Dean who wasn't even named chair, yet.

I am all for getting on all their asses to call the media on their failures to hold government accountable for its lies.

[Dr Fate]

102. I'm glad you are trying to see where I'm coming from.

I'm not being anti-DEM and I'm not letting the media off the hook- I'm trying to invent solutions.

Peace to you & yours!!!!

[John_H]

169. This straw man won't do the trick

If you're saying that Kerry offered to go on somebody's show or do a one one one to "follow up" a speech or announcement only to be refused by a show or reporter, please provide us with the show, date, and medias outlet--'cause that would be a huge story.

Media whores are evil, not dumb. They cowtow to chimp becuse they know there will be a cost for not cowtowing to him. They know they will be the victim of a party wide boycott and blackout. They know there will be no more exclusives, backgrounders, off the record chats, etc. until they go back on the team.

In an industry that thrives on controversy the whores need the oposition, even if it's only to create the illusion oif balance The dems have the power to do the same thing the chimp does--not as much maybe, but far more than we do.

The problem is that we have no leadership willing to enforce it and message operatives too arrogant, dumb, young and inexperienced to work it.

[chomskysright]

67. its not a media blaming event: its the document of ORCHESTRATION OF DECEIT

http://100777.com/node/576



"......Every one of these stories received extensive publicity and helped form indelible public impressions of the "enemy" and the progress of the invasion. Every one of these stories was false.
"I know what I am suggesting is serious. I did not come to these conclusions lightly," Gardiner (Colonel Sam Gardiner (USAF, Ret.)
admits. "I'm not going to address why they did it. That's something I don't understand even after all the research." But the fact remained that "very bright and even well-intentioned officials found how to control the process of governance in ways never before possible."

· The link between terrorism, Iraq and · 9/11
· Iraqi agents meeting with 9/11 hijacker · Mohammed Atta
· Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons.
· Iraq's purchase of nuclear materials from Niger.
· Saddam Hussein's development of nuclear weapons.
· Aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons
· The existence of Iraqi drones, WMD cluster bombs and Scud missiles.
· Iraq's threat to target the US with cyber warfare attacks.
· The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch.
· The surrender of a 5,000-man Iraqi brigade.
· Iraq executing Coalition POWs.
· Iraqi soldiers dressing in US and UK uniforms to commit atrocities.
· The exact location of WMD facilities
· WMDs moved to Syria.


A Battle between Good and Evil
Gardiner notes that cocked-up stories about Saddam's WMDs "was only a very small part of the strategic influence, information operations and marketing campaign conducted on both sides of the Atlantic."

The "major thrust" of the campaign, Gardiner explains, was "to make a conflict with Iraq seem part of a struggle between good and evil. Terrorism is evil... we are the good guys.
"The second thrust is what propaganda theorists would call the 'big lie.' The plan was to connect Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. Make the American people believe that Saddam Hussein was behind those attacks."

The means for pushing the message involved: (my note: here's the method):

saturating the media with stories, 24/7; staying on message; staying ahead of the news cycle; managing expectations; and finally, being prepared to "use information to attack and punish critics. (and as per below, "If a story supports policy, even if incorrect, let it stay around." )

[Generator]

101. I get your beef

And I've wondered the same thing. We need attack dogs that don't back down.

But I don't know if it would work UNLESS real liberals own the network and get a fair spin.

For instance, Dean has said hundreds of credible, hard hitting, honest and very blunt things such as "this president has lied to us about getting into a war, it's not made us safer, ect.ect." I've seen him. Back when I watched CNN and Hardball.

But what they focus on? ONE comment that sounds extra radical...ie the one about Bush maybe having some forwarning on 9/11 from Saudia Arabia. Too close to the truth?! They painted Dean as a left wing loon. It's all about the SCREAM.

So they can have hours of interview and the one thing that can be EDITED to fit the media's agenda and it will be ALL they focus on.

Just like with the Debates! Kerry said a hundred incredible things. I know check back those nights-I was screaming for every truth moment. What did the media choose? He DARED to mention that Cheney's daughter was a lesbian.

That's bias and that's propaganda. It's not as simple as just speaking the truth. I wish it was. Because if it was-all we would have to do is have Free Republic's entire membership read DU for a week and they would know what they "believe" are lies and propaganda. But they don't care. Part of it is just that-it's about belief-it's not about the truth. It's about denial.

Denial is all this country is about. The truth would mean changing everything. And I mean everything. Things are rotten to the core.

[Dr Fate]

104. You have to follow up, maintain unity and repeat, repeat repeat.

If every single DEM of note was now saying what Dean said, and doing it everynight- there would be no way to ignore it.

As far as Cheney's daughter- I never once saw Kerry go on TV and refute the spin

"Why are you focusing on my FACTUAL statements instead of focusing on the outright LIES Bush told during that same debate? Tell me, Wolf, why is telling the truth wrong but lying is okay? I smell bias. Now- back to Bush's Debate lies that you "forgot" to report..."

Again, I cant blame CNN for what Kerry, etc refuses to say.

[NAO]

105. You beat me to it: The Dean Scream as a Silencer

Democrats do need to focus on an aggressive media strategy and figure out how to be more visible and get the progressive viewpoint out there.

But there is a strong element of censorship, and it's nothing so obvious as openly refusing interviews. I do suspect that they claim they are 'booked until next (whatever)' and try to dodge, but I don't think they just say to Kerry or whoever, "we refuse to grant you an interview".

But they will take your worst sound bytes - for Dean it was the scream - for Kerry it was when he sounded waffely or verbose (Kerry had plenty of clear, plain, direct, forceful effective statements - you just did not hear them on the TV.) - and play them over and over to damage you.

During the 2004 campaign cycle, there was a time when Kerry was getting the runaround from the media. He was rapid firing press releases and bold statements and even wrote, printed and distributed a book titled "Our Plan for America" - while the media did not grant him interviews and repeated to death the statement that "Kerry has no plan"! Well, Kerry obviously became fed up with the runaround and took action. It was as if he said, "well, if the news shows will not let me get on the air, fuck 'em - I'll get in front of the American people any way I can". And then he did "The Daily Show" and "Letterman" and some horrible daytime banality of the caliber of "Regis and Kathy Lee". I don't think he WANTED to go on that stupid daytime yapping yawn-fest - he did it because he could not get on MSNBC or CNN.

How many interviews have you seen with Cynthia McKinney? Do you think she is too timid? Hell no. Has she been assassinated by the media by taking statements out of context and dwelling on them? Yep. Were they excited to interview her after her dramatic comeback in 2004? Nope.

"Blaming the media" is NOT an excuse for Democrats to remain silent or passive. But it IS an explanation for how outspoken Democrats are not given air-time. Further, it is NOT productive to blame Democrats, even if it were their fault (which it is not). If they were genuinely remiss, and failed to book TV appearances in a truly neutral network climate, the appropriate response would be to send them letters, emails, petitions, whatever telling them to 'get on TV more'. But that is not the same as the infamous Democratic 'circular firing squad'.

[Dr Fate]

106. The media did not grant Kerry interviews? Can you prove that? Which show?

Can you prove that? If true, I stand corrected.

If true, why didnt Kerry forcefully call them on it? Why not go on "Regis" and say "I'm here because CNN is too biased to grant me an interview- I felt like I was in communist Russia or somthing- at least you are good enough to grant me equal time..."

Once again, I cant blame CNN for what Kerry or whoever refuses to say.

I find it very hard to believe that Kerry was ever turned down for an interview or talk-show debate during the campaign. I'd like to see some documentation on that.

Cynthia WHO????

I'm talking about famous, household name Democrats.

[Leilani]

107. The Repubs yelled & screamed for years

against the Liberal media...they're still doing it.

If you repeat things often enough, it becomes accepted fact.

The Dems need to scream about their lack of coverage & scream about unfairness to them.

They also need to organize & repeat, repeat, repeat their message. One press release from Kerry will not do it.

[Dr Fate]

108. You are right- and Wolf Blitzer & Brit Hume cant stop them either.

I absolutely REFUSE to blame the GOP/media for what DEMS refuse to say.

[NAO]

117. Not an explicit denial; Cynthia McKinney asked "What/When did Bush Know?"

There is no way the networks would send out an explicit denial of an interview. And if asked, they could honestly answer that they did not deny Kerry any interviews. It was/is more of a runaround.

Cynthia McKinney is the Democratic Congresswoman from Georgia, who was the first person to publicly ask of 9/11, "what did Bush know, and when did he know it?". The press massacred her, calling her a "lunatic fringe conspiracy theorist". A few months later, the headlines of all the newspapers read, "Bush Knew.", but no apologies to McKinney were issued, no interviews were granted.

When the 2002 elections came around, there was a systematic, covert effort to smear her and defeat her election. She lost her seat. She gained it back in November 2004, the brightest spot in the election, IMHO.

Cynthia McKinney
http://www.cynthiaforcongress.com/

The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney
By Greg Palast, AlterNet
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=229&row=1

Terrorist Warnings at Truthout
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.17AA.Mckinney.Bush.NU.htm

[Dr Fate]

119. As a Georgia boy, I love her. Problem is, she is like Boxer or Conyers.

Easily shrugged off as "the fringe." Especially by the subconscious & not so subconscious racists and sexists in this country.

My idea is for the house hold name, famous DEMs to go on TV and back her up.

I'll no longer ask why Wolf Blitzer does not repeat McKinney style charges- I'll ask why Hillary & Kerry do not.

[Tactical Progressive]

110. What on earth are you talking about?

And no, I don't need you to repeat for the seventieth time how Democrats should speak out. What should Democrats speak out about that they haven't tried speaking out about already?

We're waiting....


.....



...

[Dr Fate]

111. Whatever it is that DUers say the media is refusing to report.

Like Jeff Gannon for instance. Is media propaganda not important enough to raise cane about? that story is now dead. The media nor DEMs made an issue of it-sure they "wrote letters"- big deal. How about going on TV???

Like Bush pullling the plug on Baby Son or DeLay pulling the plug on his daddy as a way to prove Bush or DeLay is a "hypocrite" on the Shiavo "issue." ON TV.

What about the forged Nigerian yellow-cake documents-has that been resolved yet? Which DEMS ever asked night after night- "Who forged these documents, and why?". ON TV.

How about listing the literally hundreds of lies that Bush has told since taking office as a reubuttal to the "Flip Flopper" business. ON TV.

How about calling Bush & Wolf Blitzer "Liars" for reporting that Swiftboat BS. ON TV.

How about sticking up for Dan Rather? ON TV.

How about Kerry, Obama, Hilary, etc going on TV and sticking up for Boxer or Conyers on voting reform instead of letting them twist in the wind? ON TV.

These are all things that DUers complain that the media is not covering.

My idea is for top DEMs to go on TV every night and "cover" it for them- repeating the message over and over, in language that swing voters understand.

I'll not blame the media for what our top, house-hold name DEMs refuse to say on TV.

And that is what on earth I'm talking about.

[Q]

113. What other excuses can the Dem faithful come up with...

...to rationalize their party's lack of resolve and...opposition?

Republicans get covered more in the media for several reasons. One is that they have 'controlling interest' in a majority of the media. The other is that they have their OWN talking head pundits that echo their talking points.

When Conyers or any other Democrat is fighting against election fraud...the whole friggin party should join them and keep the heat on the cheaters and the media. The Republicans wouldn't let any of these issues end up down the memory hole. And they certainly wouldn't allow a fellow GOPer to fight alone.

The problem seems to be that the battle between the left and right of the Dem party leaves the liberals and progressives to fight the Bush Junta on their own...with the RWing of the party either agreeing with Bush or blocking any serious investigations.

[Dr Fate]

115. I am a proud member of the DEM Faithful.

That is why I will never shut up about this.

However, I am not a member of the excuse making wing of the party that has cropped up recently- I'm a member of the "How can we make it happen?" wing.

I enjoy your input as always.

[NAO]

127. My version of "how we can make it happen" is in post #125

It does not blame or make excuses for anyone, but it does lay out a high level view of what I think needs to be done.

I do believe there are systemic factors - by that I mean that it's not just one person or one network or one decision to grant or deny an interview - but rather deep structural features inherent in our society - that will make it difficult to accomplish.

But if it's going to happen, I think something like what I describe in post #125 has to be done, and consistently worked indefinitely.

[Q]

129. But you're faithful to the Democratic Party...

...and not the politicians who control it. Other democrats have berated you because you have identified a problem that they don't want to acknowledge. They would rather blame the media than their favorite politicians for representing their own interests instead of those of the country and party.

It's easy to put all the blame on the media because they too have turned into corporate shills...thinking of the bottom line instead of broadcasting the truth. What makes it even worse is that they're PARTISAN corporate whores that don't even try to HIDE the fact that they favor the GOP.

We DO have Democrats speaking out and confronting the Bush administration on many fronts. But they don't have the support of the Democratic party leadership. Nothing will get media attention faster (and surprise the hell out of them) than a majority of Democrats joining together with the same message.

[Dr Fate]

135. You have crystalized my thoughts once again.

Who woulda thunk it, after all those knock-down drag out arguments we used to have?

[cquik18]

116. Very true...

We have Air America and the internet-why the hell should we progressives even be concerned about MSM nowadays?

[Dr Fate]

118. Because moderates & swing-voters don't listen to Air America.

They DO watch the "the TV" though.

We need the MSM- and there is no excuse why we are not taking full advantage of the numerous platforms they provide.

No one is stopping Hillary, Obama, Kerry & Dean from going on TV and talking just like Al Franken, Mike Malloy or Ed Schultz- in blunt, matter-of-fact language- free of nuance- and talking about the stories that Wolf & company refuse to talk about.

If Kerry & Hillary wont say it on TV, why should Wolf & Tweety?

[NAO]

120. Because the sleepwalking masses believe, and vote, based on MSM

they do not read books, they do not listen to AAR.

The MSM Corporate Infotainment Complex shapes the perceptions and beliefs of the masses. How many are "the masses"? Enough to swing any election in either direction, regardless of the fierceness and determination of partisans on either side.

Ronald Raygun realized this and revoked the "Fairness" laws for broadcasters so that his hoards of Rethug partisans could dominate the media, the masses, and the elections of the future.

We HAVE to take back the media, or supersede it. Television superseded newspapers as the main source of news and views about the world. Unless we can recapture or supersede the TV news, we are not going to get very far, no matter how outspoken or determined our candidates are.

[cquik18]

121. I do believe I heard on the radio yesterday...

..that Al Gore is trying to purchase a local TV station here in TN...so perhaps a national television outlet for liberal and progressive views is on the way as well...we have to keep in mind that Rush, Sean, Fox News and the like have been at this stuff for YEARS, since the late 80's. It's going to take time. The word may not reach the "heartland and swing state voters" in time for 2006 or 2008, but it WILL get out if the grass roots do like the neocons and just KEEP AT IT.

[cquik18]

122. Another good source for unbiased news is PBS...

...they tend to be the most neutral of the national newscasts, as well as BBC's news. PBS news will bash anyone, Democrat or Republican, LOL! Seriously, though, the McNeil-Lehrer Newshour is a resource most people don't even know about, and it should be incumbent upon those of us who claim to be progressive to get the word out on it, and as many different forums for our point of view as possible...If people choose to ignore these forums and continue getting their news from MSM, then that's their choice, but if we know about these alternative news sources but don't pass the info on, whose fault is it THEN?

[NAO]

125. What Needs to be Done: Pour Resources into an Aggressive Media Strategy

Blaming the Democratic Party or individual Democratic candidates is not going to solve the problem. As Democrats, we need to be especially careful to avoid the "circular firing squad".

Rather than trying to argue for the media problem - which I believe is very real, very grave, and far beyond the scope of any particular Democratic candidate - I'll state what I think needs to be done.

The Democratic Party needs leadership at the top to lay down the law on media. Money and resources need to be withdrawn from other activities and poured into the development and execution of an aggressive, coordinated media strategy.

Many Democratic leaders are very savvy at getting things done in the realm of government - but they are not media savvy. The Democratic Party needs to hire media liaison agents and develop a media strategy that includes booking as many appearances as possible on TV.

They need to ASSIGN "media duty" to Democrats and rotate as many (presentable) Democrats as possible, as often as possible on news, talk shows, anything. But their message needs to be coordinated and tuned.

There is a need to develop a "media tuned message". All Democrats need to be "on the same page", reinforcing each others' points. Their comments need to be written and/or edited by academic professionals, entertainment professionals, public relations/advertising professionals, and subjected to George Lakoff style "framing".

Their message needs to be smooth, easy to understand, factually correct, and it needs to frame the debate in a way that appeals to people's basic sensibilities and makes the Republican perspective seem horribly misguided and morally deficient. And it needs to be coordinated, centralized, and executed in a strategic fashion. And it needs to be adapted to the 24 hour news cycle so that they are not responding to last weeks' news.

And that's how I'd run things, if I were DNC chairman. I did send an email and a hard copy letter to this effect to Dean when he first got the DNC chair and asked for ideas. Don't know if anyone read it...

[cquik18]

128. Hmmm...That's a GOOD Plan!

that's a very GOOD plan! Perhaps a petition could be drawn up and DU'ers and others who are committed to this cause could sign it and send it to Dean as well?

[NAO]

149. I was thinking along the lines of a petition as well

has anyone here worked with those on-line petitions?

They seem to be designed to be simple to set-up and you can gather signatures and email addresses very quickly.

[Dr Fate]

136. I love it.

Great long term plan- my thread is not about blaming individual DEMS as much as it's about a short-term "now" solution.

We cant wait until we have our own shows- that may take too long.

Great ideas though- I'll be glad to help you spread them.

[cquik18]

126. Has anyone noticed....

..that within the past year, all THREE of the national evening news anchormen are being replaced?

Tom Brokaw- didn't he retire last year?
Dan Rather- we ALL know about THAT..
...now Peter Jennings....

I think there's more to it than "time to move on", or a case of lung cancer...I'm not certain who replaced Brokaw, but Rather's successor has a brother who's part of the Bush Administration (in what capacity, I can't remember; where does conflict of interest come in, here?). It's a safe bet that Jennings's successor will be handpick from a right-leaning crowd.

You don't have to imagine what life in the old Soviet Union was like anymore-WE'RE LIVING IT!

[cquik18]

132. Just found out...

Brian Williams is the guy who replaced Brokaw on NBC...it seems AOL has brought up the subject of news anchors being replaced for whatever reason, as well! LOL!

[LittleClarkie]

130. What's stopping them?

The people who would give them a forum I assume.

You want they should rent time on national tv?

[NAO]

131. Yes, I want them to buy 30sec spots unrelated to any candidate or campaign

They need to educate the public on the issues and frame the issues in a progressive fashion.

This should be part, but by no means all, of an aggressive media strategy as outlined in my post #125, above.

[Dr Fate]

134. Who is refusing to interview Kerry, Hillary, Obama or Dean???

Seems to be the million dollar question on this thread.

Care to be the one who can answer it?

Why rent media time when you could send your top, in demand, house-hold name DEMS on 6 different channels for free?

Stop making excuses- or we lose in 2006.

[LittleClarkie]

138. Send?

I thought they had to be asked? One doesn't just show up on the doorstep and say, "I'm here" does one?

Do we have any TV folk here who know how this is done?

It seems that the more slanted the network, the more they'd rather have some milquetoast Dem on rather than a heavy hitter who could answer questions properly.

Not making excuses. Discussing. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps not. You may be the one who has to give up on your premise that we can muscle onto the established networks. We may instead need to concentrate on getting progressives outlets into the media, or we lose 2006.

Perhaps you're wrong, there is a bias, and it's something we have to work around, and not deny.

Either way, there is action to be taken. Making excuses implies helplessness. That is not something I'm promoting. But we have to understand the problem so that we can work for a solution.

[Dr Fate]

141. "Hi, Wolf? Hillary Clinton speaking..."

"I'd like you to book me on your show next week- I'm going to say some pretty controversial things about Bush that are sure to get you some good ratings."


And before you say "it cant be done that way" why dont we TRY IT???

If networks are really denying access to our top DEMS- then why are they silent about it?????

[blm]

140. The answer to your question is: ALL of them are being refused.

As a REGULAR appearance by the top-name Dems, you will get NO INTEREST from the news media. You will get SOME interest here and there, as long as you are addressing THEIR topic for discussion.

I appreciate you digging in your heels on this, but, it doesn't square with the reality of the way the production offices for news programs are run these days.


"This is John Kerry...I demand you interview me.....or, at least report on
my press conferences....or, at least report on my committee hearings....or, at least report on the legislation I submitted."

"This is Hillary Clinton....I demand you interview me...No, not about running for president...but, I have other issues I'd like to talk about....No, I'm not just trying to firm up the base for the primaries....I'd really like to speak out about what Bush....Who will I pick for VP?......But..." She's running, folks......Hillary's office is demanding interview times.

[Dr Fate]

142. "Sure Wolf- we will talk about whatever you want..."

Then when you get on the show, you use your debating skills to re-direct the deabate.

It's not rocket science.

I find it very hard to believe that major shows would turn down a Kerry or Hillary interview- I'll need to see proof.

If it is true, then I wonder why the DEMs are silent about it.

Can we TRY IT before we give up?

[Q]

145. After reading responses to this thread...

...is it easier for you to understand why the Democratic leadership can do anything...or nothing...and still have the undying support of many of the rank and file that want nothing more from them than 'winning' elections for their team?

You're right...it's not rocket science. But what you're not 'getting' is that the Democratic party has become so much like their opposition in the sense that the rank and file are expected to be nothing more than cheerleaders and spectators. You're not allowed to second-guess or question the motives of the leadership. Doing so will put you in the category of 'loony left' or 'radical' or 'wanting the opposition to win'.

What these responses are trying to tell you is that you're not playing the game very well if you have the audacity to question why our 'leadership' is not leading.

PS (They have already given up. Now they want you to do the same.)

[blm]

147. Wrong, Q. We want to wake Dems up to the fact the media is now under

the control of the GOP and it is past time that the party realizes it and deals with that issue instead of letting the media play their horseshit game of pushing the country to the right when it really is a left of center nation.

I wish you'd stop labeling those of us who want to wake up the nation and the party to the control of the media by fascist forces as if WE are the ones blinded. It's horseshit and you know it.

[Q]

153. I didn't point you or 'they' out in particular...

...but it's clear that too many Dems would rather blame the media than the lack of leadership in opposing what is obviously the most corrupt government this country has ever seen.

There is no doubt that the media is under the control of the Bushie Republicans. But we've known this for at least a decade. If the leadership doesn't know this by now then they're either really stupid or they've given up and are playing by their rules.

What else would explain the complete lack of oversight and accountability? It seems like every day since 2000 we're hit with another scandal...another crime against the Constitution and rule of law. At the most we get a few Democrats complaining and calling for hearings or investigations. The rest of the party is silent and refuses to announce any kind of official position on any of these issues.

At the very least the party needs to go on the record as opposing the many harmful policies of the Bush administration. That they often avoid confrontation on these issues gives Bush the opportunity to characterize his agenda as 'bipartisan'.

But even a partisan media can be used to our advantage. Is there any doubt that they would cover Democrats coming together to oppose Bush? They're certainly not going to cover a few Democrats calling for Bush accountability but ignored by the majority of the party. We've seen Dems like Bryd, Gore, Kennedy and Dean trying to get the truth out. But they're neutralized, marginalized and silenced by the more conservative politicians in the party that WANT to work with Bush and dont' want to be seen as 'Bush bashers'.

The problem isn't so much the media as it is factions in the party not wanting to be seen as opposing the 'war president'...even though they know he has committed crimes.

[Dr Fate]

157. Why havent they realized it- like 3 years ago? Are they asleep?

They sure are taking their time in DOING SOMTHING.

Besides using as it as an excuse for when the base complains that they are not speaking out- so I guess they are doing "somthing."

[blm]

148. There is NO GIVEUP. It is the media that must be attacked.

Sure they can go on a program and change the subject and land a suckerpunch. That will be the last time they are given airtime for a long, long time. They will also quickly get labeled as bitter partisans in the spin cycle afterwards which will BECOME the story.

But, at least they got one punch in, eh?

Too bad there are SO MANY issues.

Deal with the media bias first. Expose the fascist forces controlling what the people hear. That is the only way for any truth to survive, no matter who speaks it.

[Dr Fate]

156. Er- we already ARE labeled bitter partisans.

"The media will be mean to us if we speak out" is not a good excuse- they already are "mean to us."

Doncha think that would look kind of suspicious if they never invited Hillary Clinton or Kerry back, just because they re-direct the subject for a few minutes?

And what keeps them from saying what you just said, if that is really the problem- speaking out is always step #1.


So many excuses for why we cant fight. Perhaps I'll compile a list of these helpful excuses for our manual.

[ClassWarrior]

151. The Radical RW blamed the media for 30 years before it had any effect...

I'm only accountable for what I can do, and one of the most strategic things I can do for the cause is harass the Corporate Media.

NGU.

[Tinoire]

152. Never did and glad to see your post.

It's high time we deal with the complicit silence of the Dems allegedly representing us.

A little mumbo jumbo to small groups that they can spin for their next audience doesn't cut it anymore for me.

Get your ass on national TV and say what you have to say so that EVERYONE can hear it AT THE SAME TIME. No more of this, say X in New York but when you get to Texas, have your spin meisters sping it into something totally different because you think you can straddle stand in the middle of the road.

Keep standing in the middle of the road and watch the people run you over.

The excuse is played out and it's a damn shame it was ever even used. Spot on!

[Dr Fate]

159. "But DEMS are fighting- didn't you read that letter on the internet?

And didn't you read that post at 1:00AM last night about that DEM (his mname escapes me- some minor congressman)somewhere who is fighting?

A DEM DID TO try to expose Bush once- I heard about it on DU and Air America- stop saying no one is fighting!!!

Now about that check to the DNC....

[Tinoire]

161. Stop it. You're killing me!

That's about the extent of it. some minor unknown somewhere....

If I make the check out for $0.02 and write "final payment" in the memo, do you think they'll get the message?

[im10ashus]

154. EXACTLY!!!

Great post. They Dem's need to grow a collective ball between them and get back to playing hardball. It falls back on we citizens, unfortunately, to call/write your representatives in congress and ask them to get of their asses and start fighting. :mad:

[Vinnie From Indy]

155. Your assertion is silly!

I will not ignore the wholesale corruption of American corporate media just because Dem leaders don't toe your arbitrary line in the sand. You are dead wrong about ignoring the media's corruption. As you are irritated by DU posters that complain about and blame the media, I am equally as irritated by DU posters that rail against a problem and solve it by advocating a circular firing squad.

[Dr Fate]

158. Obviously you did not read anything I wrote.

I KNOW that the media & GOP are joined at the hip-my initial posts states that- yet some DUers still expect the media to criticise the GOP- why would anyone criticise themsleves?

We have already solved the mystery as to why the media refuses to talk about what DUers say every day- the new mystery is -what is the DEM leadership's excuse for not doing this??

YES- the media is owned by Republicans- but I cant blame them for what DEMs are not saying at all. Please expalin to me why that is "silly."

[Catchawave]

162. Hey Doc....

I might weigh in here if I knew what "media" you're following?

It's only fair.

[Dr Fate]

166. DUers keep saying over & over that the media wont cover certain stories.

Have you not been hearing that for the past 3 years or so?

All I'm saying is that just because Wolf Blitzer wont say "There is evidence of election fraud in 2004", for example, does not keep top DEMS from saying it.

[Vinnie From Indy]

174. The issue is not as B/W as you indicate

I do not totally disagree with your assertion. The Dems seem to be silent or not heard on several issues. Regardless of what you may think, there are many brilliant people holding office as Dems and in the party ranks and they understand the forces arrayed against them. The issue is much more nuanced than you indicate. There are a variety of reasons that Dems are not being heard. One of these reasons is certainly a lack of courage on the part of SOME Dems, but it is not total. There are many Dems who are not heard BECAUSE of the alliance between BushCo and the corporate media overlords. Walking into a media buzz saw controlled by BushCo. just to prove your courage makes no sense. I think you are seeing the beginnings of a Dem response to the merger of BushCo. and the corporate media in the form of Air America Radio and attempts by Al Gore to launch a liberal network. The alliance between BushCo and the handful of gigantic companies that control most of American Media is exactly what Mussolini described when he, in my opinion, accurately defined fascism. He said, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger
of state and corporate power." I think many Dems are still struggling to accept that we are witnessing with BushCo. the emergence of a uniquely American brand of fascism.

In conclusion, it is silly to lump all Democrats into one category labeled "gutless" in regard to speaking out.

[WLKjr]

163. They need to start making the DAMN BOLD STATEMENTS AGAIN

and pound home the facts. Just keep repeating it over and over again.

[LoZoccolo]

164. Blaming the Dem leadership does NOT cut it anymore.

We have to, at the same time, have their back, and create more Democrats ourselves.

[Dr Fate]

165. I cant blame CNN or FOX for what many DEMS refuse to say.

Can't do it- wouldn't be logical.

[goodboy]

172. You're right. Thanks for this thread...nominated. (nt)

[leesa]

167. I agree. It's an excuse they hide behind. Just like voting unethically

just to create the impression of being bipartisan players. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

[John_H]

168. The fact, the bottom line, the way it is, the sad truth:

Blaming the media has become an excuse for people who can't do their jobs. I've been warning DU since November third: The people that have proven since 2000 that they have no clue how to run a message operation are running a message operation. If they are not replaced, we will lose in 06 and 08. It's that simple.

[goodboy]

171. I get attacked all the time for asking where our leadership is, yesterday

someone accused me of trying to destroy the Democratic party.