Who did the mainstream nedia treat more unfairly...Kerry or Gore?

[zulchzulu]

I noticed the other thread and am convinced that the media would hardly cover many Kerry events that happened, would cover completely made-up terror alerts over Kerry campaign appearances and statements, would allow the Swift Boat Assholes to continue to lie about Kerry long after they were debunked...and on and on... I also remember them giving Bush a free pass in 2000 against Gore....so the question beckons...

The MSM would rather cloud the media airwaves with non-issues over actually having a decent dialogue on the issues. It's easier, they are lazier and people eat it up like Cheetos.

Who did the mainstream media treat more unfairly...Kerry or Gore?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Kerry got treated far worse than Gore.

It's FAR worse when a guy that actually DID serve gets treated as though he didn't against a guy that went AWOL for the SAME FUCKING EVENT

[asjr]

2. First they practiced on Gore, then with Kerry they

became experts. I still blame the media for the two losses for Democrats. That and the SCOTUS and Diebold machines.

[BlueIris]

6. I blame the media for making the public believe the "loss" wasn't FRAUD.

There's only one reason more people aren't inspired to find out what really happened and for once it ain't the inherent laziness of the electorate. I haven't watched even five minutes of CNN since election night. Everytime I look at any of those people: UGH.

[TayTay]

3. Sadly, both.

The pundits made fun of Gore repeatedly in 2000 and made a huge fuss over minor misstatements that he made. The whole 'sighing' thing from the 2000 debates was an idiotic mislead that took the focus off the whopping lies that Bush was telling. The media didn't learn their lesson and treated Kerry the same way in 2004.

Isn't this why we now have Media Matters and Air America and all the rest. I know that these organizations are young, but they exist to counter-act the spin against all Dems that are put out by the Right Wing Noise Machine.

[Jon8503]

4. It was so horrible for Gore & Kerry, I don't think you can equate

one with the other on who got screwed the worse.

[zulchzulu]

5. I'm sure the 2008 cycle will bring another round of the same thing

Since it will be primary season for both parties (unless we have martial law, etc.), the level and amount of nasty talking points from each candidate flailing at each other will be doubled.

Then you'll get the Russerts, the Blitzers, the O'Reilly's, the Hannity's et al spewing the same talking points at all the candidates...no need for them to actually do some research on the accusations...just read the teleprompter and have the viewer watch the grainy video or graphic "nailing" the candidate. Gotcha!

It's going to be even uglier in 2008.

[cassiepriam]

7. Character assassination means both were killed. Dead is dead.

[PresidentObama]

8. Kerry

With all due respect to VP Al Gore, because I believe the media treated him unfairly, but Kerry was given the media boot so many times it isn't even funny. If it weren't for the media, a big deal would have never arised out of the Swift Boat ad's. They would have been just a little group in syndicated areas running ad's. The media turned them into a damaging lying force to be reckon with, and helped them to raise money. Heck, they didn't need ad's. They got ENOUGH air time on CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, and so on. Not to mention how they treated Kerry when he was down, and almost out against Dean. Throw in their coverage of Kerry's camp in August and September when they claimed he was loser bound, and things for Kerry were incredibly hard media wise.

My thoughts are poor Gore, and poor Kerry. If the media treats Hillary like a pretty, pretty little princess in 2008 I'm going to scream. Literally.

[robbedvoter]

9. Gore. Because his base was asleep or hypnotized by Nader.

Kerry had the benefit of support that at least to some extent kept the attacks in check. But Gore was attacked from all sides.