Guys, i'm sick of all this crying about the media...

[jeter]

media, media, media, media, media, media, media, media, media, media, and oh yes, the media.

That's all we hear about now. Is this the first time you ever paid attention to or participated in the primaries?

This is EXACTLY what happens. If they wanted everyones votes to count they would have a national primary. They don't for a reason.

Because each individual election is a test of the various candidates. If there were one election, then the front-runners (usually establishment candidates) would ALWAYS win.

Why because the MEDIA would be going on and on about their front runner status, etc. Just like now.

Howard Dean got all the news attention last year and into the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary - why? Because he was the front runner.

It was Dean who put all his eggs into the Iowa and New Hampshire basket. He spent like $30 million there (which has to be a record of some sort). Dean was the one who was saying that if he won those primaries he would take out Gephardt and Kerry. He would have all this momentum and take out Edwards in South Carolina. Then he would be off to the races winning the nomination.

THAT WAS DEAN'S STRATEGY. Not the medias.

But Dean came in a very distant third in Iowa. Kerry (his main opponent in New Hampshire) came in first. Got a moon shot. He was on the cover of the weekly news magazines (just as Dean AND Clark had already been), he was on the front pages of the newspapers, he was talked about.

What did you expect would happen?

Did you think that Dean finishing third would keep him as front runner. And the person everyone thought was dead in the water (including myself) after a huge and surprising victory would be ignored? That was EXACTLY why Dean put so much time and money into those two first states. Because HE WANTED the moon shot. But he lost and his campaign went into tailspin. Not because of the media, but because his campaign had never anticipated that they would lose those first two primaries so badly.

He became irrelevant in the next 7 primaries. Because his support there was always contingent of winning the first two. So he decided not to compete at all.

If Dean wins Michigan, Washington and/or Wisconsin he will be back on peoples radars.

Case in point. 2000. In 2000, George W. Bush was the republican frontrunner. He had all the money, he had all the endorsements, all the attention. He won the Iowa caucus and was said to be the nominee. Then McCain shocked everyone and beat Bush in New Hampshire by 18%. Then it was all McCain all the time. The race went to South Carolina and Bush won. And it was all Bush, all the time. Then it went to Arizona/Michigan and McCain won again and it was "oh oh, Bush is in trouble." So it came down to Super Tuesday, McCain won Conneticut, Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island and Massachusettes. Bush won Virginia, Ohio, North Dakota, New York and California. Bush won all the big states and McCain all the small ones. That gave the edge to Bush. The next week had the southern primaries, which Bush won easily. He won the nomination.

That's how it works. How it has always worked. How it will always work.

You want to get John Kerry off the front pages, beat him. That simple. The reason the media are "playing up" Edwards is that he came a close second in Iowa; won in South Carolina and came a very close second in Oklahoma.

Clark probably survived in Oklahoma because he won it.

You have to win to get noticed.

But winning one primary won't be enough. You have to win enough primaries to win enough delegates to win the nomination.

Kerry has already won 7 (out of 9). So he is the front runner. He will be talked about until someone beats him.

Its everyones choice whether or not they want to stay on. But in the next week we are going to have more primaries. Victories and losses will add up. Then more. Then more. Until one candidate has enough delegates to win it all.

It's not a conspiracy. It's a primary election.

Get use to it.

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. I agree

Dean wanted to do exactly what Kerry is doing. So all these attacks and conspiracy theories are utterly laughable.

[NNN0LHI]

2. Thats how it works n/t

[D G]

3. Oh, stop making SENSE! n/t

[George_Bonanza]

4. Saved me the trouble of writing what you said

The media simply goes after the front-runner. They went after Al Gore b/c he was the front runner, not because he was a threat to media machine. For Dean supporters to say that the media killed Dean because of his so-called ideals is being awfully smug and uppity. Nothing of the sort happened. If you're as error-prone and loud as Dean, people will love to burn you.

[Raya]

5. Every Major Media Channel IGNORED Kerry. Said he didn't have a chance.

When Kerry was campaigning hard on the ground the media had a
total blackout on his campaign. Only in the very last week in Iowa
did the give Kerry's actual campaigning any coverage.

[Ripley]

6. Locked threads equal what????????????????

This board has too many in charge to kill......sometimes they should allow people the discussion...oh well.

[tomreedtoon]

7. However...

...since the media are controlled by right-wing megacorporate types, who are in bed with Bush's clique, there are real consequences to their coverage of the primaries.

In finding "weaknesses" in the candidates, and ramming them home 24/7 in their solely-owned TV and press outlets, they are helping to prove that Democratic candidates are no match for the current White House resident. And since they don't bother finding such "weaknesses" in Bush - and in the local candidates who follow the same policies - they are not equalizing the damage.

I will accept the idea that people here, and on Media Whores Online, are being very sensitive to the media. The same way that an abused spouse is very wary when her husband is in an angry mood, and watches when he starts fondling a baseball bat with more than usual relish.

(Especially because, like the Democratic candidates until recently, the bloody and bruised spouse doesn't fight back.)

[spooky3]

9. I agree--well put!

[jeter]

8. You can tell that alot of people are new to this

Because they actually buy into the Dean line of how only 12% of delegates have been chosen.

Sure that's true. But with every loss - it will get worse for Dean. Tougher to win.

Take the McCain/Bush example above. McCain could have gone forward - he was certainly entitled to. He could have said that only 40% of delegates have been chosen.

He had won 8 primaries at that point - to Bush's 14. But the writing was on the wall. He would have to divide the Republican party and even then possibly come up short.

He chose to see the writing on the wall and fell on his sword.

The problem is that Dean and many of his supporters were SO CONVINCED that he would win the nomination. They never bothered to do the things you had to do to actually win it. Now they are so sore about it. So it can't be that Dean just ran a bad campaign.

A) lost focus of his message
B) spent all his money on the first two states which he lose because of A.
c) Now has a losing desperate strategy.

It was a conspiracy by the media and everyone else to keep Dean down.

[Old and In the Way]

10. Where was the media exposure in the last qtr of 2003 for John?

Almost non-existant. I think that story on the Green Beret asking to help John's campaign ignited mainstream Democrats to back a man who has fought for our values over his 30 year career in public service.

People always thought he had the potential, but it took just a little media exposure to really turn his campaign on. There had to be something there, in the man, to make that happen.

[On the Road]

11. There's a Difference Between Standard Political Attacks and Criticism

It is standard politics for the media to report negatively on Dean's environmental record, changing his position on Medicare, his efforts not to be drafted, his taped comments on the Iowa primary, etc. This is not what the complaints are about.

What is new and UNacceptable is characterizing him as having an anger problem, when the public record shows no such thing, or even characterizing him as unstable or imbalanced. The only other time I have seen such reporting was during Al Gore's campaign.

The media should not be reporting an amateur psychological evaluation as news. They should especially not be mischaracterizing the record. People tend to believe what they hear from multiple sources. The coup de grace was the universal scorn and ridicule that Dean was subjected to after Iowa. This is not journalism. It is not honest. And it is not acceptable.

And if you can't see it, it's probably because you're swallowing it, too. Spend some time on The Daily Howler.

[vi5]

22. You're right, but its not exclusive to Dean....

McCain got smeared with the unstable issue....Gore got the liar issue....Kerry gets the long winded issue (or he will now that he is the front runner).

Nobody is saying the Media doesn't do this crap, just that it's not exclusive to any one candidate. And anyone that says it is, is quite simply looking at it through blinders.

[fleetus]

12. I think your points are very strong. But...

And I definitely agree that the media covers the front runner. Period.

But I do have a question as to why you did not mention the media's (negative?) coverage of Dean's Iowa 3rd place speech (the one where he was tired and yelling). Do you think the impact of that coverage was too minimal to mention in your analysis? I just bring it up because it has been a hot topic on DU.

BTW, great, well thought out post, jeter.

[1971]

13. Need to cry out louder!

Because if this is the norm -- it's WRONG.

Americans should NOT let the media herd them like lemmings to the ballot box and vote for whoever the media is clamoring for.

That = the media sabotaging America.

[KoKo]

14. If you don't understand the role the media plays then you doom us to

live by their polls, their "chosen" pundits....and their "whoring."

If you've been on DU awhile and don't see the role the media plays in all of this...then "heaven help you." I can't.

[D G]

17. It is possible to understand that the media plays a role in politics

without handing them all of our power and acting helpless.

You can look at polls, pundits and media whoring with a jaded eye, and still accept the reality that the media slants coverage towards people who win elections.

[Melinda]

20. Exactly right KoKo - here's a little trip down "TheMemoryHole"

>>> On 12 June 2003, the New York Times ran an article headlined: "Goal Is to Lay Cornerstone at Ground Zero During GOP Convention." It appeared in the print version and on the Web.

At some point during the day, the Web headline was changed, thus becoming: "Officials Plan Speedy Ground Zero Environmental Review."
A reader alerted me to the change, and I read the article, noting that the first paragraph said:

Rebuilding officials said yesterday that they hoped to complete a review of the environmental impact of the proposed construction at the World Trade Center site by next April. This would allow them to lay the cornerstone of a 1,776-foot tower in August 2004, during the Republican National Convention.

Later in the day, this first paragraph changed. It now reads:

Rebuilding officials said yesterday that they hoped to complete a review of the environmental impact of the proposed construction at the World Trade Center site by next April. This would allow them to start construction by the summer of 2004.

The part about laying the cornerstone during the Republican convention has been excised, not only from that paragraph but from the entire article.

Apparently, the NYT--that bastion of the "liberal media"--didn't want to upset the GOP by pointing out that the building of the new World Trade Center tower is being cynically timed to give the Republicans a photo-op during their convention. Lords knows we wouldn't people to know that some politicians are using the deaths of 3,000 people as a way to boost their chances in the 2004 elections.


http://www.thememoryhole.org/media/nyt-cornerstone.htm

[fleetus]

25. Cool anecdote, Melinda

I find before/after media stories that try to re-write history very interesting. And scary, of course...

Harpers posted a brief article on federal websites that changed once Bush took office awhile back. One that stands out in my mind was a before/after on a (EPA?) website discussing the Alaska Wildlife Refuge that Bushco wants to drill on. The article had strike-through on all the stuff deleted and it put a totally different spin on things as you could probably imagine.

[MurikanDemocrat]

29. Perhaps the worst thing the media did was to anoint Dean

the front runner for most of the last year. If any one of the candidates benefited from a lot of whoring press in the last year it was Dean. Dean was just ASSUMED by the media to be the front runner. I never understood it myself.

Well guess what. The public isn't quite as easily programmed as you like to assume they are, because they didn't drink the Kool Aid. As the time for primaries got closer and voters started taking up close look at candidates to make up their OWN minds, Deans numbers started dropping. That's a fact.

It happened over a matter of weeks leading up to IA and NH. I was watching. Kerry's and Edwards were rising as Deans were dropping. Then Dean started going negative with Gephardt. Gephardt took the bait and bit back. Voters don't care for that - and his numbers got worse. Both of them got their butts handed to them in the IA primary.

The media didn't cause Deans fall. Dean did. The media didn't cause Kerry's rise. The voters did.

Dean continues on the path of negative attacks and mud slinging on the other candidates. Voters don't like it! So they don't vote for him. Not to mention the poor decisions that kept him out of the primaries last night. The media did not cause these things. Dean did.

[AlinPA]

15. Sounds reasonable to me. But in the general election, the Media

will go into full Bush* anti-Dem mode.

[Skwmom]

16. The media plays a major role in

picking the nominee. If you can't see that I don't know what to tell you.

[D G]

21. Of course the media plays a role

I think what the original poster is trying to say is that sometimes there is a very simple explanation for why they cover some things and not others - a "method to their madness"

I don't believe we have an objective media staffed by people with snow-white motives, but I don't believe the media controls the people either. Give the majority of the viewing public credit for having brains.

[jpgpenn]

18. If your sick of it consider what the candidates think of it!

Having your good name smeared, spit on and dragged thru the mud doesn't usually lift those going thru it to a higher place!!!!!

[Trajan]

19. Blah Blah Blah ...

Isnt this a vanity thread ? ...

[Ivote]

23. Clark did it in Kosovo

February 2, 2004 For Immediate Release: Fifty-five US Ambassadors and Diplomats Endorse Clark visit www.clark04.com/press/release/221/ for text

[fleetus]

27. What is "vanity thread?"

I am new to message boards and I've never heard of a vanity thread. Does it mean a long post?

Hopefully I can avoid doing them myself if I know what they are. Thanks. :)

[Lefty48197]

24. Quit your bitching and help us destroy the American media

let's hound them out of business.

[Southsideirish]

28. We'll never get a real Democrat in the WH until we defeat them

at their own game. Al Gore is right - we have to have our own networks, radio stations, etc. Otherwise, we will only get the candidates they "allow" us to have.

[MurikanDemocrat]

26. I agree

I think some people are making a mistake thinking the media is what is causing Deans losses and the truth is it's the other way around. He's not getting good coverage because of a number of reasons, one of which is the fact that his campaign and message were poorly managed and he fell flat on his face.

Dean DOES come across as angry. There is a lot of anger among voters that he has tapped in to. I like this about Dean. He has inspired and motivated a lot of people to become involved in a movement to change the status quo. Dean deserves accolades for bringing this grass roots movement about, and even if he does not win the nomination it doesn't have to end with this primary process.

Deans organization in Iowa in NH was poor, and that wasn't the medias fault. In those states you have to go out and actually meet people and campaign. Go door to door. Kerry had a good ground force and so did Edwards. The media didn't cause Kerry to win IA and Dean to come in a distant 3rd, the voters did.

Thus the media coverage responded appropriately.

The scream speech didn't help Dean, although I think it was overplayed by the media. It was still inappropriate.

Same thing happened in NH. Kerry won NH fair and square. Dean didn't just lose, he got trounced.

Then came the announcement that he was nearly broke and Trippi resigned. That is NOT good news, no matter how you look at it, and the media responded accordingly. And to make matters worse, the Dean camp announced they would not compete in the 7 states in last nights primary. How do you expect to get anything but negative press coverage from all of THAT?

Kerry isn't winning because the media has annointed him. He was all but written off for dead while Dean was basking in the limelight most of the past year. Kerry is winning because people have had time to look over the candidates and have decided they like Kerry (or Edwards, or Clark).

Kerry gets media coverage because he is WINNING. Not the other way around.

It's not a conspiracy. That's how primaries work. People vote for who they like and the media reports the outcome and the winners get the best coverage. That's how it should be