Still think Dean isn't a media target?

[dsc]

Dean finished second, a strong second, in Washington yesterday. He also finished second in Michigan. Both Edwards and Clark had every bit the bad night yesterday that Dean did on Tuesday. Yet today there have been no mention of Dean's won delegates.

No talk of Edwards and Clark dropping out like there was the very day after Tuesday. Of course there is no talk of Clark at all so he had a legitimate gripe too. The media played a huge role in choosing our nominee. That makes me very uncomfortable. I am baffled it doesn't make more of you uncomfortable.

[maddezmom]

1. "Of course there is no talk of Clark at all so he had a legitimate gripe "

:(

[Capn Sunshine]

63. I feel your pain

Believe me, everyone in the Dean campaign is just as pissed that Clark is being swept under the rug.

The benefit of this is that many if not all of the people in the Dean campaign have taken a second look at Clark, and know what he says must be sincere, and therefore a similar threat.

Go Wes!

[jeter]

109. At this point its not about finishing second

With several primaries already over - 11 - its about winning.

Yes Dean came in second, but he has to win.

Second means nothing.

Edwards and Clark are under the gun now. Sure each has won a primary - but now they too have to win more.

Second or third place finishes matter in Iowa or New Hampshire but not now.

Dean lost in Washington, where he had to win. Now he has to win in Wisconsin - or somewhere soon. Not to get his ticket punched, but rather to give him some momentum to win elsewhere.

Winning is what matters.

[blm]

2. When AFSCME endorsed Dean it was HUGE news. When they un-endorsed Dean

yesterday, it became the dominant storyline for him.

It's painful to hear the media dwelling only on the negatives of your candidate's campaign and the process stories and the horserace. Many of us endured it throughout last year and up until our candidate actually had to WIN a primary to turn things around.

[dsc]

7. that actually didn't come up until later

on This Week. They had already discussed the caucuses and interviewed Edwards before going back to that issue. So nice try but not correct. edit removed true added correct.

[blm]

10. It's been true on the news programs I've seen since last night.

.

[lastknowngood]

3. Get ready for trouble they don't like people standing

up for Dean I made the same observation myself. It is so obvious as to be absurd but none but Clarkies can see it. As they are now getting the treatment. The shrub's "great performance" will be the talk of the town today and no one will mention that the emperor has no brain.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. Delegate count:

_____________Delegates/Needed/%

John Forbes Kerry 412 1,750 10%
Howard B. Dean 174 1,988 4%
John R. Edwards 116 2,046 3%
Wesley Kanne Clark 82 2,080 2%
Lieberman 17 2,145 0%
Alfred Sharpton 12 2,150 0%
Gephardt 5 2,157 0%
Dennis J. Kucinich 2 2,160 0%
Other 1 2,161 0%
Uncommitted 0 2,162 0%


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/primariescaucus/delegatecount.htm



Edit: This is the story that nobody wants you to know.

[Nicholas_J]

112. Problem is

Half of Denas delegates are superdelegates who are not comitted nor have to remain comitted to a candidate after they have endorsed them.

AS Lieberman started slipping in the polls last fall, many of the superdelegates who supported Liebermand turned around and gave Kerry their endorsement. In fact, if a candate does not keep a lead or win any states, it is ineveitable that the superdelegates will re-evaluate the situation and drop their endorsement of a cnadidate who is not winning in a number of states, as Dean has. In some states Dean has nt recieved delegates and that sort of record is the kind of thing that gets super delegates to jum ship rather quickly. Also. superdelgates have a tendencey to want the support of the person who will win, so once a campign starts snowballing, they tend to switch rather rapidly. Now that Gephardt has endorsed Keerry, over the next several weeks, those delegates in Congress headed by Nancy Pelosi are likely to support Kerry, and it is likly that Gephardt waited a while to endorse Kerry because he was speaking to the delegates who endorsed him to talk the into coming out soom and endosring Kerry. AS Kerry pick up more and more states,superdelegates from states Kerry has won and now endorse Dean will more than likely drop Dean and endorse Kerry. At the convention, it is usual for the super delegates to tranfer their support to the frontrunner almost as the convention opens. While superdelegates do not have to vote a particular way, historically they never oppose the candidate who has won the most delegates through an election process. They would essentially be tarred and feathered out of the party if they did so.

[liberalmike27]

5. Clearly

In so many small ways, they are still slicing away at Dean. Only a moron would be oblivious to this. The speech has been deconstructed, and most people who fairly judge it, understand it to be a rally-the-troops effort. If it's have been spun that way, like "Look at Dean, even after a disappointing result in Iowa, he encourages his people to fight on, what passion he has." Imagine that played a few hundred times, instead of the negative, damning spin, the exploding heads, the spin to paint it as angry, and directly to the nuclear button.

Clark supporters are feeling it too, and I've noticed even Edwards getting a bit of negativity lately. The media is nothing but a huge corporations, that pay people seven, and eight figure salaries to sit up there, and ask the questions or speak the copy that they want said. They are not your friend, even enemies. They are trying to steer us to to vote for Kerry, and I'm tremendously disappointed in the Democratic electorate, in that they seem quite sadly, and fully brainwashed. Imagine, voting based on psychic predictions by huge corporate population-fodder networks, on perceived electability. I can tell you, when the 200 million worth of Karl Rove attack ads are fielded, we're going to need a guy we believe in, not some guy that we half-assed voted for because Wolf Blitzer and Chris Mathews told us to.

[Skip Intro]

6. Agree

The media's manipulation of this process has been painfully obvious, yet some say it doesn't exist - its just a conspiracy theory.

:shrug:

[liberalmike27]

8. Need

People need desperately to believe that everything is okay, that we are a great and powerful country, with the freest media in the world. They cling to all of this, even though they know it's not true. I don't blame them, it's a hard thing to accept, that our media is a highly controlled attempt to manipulate the American mind. In a lot of ways, it's always been so, but the power they have now is unprecidented, since so few people read books these days, and there is such consolidation. But the information is out there, should you decide to get a different take on things. You just aren't going to hear certain things, like the media wants to choose both major parties candidates, while pretending that they have nothing to do with making up each individuals mind. Then they will choose the president.

People are uncomfortable with the idea that the "glass teat" might have such power over them. They feel better in believing that Kerry is electable, and that's why they voted for him, and it was their own decision, and the media putting that thought out there a few thousand time a day, where someone is bound to catch it a few times, had not a thing to do with it. It's just like they used Dean's "I have a scream" speech to destroy him, his campaign, and all the money he'd put toward the gamble in Iowa, and New Hampshire. Then they come back, and spin it as if the Gore endorsement had something to do with it. No, when Gore endorsed him, his polling went up in many locations. But while they played the speech thousands of times, his polls went down, until Dean supporters came to realize that it was a media-ploy. A few of the late-comers though, weren't brought back.

People need to understand that the media inserts the idea, it's like Chinese water torture, a drip, drip, drip, the same thing over, and over, repeatedly, and finally, you start to believe it.

Vote for who you want to, don't be chattel to the media brainwashing. If you like Dean initially, then by God vote for him, stand up, be a man/woman and make your own damn mind up. Do you make ten million a year, like Wolf, Katie, Matt, Mathews, and any number of other pundits? Then why do you trust what they are saying?

[NashVegas]

9. Just Heard in a Promo for FTN "Why is He Still in the Race?"

Mmm. Great.

[bread_and_roses]

11. My memory of Dean's press

coverage until Iowa is that it was pretty positive. I have always thought that it was possible that the extent of his national support was over-estimated. But the Press coverage until Iowa was sufficient that I was surprised at his loss there, and I still thought he might do better in New Hampshire. Whatever the case now, I find it hard to imagine that the Press was responsible for his loss in Iowa. And while I suppose a case can be made that the "scream" affected the races following Iowa and NH, I really doubt it. The Press had a field day, but most people are smart enough to figure out that it was a political rally and dismiss the idiotic spin.

Ironically, I think it may be the large turn-outs that are defeating him. For whatever reason, a majority in Iowa and NH did not think he was the best candidate. Certainly since then there is a momentum factor that cannot be dismissed, but that would be the case had Dean won the first two also. Kerry's rise makes a good story, as does Dean's "fall," which meets all the classic elements for a good tale, and that too of course has its' own momentum.

This is not a defense of mainstream media, which I loathe and which showed its' colors decisively in Iraq War I, if not before.

Full disclosure: I am not a Dean supporter and will be mystified forever as to why those who support him are not supporting Kucinich.

edit for: "the races following Iowa and NH"

[AP]

20. Until three days before Iowa, Dean's campaign generally responded to

treatment of Dean by media with, "OK, they're promoting him, but they don't know what they're getting."

Three days before IA, they started to cry fowl, but could only cite a NYT article which proved otherwise (they would only quote from the middle of the article, which cited three examples of NYT bias, but wouldn't quote from the rest of the article) and then, for example, a day of NPR coverage, which under closer scrutiny, wasn't negative at all.

I'm sure the media bias argument was something they planned to explain their loss when they saw from the polling they wouldn't win.

The scream thing was part of media plan B.

[dansolo]

22. The press was hammering Dean in the weeks before Iowa

Dean had favorable press late last year, but they turned on him leading up to the Iowa caucus. That, the combined attacks of all of the other candidates, and the apparent defection of Gephardt's support to Kerry, is what caused him to lose Iowa. Then the media had their script, and they have taken everything they can to spin Dean into a loser. First he was crazy (false), then he was broke (false), then he should drop out even though he is in second place.

[AP]

28. We had a thread here where I asked for specific examples of anti-Dean

bias in the weeks leading up to Iowa.

The ONLY example was a NYT article, which the poster linked, not from the NYT site, but from another discussion here at DU about the article, because the article itself DISPROVED the claim, but had, in it, three or four tiny plausible arguments for bias. The rest of the article was evidence quite to the contrary and sort of revealed that Dean supporters were more, trying to plant the seeds of an argument for media bias, than actually finding media bias.

[progressivebydesign]

66. A study was released showing Dean's coverage was disproportionately bad.

Someone help me out. There was a study done around the time of Iowa, that showed Dean was the only candidate with substantial negative media.. a mirror to Al Gore's experience in 2000. It was not anyone's imagination, the stories were tilted negatively toward Dean. I can't decide if the media are just opportunistic pukes, or simply duplicitous in destroying certain candidates.. like Gore and Dean and Clark.

[AP]

71. That study was by a scaiffe-funded organization,

it didn't explain its methodology, and nobody could find a copy of the original report.

It also failed to account for the fact (estabilished by the New York Times in the same week, and by another study discussed here last fall) that Dean was getting more media than all other candidates combined, and that he was getting 3 times more media than the canidate in second place.

Without knowing the methodoloy, we don't know whether they were counting stories as negative that, for example, simply set up Dean as the contrast to Bush. Is calling him the anti-war candidate a negative story?

Furthermore, that study said that Dean's coverage dramaticall improved in the last month of the study. This is when Dean was going down in the polls.

So, another interpretation is that, by whatever measure they used as negative, the media helped Dean get donations and attention. When Dean started doing poorly, the media went into puffery overdrive, which didn't work.

[BootinUp]

12. Don't include me in the comfortable group

You must be talking about someone else.

[AP]

13. The media built up Dean for a year. 3 days before Iowa when they realized

that all that work wasn't going to get him a victory, they moved on to plan B.

What more could they do for the guy?

[edzontar]

15. They are after your guy Edwards now too....seen TV today?

nt

[AP]

23. The media wants democrats to lose.

That's why they promoted Dean for a year. That's why they won't let Edwards get nominated.

[edzontar]

27. Your theories are just too preposterous to accept....

I mean no offence, but the idea that is is all planned-out in this way acording to some master plan is hard even for me to believe.

They hated Dean because of what he was saying--he was perceived as a threat to the status quo.

To the extent that Edwards poses a parallel threat--which I will admit at least in comparison to Kerry---you may be right...but the idea that the media promoted Dean so that he could lose lacks any credibility or proof.

[AP]

32. Do you remember 1999-2000? Do you read Media Whores Online?

Do you spend much time at DU?

And again, even Dean supporters admitted up until 3 days before Iowa that the media was promoting him.

We can't revise history just to promote a new narrative for explaining the primaries.

[edzontar]

35. YES I do and have for years. I know what the media are capable of...

And see their promotion of Kerry and demolition of Dean and Clark to be PART of their effort to crush progressive movements in this country.

You seem to think that all of us who supported the candidates of change were nothing more than dupes in some media conspiracy... a position that I find both personally offensive and wrong.

[AP]

39. Well, that's not what I said. The core supporters have their reasons

for supporting each candidate. But you have to admit that, thanks to the media, the support for Dean went WAY beyond a core group who had a visceral relationship to the candidacy -- ie, all the people who counted as Dean supporters when the media was building him up, but left Dean for Kerry later. THOSE people, not you, probably went with Dean because they were jumping on a bandwagon the media created (ie, the one of inevitable nomination) but jumped off NOT because the media changed its mind, but because IA voters went a different direction despite the media portrayal of Dean. And now they've jumped on a different bandwagon.

[edzontar]

43. I suspect we live in totally different intellectual universes...

Your whole thesis falls on the fact that the media hammered Dean relentlessly to bring him down, and began doing so months before Iowa.

This crusade of bashing also found a rich echo in DU, which I am sure you can find in the archives.

In any case, enjoy the trashing of Edwards, coming this week to a media near you.

I don't really care anymore.

[AP]

56. See post 52. If that happened, find me one thread at DU discussing it.

Nobody hear at DU talked convincingly about Dean being bashed until Jan 16th, when, no doubt, the campaign must have been trying to come up with spin explaining what was going to happen to them.

Before that, at DU, the vast majority of threads in which "media" and "Dean" were mentioned, no doubt, were argued along these lines:

Original Post: "Why does the media love Dean?"

Dean supporter: "The don't."

Dozens of posters: {insert evidence}

Dean supporter: "OK, they do, but they don't know what they're asking for. Dean will beat Bush."

[Muddleoftheroad]

77. The media

Is not one all imposing entity. They have no universally agenda and don't attend any organized meetings to plot strategy.

Dean was built up, in large part, by his online efforts and the rabidness (in a good way) of his supporters. However, Dean was all breadth and no depth. He had a hardcore following across the nation that didn't parlay into strength in any particular race.

That ran smack dab into political reality. Reality shows that radical candidates don't do well because most people don't see themselves as radical.

[AP]

84. When money and corporate profits are your north star you

You don't need to have a meeting to tell everyone to look up in the sky and orient yourself according to it.

Money and corporate profits IS the media's north star, and they know that Republicans will help them get where they want to go.

[Muddleoftheroad]

92. Again, the media is no monolith

And includes literally hundreds of thousands of people. To assume they are acting in concert either out of self interest or any other reason is silly.

[AP]

94. Actually, I think CNNNBCFOXABCNPRABC IS a monolith. See 2000.

They're all interested in more money and power, guaranteed profits, a society of wage slaves living in debt to feed their advertisers and themselves, and no competition from upstarts.

[Muddleoftheroad]

97. That is only a part of the media

The media soup is much more complex than just that sample.

[AP]

101. That "part" of the media probably controls 90% of what see

and hear every day.

[Muddleoftheroad]

103. Not likely

What about the hundreds of daily newspapers around the U.S.? The thousands of weeklies? The thousands of magazines? The infinite number of web sites?

90% my butt.

[AP]

106. There actually is a study out there that analyzed

this, and 90% was an exaggeration. However, it was something like over 70% of all information a person receives in America comes from only 7 or 8 companies.

This is what FCC deregulation is all about. It's about making sure economic, cultural, and political power flows into fewere and fewer, more powerful and wealthy hands.

This is really something you didn't know about?

[Muddleoftheroad]

111. You speak in hyperbole

As a former member of that media, I know how much folks rely on newspapers, magazines, newsletters, the Internet, e-mail, etc.

[AP]

118. No I don't. There was a study, discussed at DU, which said that...

...a handful of companies control a huge percentage of the information people receive every day (and even a bigger % of the entertainment they consume, if memory serves).

Current members of the media might be able to attest to this fact.

Who do you think owns the newspapers, magazines, radio and TV stations? What do you think the FCC has been doing for the last 20 years?

[joshcryer]

16. More likely that Kerry's savvy campaign in the caucuses...

...opened up the door for the media to slam Dean as they dramatically do. Yaknow, the whole scream, etc.

[dsc]

17. On Jan 11th

The trashed Dean and his supporters on MTP. go find the transcript I have posted it repeatedly. The Iowa caucus tape was in early January. Those are two of several hundred examples I could site.

[AP]

18. Trashing his supporters, talking about his anger towards Bush were all red

flags the media waved which increased donations to Dean and drove him UP in the polls. It was all meant to help him and it did.

It was only when, three days before Iowa, when NPR, for example, talked about his troubles without ever mentioning what they were (Shaprton's comment about race, which wasn't going to hurt him in Iowa anyway) and acted like Dean just wanted to move on to the next, inevitable stage (nomination), that some of the media started plan B.

The thing that killed Dean wasn't the media. It was that Iowa voters weren't going to vote for him even though the media had propped his campaign up super high for year.

[dsc]

21. They called us

women and small gay men who would, and by laughter should, get beaten up by the real men who supported Gephardt. Then later they called us a bunch of people who live in basements amoungst Burger King wrappers and never leave the house. Now, would you find that acceptable if Edwards supporters were called that on national TV?

[AP]

25. And the bat filled up, and the national poll numbers went higher.

Dean didn't lose because of any of that. Dean lost because, despite the media promoting him for a year, and despite spending tons of money, Iowa voters decided to go a different direction.

[dsc]

30. Some of his money came from me on that one

I was outraged to have gay bashing made sport of in the very same state where it happened to me. But his poll numbers went down not up.

[AP]

38. They didn't go down because of that. They went down in the week before

Iowa because voters had to make a choice. And they went to Kerry, someone who, arguably, had the nastiest media treatment at one time and to Edwards whom the media ignored for most of the year.

In NH, they also went to Clark whom the media also treated way worse than Dean was ever treated (except for the Scream incident, which, in some ways, was warranted -- I was listening to that live on NPR with someone who had nothing vested in any candidate who still laughs about it today, even though that person NEVER listens to cable news, or talk radio, so doesn't have views shaped by those sources).

[dsc]

42. No you didn't

You listened to an altered tape. Don't tell us you listened to the real speech because it hadn't been played yet. You listened to a doctored tape. And which is it? Did he drop or didn't he. First you claimed he hadn't. Now, he did but for other reasons. So which is it?

[AP]

53. An altered tape???? I listened to it live on NPR. They stuck with Dean

rather than cut away to Edwards. (They actually stuck with Harkin, rather than cut to Edwards, which was SHOCKING.)

[dsc]

72. It was altered

through the use of the directional mike. BTW Harkin screamed too didn't he?

[AP]

75. It was live. Did they know what he was going to say?

It was also what he said, as much as the fact that it was audible.

[dsc]

80. It had nothing at all to do with what he said

that is absurd and you flat out know that. And, while the first time it was played they didn't purposely alter it they did alter it. The other hundreds of times was on purpose.

[joshcryer]

82. It was audible?

It was barely heard on the ground there. There was a distinct difference between what the media portrayed happened and what happened, for you to not see this just shows your bias against Dean.

[AP]

85. The SECOND I heard it, I knew it sounded awful.

[dsc]

86. but you didn't hear it

which is my basic point. You heard a fraud.

[AP]

89. Oh, come on. Nobody knew what he was going to say except his

staff. They didn't mix it down in order to hurt him.

I heard it live. It was obviously bad.

[joshcryer]

88. The second I heard it I rationalized and realized it was portrayed...

...innaccurately.

Do you also think the ground footage sounded awful? You know, where it's quite impossible to hear Dean's scream with the crowd being so loud?

[AP]

90. It wasn't the volume, it was the content. Say he was screaming

to be heard over the crowd. What does that have to do with the fact that he yelled, "Yeargghh"? He was screaming to be heard over a crowd HE pumped up by yelling a series of states. OK. The whole thing was weird.

Compare it to what teh other candidates did. Dean appeals to emotion. The others appeal with ideas.

[joshcryer]

91. It was an emotional momment.

He's human. Humans have emotion. So the fuck what? You're beating a dead horse here.

[AP]

93. And Americans generally aren't intereste in presidents who

let their emotions get the best of them.

Which was the significance of that moment.

Many Dean supporters were attracted to Dean in the first place becuase of this, so it might be harder for them to grasp why so many other Americans aren't and were turned off by that moment.

Can you name a single successful candidate in American politics who was more about emotion than reason? Goldwater?

[joshcryer]

95. Where is Dean being more emotion than reason there?

You see, he didn't "let his emotions get the best of him" because he was being geninue; any honest reporting would have reported his actions with the crowd included in the images. You were just duped, dude.

[AP]

98. Compare his speech that night to the others' --

the others had ideas and arguments.

Dean's had emotions.

You don't win elections only on emotions. Dean rode emotions as far as it could get him, which was a third place finish in Iowa (it was third place, wasn't it?).

[edzontar]

24. This makes even the most conspiratorial theories of my Dean cohort

Seem far-fetched.

Please, try to keep it plausible, at least.

The media ran with the Dean story because it was a real phenomenon, then jumped on him to try to make it a "race," then trashed him completely when he was slipping.

He is still the major character and icon of the campaign, even as he is represented in almost wholly negative terms.

Kerry is a cipher by comparison, a faded figure whom they will eviscerate constantly once and if--heaven forbid--he becomes the nominee.

[AP]

26. Almost everyone here accepted that that was what has happening, and the

most common response was, simply, "they don't know what they're asking for -- Dean wil win."

Now it's a conspiracy theory?

[edzontar]

29. Who is "Almost everyone"--yes, I have trouble seeing this as

Anything but a conspiracy theory...it lacks underlying logic.

[AP]

34. Go through the archives here, and you'll see. You can't rewrite history.

[edzontar]

37. Should I start under "almost everyone" to find out who agreed with you?

THAT might take some time--sorry, no deal.

[AP]

40. When did you start at DU?

[edzontar]

44. None of your business, but sometime in the immediate wake of Nov. 2000.

I have a good enough memory to remeber the endless anti-Dean threads that were here, but am reluctant to make this personal, so let us leave it at that.

By the way, you DO know that the anti-Dean atmosphere here, LONG before Iowa, inspired an exodus of some 150 mostly contributing members who established their own alternative sites and networks?

[AP]

52. Can you find a single thread before half-a-week prior to Iowa where

more than 1/4 of the posts in the thread unanimously agreed that the media was sabotaging Dean?

No, you can't. Because it didn't happen. And 1/4 is a generous threshold to help you make your point. I bet there isn't a thread where more than 1/25ths of the post said that Dean was being sabotaged, and I presume you really need a post where a majority say that in order to prove that there was ever a mood of Dean being a victim of the media, rather than a benefactor.

And I challenge you to find ONE thread which linked media treatment of Dean to dropping poll numbers before, say, Jan 16th.

[edzontar]

105. This wasn't even my thread....BUT

I sure do recall all the anti-Dean threads here, and all the anti-Dean media stories about his "anger", and the wonderful satire of this on the Daily Show, etc.

Honestly, if you actually are trying to argue that Dean had a totally supportive press until ONE month ago, then I must conclude that you have been living on a different planet than myself.

[AP]

108. Anger stories weren't anti-dean. That was what he was running on

He thought that he'd tap into the anger at Bush by being angry. The media were HELPING him if they made that point. And it brought him attention.

Don't confuse DU'ers crticizing this strategy with the media trying to sabotage Dean.

Again, I challenge you to find one thread at DU prior to January 16th arguing credibly that the media was trying to sabotage Dean.

[edzontar]

113. NO!!!! I don't have to....and you aren't the boss of me, or of DU

I have more pressing things to do than scour the archives for posts about this topic--everyone KNOWS that the media was attacking Dean before 1/16, and it is not my job to prove it to you.


So give it a rest my friend, before this gets any more annoying--OK?

[AP]

119. I sense that there's an attempt to rewrite Dean history that began on Jan

16th to explain away the end of his viability.

I think it's important to be honest about what went on. If you don't want to support your claim with evidence, that's fine. But I'm not going to be satisfied that this argument is accurate until I see good evidence of it.

[Nazgul35]

45. you're right...your theory is so much more plausible...

then the original post...

:eyes:

One theory states that Dean was savaged by the press, which contributed to his decline....(BTW... where were you when there was several days of threads discussing the study which showed 2/3rds of the coverage Dean received was negative while the other Dems received positive coverage....I would encourage anyone who has the link to that to post it here, now that a convienant time has passed....)

Your theory suggest a masive conspiracy between the WH and the media to manipulate the Dem primary to maximize the success of the Repugs in Nov.......

hmmmmmm......which theory is the one that is less plausible...

:shrug:

[AP]

54. I was here pointing out that study was funded by Richard Scaiffe, and that

it actually said that in the last month his coverage IMPROVED SIGNIFICANTLY (which is when people were claiming that the coverage was causing him to go down in the polls). And I was also citing the NYT article which showed that he was getting more coverage than all the other candidates combined.

[blm]

83. HAHAH...that was a SCAIFE-FUNDED "study" that was never a real study.

Didn't the fact that they lumped all the other candidates together to make their case give you a first clue that it was bogus?

A real study would have had separate data on each candidate.

That "study" was timed to make Dean supporters feel more aggrieved and further divide the Dem party.

[progressivebydesign]

67. That argument doesn't fly..

If the media "propped up" Dean's campaign, who sent him all that money, 10 dollars at time? AP reporters?

[AP]

76. NPR listeners probably sent him lots of money thanks to Mara

Liasson defining him as the anti-war candidate who hates Bush.

[NashVegas]

70. the Media Trashed Dean in Order to Help Him?

That's the most original thought I've seen yet on the matter.

[AP]

74. "Trash" = he's angry at Bush and he's anti-war = help

Dean's donations skyrocketed after that appearance on MTP which didn't go well. The harder Republicans were on him, the better he did. They helped him establish the EXACT identity he was trying to establish to get attention.

All the debates up to January were the Howard Dean show. In several debates, Dean not only got more time on screen than anyone else, he got more time than Edwards, Kucinich and CMB combined. It wasn't all peace and love, but it was making Dean the frame for the primaries, and it was getting people on the bandwagon and it was filling up the bat.

And that's just a fact.

Why does everyone want to rewrite history now?

[NashVegas]

81. Tim Russert Was a Prick to Dean Because He Wanted to Help Him?

My, what a crafty one that Tim is, eh?

[AP]

87. Everyone loves Dean. Nobody pays attention to what happens?

Russert was a prick because he's alwasy a prick to Democrats. AFter that MTP, there were articles in the press about how Republicans noticed that Dean's donations went up after that event. So what did they do? They made Dean their focus, they helped him define himself as the one who hated Bush the most, and who was angry, and they watched donations and poll numbers go up.

[edzontar]

14. I personally am sickened by it....Oh and by the way

The media whores are now pressuring Edwards to drop out too--it is so transparent that it stinks....

[Nashyra]

19. Clark and Dean

They would turn DC upside down and empty the pockets of the politician, both parties. They are really the cnadidates of change and with their strong grassroot support the Dem astablishment had to stop them. Seems that the early speculation of Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean was to scary for anyone in DC including the Dems.

[edzontar]

31. Not to mention so many of our friends here on DU

It is sad to see the hopes we all had just a few short weeks ago dashed by the bland forces of the status quo.

[bread_and_roses]

41. Some of us think Dean IS the status quo

and have always thought so, his Iraq war stance notwithstanding. I admire his straightforwardness on the Iraq war and aftermath, but I find him wanting on just about every other issue. I also admired his campaign, and only hope that if he is not the nominee his supporters realize that they CAN translate that campaign into political power and influence by being a major force in assuring a huge turn-out and overwhelming Dem victory.

[edzontar]

46. So who do you prefer--Kerry?

Cause that who it looks like you are getting, my firend, and if Dean is establishment, what does that make Sen. Kerry?

[bread_and_roses]

55. Kerry is establishment too

no quarrel on that. But if I have to choose between two establishment figures, why would I not choose the one with the better over-all progressive record? And that, to my mind, is Kerry. But the point to this thread, from which I am guilty of wandering, is the media coverage. Certainly Kerry did not benefit from any overwhelming positive media coverage prior to Iowa, did he? If I am mistaken in that, I'll accept correcting, but I simply don't remember any media coronation before Iowa and NH. His victories there surprised me.

[edzontar]

114. Do you support his pro-Bush Iraq war vote?

nt

[bread_and_roses]

116. Of course not; but he's still my #2

Nor do I buy any of the rationalizations for Kerry's IRW vote. I also find his votes on welfare "reform" and PA highly objectionable. However, his long-term record is better than his rivals (excepting of course DKs). It's not a perfect world. I don't think we would have an Iraq War under a President Kerry. I could be wrong. But I see him as less "centrist" by his record than Clinton, and more progressive. Again, I could be wrong.

I am of an age that Vietnam and Iran-Contra carry great weight for me. I have hopes that the Kerry we saw then could re-emerge in the Presidency. Fool's hope maybe, but we are all simply doing the best we can to sort out the candidates based on our best judgement.

[texasmom]

33. They're trying to clear them all out

now--Dean, Clark, Edwards...The media is not in it alone, though. TPTB want a Kerry unofficial nomination NOW.

They figure Kucinich and Sharpton will stay around, and they'll just continue to marginalize and ignore them as they've done all along.

I've watched the press target Dean since mid-January. You'll get no argument about that from this Clark supporter.

[vanityfair]

36. I've watched the media

take Dean down in the past few weeks with their negative reporting. At the same time, I've seen them pump up Kerry.

Now, I have nothing against either candidate (can't vote anyway, LOL), just against the media whores. So much for unbiased reporting! Big LIE. But, what I don't completely understand is, "Why do they hate the Democrats so much?"

The other thing I notice from reading the media tripe, is that people will sit back and wait on the media before they decide who to vote for. Don't you think about it in advance and vote for your candidate regardless? The media would have little effect if people did some research and made up their own minds.

As far as the candidates go, I would like to hear a little bit more about their positions on issues, and a little less mud-slinging amongst themselves. Save that for lambasting Bush!

Anyway, just my two bits worth. Good luck and GO DEMS!

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. They pump up Kerry because he keeps winning

This is a horse race and is being covered like it is. Winners get the good press, losers get the bad.

[Indiana Democrat]

47. I never thought he was. He's a media DARLING.

But the big bad "Media" can't keep anyone from melting-down on their own.

[edzontar]

49. They like him the way they "like" Michael Jackson--as a target

The media are not our friends, ladies and gentlemen, and no one know this more than Dean supporters.

[AP]

58. Part of the reason they liked him was because they knew he was

capable of melting down.

In fact, many would say that he did it a couple times prior to the scream, but the media helped people look the other way.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

48. It's the media's fault. If only we had no media, Dean would win.

[edzontar]

50. Right--the media is a benevolent force that CARES about us...

And REALLY wants Dems to win the election.

Dean was the one who said he thought the media conglomerates should be broken` up...that might be one reason they "loved" him so much.

[Indiana Democrat]

51. Again....

...How many times do I have to say this...


Dean was the repuke's first choice. We were looking at a LANDSLIDE loss if Dean hadn't melted-down BEFORE he won the nomination.

And now you say the media is against us and destroyed Dean????

Either Dean destroyed himself (He did) or the big bad "Media" did.


You CAN'T have it both ways...Even though you people try.

[adadem]

57. You're right

it wasn't all that long ago that many here and in the press were expecting Kerry to be the first to drop out. He was considered a loser because of polls and Dean was the media's darling...he received virtually all the press.

How quickly we forget how it was not all that long ago. The people are speaking now...with their votes. There is no one to blame but Dean himself.

[progressivebydesign]

69. Such certainty that Dean wouldn't win in November.

I'd love to have a peek in your crystal ball. Mine just collects dust, mostly, can't see a thing in it since I tried cleaning it with furniture wax.

Seriousy, no one.. absolutely no one can say that Dean would lose in November or that Kerry would win in November. Kerry is the unexamined candidate right now.. he's got the name recognition. We'll see how it goes, if Kerry gets the nomination, after he's sliced and diced by the likes of National Enquirer (that crap is starting already), and the Rovians. I hope your crystal ball is right, or we're stuck with Bush again.

[NashVegas]

73. And Karl Rove Always Tells the Truth

Doesn't he?

[Capn Sunshine]

59. Call it coincidence

the big-time attacks started on Dean the next day after that remark.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

61. Face it - one of the skills you need as President is handling the media

Dean is a failure at that task.

[dsc]

62. so which is it?

Are you inaccurate when you state the media had no role, or inaccurate when you are now saying it does?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

64. I'm not used to having to explain such simple irony.

"It's the media's fault. If only we had no media, Dean would win."



You seem to believe my point here was that "the media had no role".


No, that wasn't my point. My point was that if Dean can't handle the media, then he has no business being President. My further point was that blaming the media is as stupid as the comment:

"It's the media's fault. If only we had no media, Dean would win."

IF you were to take that comment literally.


:eyes:

[Capn Sunshine]

60. If only we had an ACTUAL media, things would be different

(Mods:speaking rhetorically, not to the poster, "You" being the Kings you.)

how many times in how many ways do you need to have the same thing demonstated to you? How many outright blatant lies? How mant slanted points? How many intentional non-coverages? How many convenient half truths serving a corporate cause?

I guess as long as that same machinery is helping your guy it's O.K.
Six larger corporations control all this in the uS. Why would thjey even consider fostering a viewpoint that ultimately will lead to their demise or at the very least, cut into profits?

[dawn]

65. Everyone but Kerry is now a media target.

But I think the media's been hardest on Dean, then Clark, then Kucinich (by completely ignoring him).

And yeah, now they're after Edwards to drop out, too.

Yes, the media sucks.

[Muddleoftheroad]

79. Dean was the front runner

Now that he has stumbled he has EARNED the negative press. Don't blame the media for his failure. It's his campaign.

[dsc]

96. Several instances have been sited

of Dean getting negative press while the front runner. What explains those?

[Muddleoftheroad]

100. Prior to voting

Prior to voting, the media will analyze the candidates -- focusing on the leader. Now that we have an actual election to worry about, they focus purely on the races.

[dsc]

102. Oh so before it matters they discuss people

but after they don't? And we have no right to be angry about this?

[Muddleoftheroad]

104. The rules didn't change for Dean

And if his people didn't realize that was the way things worked, more pity on them.

Once the voting starts, the media always cover it just like a horse race or a sporting event of any sort. It's no longer depth, it's just who's winning.

[MODemocrat]

68. Oh, it bother me, but it's as if our hands are tied

We just don't seem to have an open and informative press anymore, and really haven't for many years. The 24/7 of President Clinton always comes to mind. I'm convinced that following the money is what sets the guidelines for the media. Dean is a fascinating person, and he brought some spark to an otherwise dull campaign. I'm not saying this with disrespect to the other candidates, but the truth is, many of the candidates seemed lifeless. I still believe in Howard Dean, and he's a hero in my book; as a medical doctor, he's saved his share of human lives. Long live the Doctors Dean.
:thumbsup: :hi: :loveya:

[Nicholas_J]

99. Dean targetted himself

He lost Iowa because just a few weeks before Iowa, he lied about another candidate, he knew he lied about that candidate, the people in Iowa were advided of the nature of the lie, and the Dean campaign kept distributing pamhlets with the lies in it. Just before Iowa, the Dean campaign reported John Kerry as having made a vote that was made by Bob Kerrey, it was picked up in the Iowa media to correct the mistake, Dean refused to apologize for it, kept distributing the false infrormation. The Iowans decided they didnt like the fact that he would knowingly outrigght lie during a campaign. They figure, whats to stop him form lying to us when he is in office. Then the media simply repeated Deans other lies during the campaign, and finally when two of his staff tried to inflitrate the Kerry campaign, as well as a Dean supporters going to ask the suprvisors of elections if they could use hotel addresses to register for the caucuses, suspicions that Dean supporters might start to steal the election by having his 3500 out of state supporters try to register was the beginning of the end for Dean. This as well as Deans draft record was widely reported in exit polls as why Dean. Once he lost Iowa for those reasons, the effect just snowballed. If you look at Deans favorable/ unfavorable ratio you will see the evidence. The public has decided it doesnt like Dean in some cases with 2 and a half times the number of people having unfavortable opinions of Dean to the one who has a favorable opinion,

What Deans campaign doesnt like is that they have accurately reported his behavior and the behavior of his campaign.


Dean fires 2 campaign aides
By Ed Tibbetts

.
Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in Iowa fired two workers Thursday who were accused earlier in the day of trying to infiltrate rival John Kerry’s campaign.
.
In a letter to the Kerry camp, Jeani Murray, Dean’s Iowa campaign manager, said the two were terminated after an investigation prompted by complaints by John Norris, who is running Kerry’s Iowa effort.


http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id=1022713&t=Nation+%2F+World&c=26,1022713

Ten days before the Iowa caucuses, and this happens in Iowa.


Dean Campaign Issues False Information on Kerry Record on Farming
Dean again shows bad judgment by not following his own advice and attacking fellow Democrats

December 30, 2003

For Immediate Release
Des Moines, IA -

Today, the Dean campaign issued a release regarding a letter sent by Dean supporter, Chris Petersen, Vice President of the Iowa Farmer's Union that criticized John Kerry’s record on farm issues. The problem: Once again Howard Dean gets it wrong.

It’s possible that in their rush to smear, they confused votes cast by John Kerry and former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey. And, the misfire failed to include Dean’s own dismal record of choosing corporate farming interests over family farms.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_1230d.html

Less than three weeks before the caucus


If accusing the media of targetting Dean means that they are accurately reporting his behavior, then thats just Denas tough luck. Perhaps he shouls behave in such a way that the media will not have to publish his actual behavior.

[dsc]

107. Somehow the Kerry push poller didn't make your post

Gee wonder why.

[Nicholas_J]

115. Really...

Where is the evidence of Kerry's push polling.

Dean made accusations all over Iowa, but provided no prrof, so the new said that Dean made accusations and provided no proof, and that went on to the next primary, New Hampshire where Dean eventually lost again.

There was proof of Deans candidates attempting to infiltrate Kerrys campaign, there was proof that Deans campaign lied about Kerry's supposed vote against a bill he sponsored.

Then of course they had to remind everyon of Deans lies about Edwards in San Francisco, whiich he made in public, but apologized for in private, to Edwards by letter.

THen they had to be reminded of Deans lying on television in front of millions about his statements about raising the social security age.

Then he got caught denying statemnets he made about Newt Gingrich and Medicare in 1995.

Then there was of course Deans draft record which was reported to have been concern to Iowa voters in exit interviews.

And the last thing was that in the hour before the caucuses began, the local news channel gave lists of 4 items each caniddate needed to do to maximize their chances of winning Iowa.
Deans own supporters were the only supporters of a candidate who were told to be goeetn control of by the political journalists for the station that was being broadcast over C-SPAN. They told Dean that he should keep his supporters from annmoying or angering Iowa voters.
didnt listen.


It is obvious that the Iowa voters thought that Deans accusations were simply sour grapes and not true, while there was rather clear evidence of Deans behavior.

[angryinoville]

110. Does anyone remember...

when Dean told that guy in the audience that he had his turn and that it was now my turn to talk? An hour later the shithead from the audience was on Faux's Hannity and Colmes. He was obviously a plant by Faux, and from that point on Howard began a slide that the media has made worse every day. Anyone remember that?

[Edwards4President]

117. Regardless

whether or not the guy was a plant, Dean has consistently reacted poorly in difficult situations, giving rise to real concerns about whether he has the temperament to be president. One can blame the cause - he was egged on by a plant, the media's picking on him, etc. - but that doesn't change the fact that Dean seems to have a problem in this area and it stems from HIM, not external forces. And many people believe that if he cannot control his reactions to fairly insignificant stimuli on the campaign trail, he really isn't ready for the pressures of the most demanding job on earth.