Please be advised that this information has been referred to The Poynter InstituteCASE Received by courier and US mail 2/5/04 - Preliminary mailed 2/6/04
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Media to Voters: We're trying to eliminate General Clark tomorrow, OK? Please cooperate this time. .... 10:50 P.M.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095238/Friday, February 6 2004
THE STORY COUNT: If the amount of media devoted to candidates is any indication, then the Dem nomination is already a two man race between Edwards and Kerry.
Take a look at our Election 2004 page this morning. I couldn't find a single story about Wes Clark in any of the major papers except for one - an AP piece in USA Today about Clark's bungling of the abortion issue.
-----------------------
While
John Kerry is near 100% awareness according to the ARG, Wesley
Clark has the following numbers among likely Democratic primary voters:
Tennessee
- 73%Virginia -
86%Wisconsin -
86%Confirmation of Lack of reporting on Wesley Clark, candidate.
Complaint: The media, as listed; not reporting on Wesley Clark in a similar manner as other candidates consistently
based on poll standing, fundraising results, issues stated, viewer requests and Internet activity.
Included in complaint: CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CNBC, PBS, ABC, NBC & CBS
Including listed on attachment of affiliates and publications (Newsweek, Times, online Pubs)
Including 16,423 attachments of evidenciary materials - viewer complaints (transcripts/tapes/letters/recorded calls)
Subject Period: 10/07/03-2/04/04
-------------------------------------
Please note: From a group of 9,012 concerned individuals, the tracking of Network and Cable television and press coverage of the 2004 Democratic primary process. We are gathering evidence to demonstrate the news media's effective attempt in controlling viewer/reader/voter perception of target candidate throughout the primary cycle.
We are requesting to be allowed to correspond with your organization in reference to this matter. We welcome and request any assistance that you can provide. We are also giving notice that newspaper publications are under similar watch.
We have selected Candidate Wesley Clark, who appears to be the underreported target candidate in the current race. We have taken the Media's own stated candidate viability factors into consideration in selecting said candidate. Factors of organization (ground and Internet), fundraising prowess, poll positioning and level of supporter media communications activities. We will provide proof of viability factors based on official fundraising reports, polling results from various polling firms since beginning of the candidate's entry into the race, Alexa Internet tracking data, and saved media letters from supporters and responses from individuals within the media organizations addressed.
We have been provided proof via daily data reporting, including information given to us. A review concludes that we commence such an investigation.
Goal: We are continuing to monitor the efforts of network news, in particular NBC (combined with it's cable news channels and magazines) to influence and control the Democratic nomination process by utilizing biased and subliminal propaganda as directly
evidenced on network and cable television and it's other media holdings. After months of observation, we now have more than enough evidence that this is deliberate collusion with forethought of malice and harm intended on the party with disregard for the truth/in case.
Methodology by news agencies: The method used is simple and elementary. Consistently leaving positive news out and intentionally headlining target candidate (Clark) when he falls in polls, criticizes another candidate or is criticized himself. As the candidate does not garnet coverage when his poll numbers are up, it doesn't hold water that he is covered when poll numbers falter, however this is occurring. Evidently target candidate is only interesting and covered when the news is negative. Combined with deliberate omission of candidate in political commentaries, although no justifiable reason can be articulated. There is no lack of money, organization, polling strength or any other attributes that would logically arrive to conclusion that candidate warrants no mention. Documentation going back as far as October 2, 2003, backs up this premise. NBC, along with it's cable news networks and magazines (online and hard copies) leads in the blatant trend. In addition, hard copy evidence has been gathered regarding viewer letters to networks and print, and responses to the complaints from reporters contacted. The interactions confirm lack of reasoning on NBC's behalf. CNN is also being investigated and has been observed for similar period to date. Same general approach in reporting is providing evidence of collusion. The upcoming week shall provide clear data on this portion of investigation.
Analysis: There is a disconnect somewhere between information provided to viewers/readers about candidates, and what is actually happening on the ground. NBC is attempting to reduce a candidate's polling numbers via the direction of their reporting, their political commentaries, etc.....The fact that candidate may have overflow capacities at venues is not reported. Candidate is treated as 2nd or 3rd tier candidate without any facts to establish such a claim (example made clear in positioning, initial question to each candidate and tone of follow-ups if any; e.g. South Carolina Debates shown on MSNBC, as well as earlier Fox television debates). Polling data is reported only when effective in reducing target candidate's standing in viewer/readers minds. When candidate places third, a tie with a candidate placing fourth is created. There are no ties in elections, there is only placement. Reporting placement, however, in the case of New Hampshire proved problematic for desired effect and reporting was adjusted accordingly. When candidate is listed in polling, ties show his name below the other equal candidate, even if alpha order would normally be utilized.
Past documentation gathering continues, to be provided when complete. Daily tracking reports to be generated.
----------------------
MEDIA WATCH - Candidate coverage by Media - Series /part 1-386
Sample: NBC's Today Show Sunday morning, handled today's coverage (2/1/04) of the contest for Tuesday's primaries.
NBC reported that Kerry was edging out Clark in OK, 25%/23%, even though it was not mentioned on the prior Saturday or Friday that Clark was way ahead (43%). Prior, only South Carolina and Missouri were being reported.....while Clark had a big lead in Oklahoma and Arizona. However, now that Kerry has 'edged out' Clark, NBC decides it's a good item to lead in with. Obvious illustration of only reporting on Kerry's successes and Clark's failures. This has been documented over and over again in details for later action. The 25%/23% was a Reuters/Zogby poll. Zogby has been shown to be an opportunistic polling company by ABC (who refuses to use them), The Washington Post, American Prospect, etc... and admitted to by Zogby himself on a recent radio talk show (tape transcript archived - articles and studies as well). The file on Zogby is growing by the day.
Then, Today's NBC Show reported again that Kerry still holds a commanding lead in MO of 43%, only curiously enough, NBC did not show the score on MO, they showed instead the score of the Newsweek poll that they have reported on now several times of Kerry beating Bush 48%/46%. This is subliminal suggestion that only a giant media company could pull off. Commentator didn't even say anything about the Newsweek poll, probably because they have reported this so much already.
So Kerry is mentioned 3 times and Clark 1 time and then on negative factor only (Kerry edged him out in OK was his mention, a win he had which they previously did not report on when he was way ahead in first, 43%, just a few days ago.)
MEDIA WATCH - Candidate coverage by Media - Series /part 2-89
Polling Technique issue: The use of the Zogby polls -
sent under separate cover - various publications and research groups discounting the organization with basis for conclusion/supporting data 14269-14802.
MEDIA WATCH - Candidate coverage by Media - Series /part 2-4289 CNN Viewer letter (see attachments 4-3892/original article)
"Kerry wins four states, leading fifth Lieberman drops out; Edwards takes S. Carolina"
Tuesday, February 3, 2004 Posted: 11:16 PM EST (0416 GMT)
Viewer letter 8,422-2c
Dear CNN,
The amount of space dedicated to Wes Clark's performance in today's races is almost non-existent. "In Oklahoma, Edwards and retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark were in a two-way battle for the top spot, according to exit polls. "
The ONLY mention of General Clark in the entire article, and yet when analysing results, three of the races (AZ, NM, and ND) candidate is running second behind Senator Kerry. In Oklahoma, he has won with 100% precincts reporting, and in Delaware, he did not perform any worse than anyone else.
So considering Clark's performance, there is ONE sentence concerning success. I rely on CNN as the paragon of news and analysis of world events. So when I see such a gap in storylines vs. data, it makes me question the credibility, or at least the motivations, of the writers.
Please continue to set the standard for broadcast and web-based journalism and consider a re-examination of the facts compared to your headlines. I think you will find there is a glaring omission, namely General Clark's exceptional performance today.
Sincerely,
David Kirkpatrick
Portland, OR
Dear CBS News,
How much thought does it take from your production team to portray Wes Clark as a loser? You are trying too hard if you ask me, and it's starting to look obvious to anyone watching. Just want to pull your coattails. Here is the not so "subliminal coverage".....
CBS Evening News last night, Friday, Feb 6th.
This is not a transcript but notes taken by hand so inexact:
"Next Tuesdays primary proves to be a do or die test for John Edwards and Wesley Clark. They are both native sons to the South. If one of these guys manages to pull off both states, the other one is gone.
Edwards says he is the one because he could carry the south (lots more words and picture of Edwards in cheering thongs).
The AR born Clark, *running low on money, cannot sustain his candidacy on just his slim win in OK (showing picture of a tired looking Clark speaking to practically an empty room.)
(Incidentally, the day before ABC showed pictures of Clark supporters silent and sitting in the grass with signs of support laying on the ground as backdrop for their report. Only one supporter was still standing and she was looking down, like she was discouraged. Gist of story there was also, campaign just barely hanging on.)
Coverage goes on to say that if Edwards and Clark split the South Tuesday then race is over and Kerry wins, and then race is between Edwards and Clark for VP spot. (of course looking at the pictures of Edwards cheering crowds, anyone would assume that the winner of VP spot will be Edwards, especially if this coverage continues. Although it IS better than nothing but barely.
Now here is a FACTUAL analysis of the race....not the subjective nonsense CBS is doing to push Edwards into voter's faces. Edwards is a lightweight compared to Wes Clark, but CBS will never let it be known.
LESSONS FROM THE PRIMARY BALLOTS:
1. Iowa: Kerry and Edwards (Clark not running)
2. New Hampshire: Kerry and Dean (native sons), but Clark, despite the most unbelievable biased debate in the history of presidential politics, despite the negative campaigning by Dean (he is a republican), Kerry (there are more lieutenants than generals, turning a rebuttal against a crude remark by Bob Dole into a rallying cry to pry veterans away from Clark), and even Joe Lieberman (supposed list of waffles), Clark hung on to third place and beat out Edwards. The big losers: Edwards. Despite his Iowa kick he failed to beat out Clark for third place. Never mind he was only a percentage and a few hundred votes behind, Al Gore was beaten
for the presidency by fewer votes. There is no tie in the final ballot. In their first face to face battle, Edwards lost to Clark.
3. North Carolina: Edwards and Kerry. As a favorite son Edwards was able to capitalize on his Iowa kick and his lavish press in this single state and shared it with the other Iowa winner Kerry.
4. Missouri: Kerry and Edwards. With a vacuum created by Gephardt's
removal, his machine moved in behind the Iowa winners. There was not
time for any other campaign to mount a challenge.
5. Oklahoma: Clark and Edwards. In his only other second place win,
Edwards lost to Clark. This despite the virtual media blackout on Clark, the fact that Edwards had spent over a year courting the state, in and out more than any other candidate, he lost again to Clark. So far, in two out of three races he lost to Clark and in the one that he best Clark he was a native son. The question must be asked: Why did Edwards and Clark do so poorly with all that MO behind them?
6. Arizona: Kerry and Clark. Arizona before the vote was considered a
bell weather state. It was Kerry and Clark with Dean a distant second.
Score: Clark over Edwards in three out of four confrontations (NH, OK, and AZ).
7. New Mexico. Kerry and Clark. Edwards nowhere in sight. Score: in four out of five confrontations it is Clark over Edwards by a large margin.
8. North Dakota. Kerry and Clark. Edwards nowhere in sight. Score: In
five out of six confrontations Clark wins over Edwards by a large
margin.
9. Delaware: Kerry and Lieberman. Actually, Kerry and Sharpton were the only two who got delegates. This was Lieberman's last stand and though he came in second he did not have enough votes to get a single delegate.
There is no doubt that the big winner was Kerry winning 7 out of 9
states and he is rightfully the frontrunner.
But Edwards' performance was less that stellar and he was beaten by
Clark in nearly every encounter where they were head to head. And
Edwards came in first in 1 of 9 states, but second in only 2 of nine state.
Clark came in 1st in 1 state and second to Kerry in 3. That give Clark 4 wins to Edwards' 3.
So you see, intelligent analysis can be made by more than the media pack who have already decided what story to sujectively push.
ADDITIONAL NOTE: 2,563 VIEWERS SIGNED THE FOLLOWING AS AREA TO RESEARCH: Possible motive/incentive for media to have instituted
the Clark National News Blackout, including PBS?
WESLEY CLARK SLAMS MEDIA CONSOLIDATIONDemocratic Presidential Candidate Also Criticizes Entertainment Industry
January 05, 2004
http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=39479 check donations:
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?id=N00025663&cycle=2004">
http://www.opensecr ets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?id=N00025663&cycle=2004">
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidentia l/contrib.asp?id=N00025663&cycle=2004
and:
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/report.aspx?aid=4. .. Kerry and his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry have substantial holdings in telecommunications companies; between $17.6 million and $47.1 million of their combined fortune is held in companies with a stake in the industry, the Center's analysis of his financial disclosure form revealed. That falls in a range of roughly 7 percent to 11 percent of the couple's combined $165 million to $626 million in assets. Most of the fortune, and the stocks, belong to Heinz Kerry.. . .
. . .Since 1999, Kerry has taken positions that closely reflect the legislative agenda of CTIA. Between January 1999 and December 2002, he sponsored two bills for which CTIA lobbied and co-sponsored six more, the Center found. He also sponsored amendments and made floor statements that were favorable to CTIA's interests.
Whacking a piñata
Kerry intervened on the wireless industry's behalf over the auction of the spectrum, the range of electromagnetic radio frequencies used in the transmission of voice, data and video. Telecommunications firms see the availability of adequate amounts of the spectrum, or airwaves, as the key to its future. CTIA and its member companies have lobbied heavily over how and when portions of the spectrum--owned by the public and sold to companies for commercial use -- would be auctioned off
. . .Those bands are currently held by television broadcasters, which are expected to complete the bulk of their switch to digital signals by 2006, leaving the 700 MHz band free for other uses . . .
The following page shows the CBS listed Campaign Schedules for the runners.
* NOTE * - Clark's and Deans schedules do not include the address of where his rallies are while Kerry's and Edwards have detailed addresses.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/17/politics/main578723.shtml---------------------------------------------------
Yahoo ranks websites based on number of hits, and among the candidates, here's the breakdown:
(Kerry has shot up -- just a few days ago his rating was around 14,000, which would've put him in 5th place.) February 1, 2004
1 (most hits): Dean for America: 3,332
2) CLARK04.com: 7,399
3) Kerry.com: 9,398
4) Edwards: 13, 059
5) Lieberman: 36, 618
6) Sharpton: 63, 209
6) No rating for Kucinich
----------------------------------------------
http://campaigndesk.org/ Hidden Angle - pressure on journalists by Kerry/DNC to change coverage to Kerry v. Bush...in essense shutting down primary process
"There are but a few weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. Time has grown short. In an effort to galvanize the message Kerry wants to deliver in the time remaining, he convened a powerful roster of journalists and columnists in the New York City apartment of Al Franken last Thursday. The gathering could not properly be called a meeting or a luncheon. It was a trial. The journalists served as prosecuting attorneys, jury and judge. The crowd I joined in Franken's living room was comprised of:
Al Franken and his wife Franni;
Rick Hertzberg, senior editor for the New Yorker;
David Remnick, editor for the New Yorker;
Jim Kelly, managing editor for Time Magazine;
Howard Fineman, chief political correspondent for Newsweek;
Jeff Greenfield, senior correspondent and analyst for CNN;
Frank Rich, columnist for the New York Times;
Eric Alterman, author and columnist for MSNBC and the Nation;
Art Spiegelman, Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist/author of `Maus';
Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post;
Fred Kaplan, columnist for Slate;
Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate and author;
Jonathan Alter, senior editor and columnist for Newsweek;
Philip Gourevitch, columnist for the New Yorker;
Calvin Trillin, freelance writer and author;
Edward Jay Epstein, investigative reporter and author;
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., who needs no introduction
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml Media chiefs back Kerry campaign Owen Gibson
Tuesday February 10, 2004
Kerry: media chiefs have pledged to raise between $50,000 and $100,000
http://media.guardian.co.uk/city/story/0,7497,1144464,00.htmlor
http://tinyurl.com/yrn2v
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
