I had no idea I was such a media led idiot

[ShaneGR]

I mean gees, from reading some of the posts here I must just be a zombie, going along with the media's every whim. The DNC has brainwashed me into not voting for someone elses candidate of choice.

Not much respect for people around here anymore.

[Skwmom]

1. The media has played a huge role in

determining how this primary process is played out. To ignore that fact threatens our democracy.

[ShaneGR]

2. Up until 2 days before Iowa

Kerry and Edwards were basically ignored, so the media "annointing" thing doesn't hold water. To the victor goes the media coverage.

[onebigbadwulf]

3. Really?

After 1000 Dean Screams you could have fooled me.

[RetroLounge]

6. Please don't confuse voters with examples

eom

[JNelson6563]

9. My but how views change!

To the victor goes the media coverage.

That wasn't your view when Dean was all over the media.

Julie

[kiahzero]

16. What precisely has Dean won?

Which primaries or caucuses had he won before Iowa?

[JNelson6563]

23. There was much to win before voting began

Such as financial support, grassroots support, media attention and public opinion.

Maybe Kerry didn't have (win) any of those things because (and I am being uber diplomatic here) he failed to inspire.

But now we know of his ties to the Stop Dean efforts and then there were the stories yesterday of media big-wigs supporting Kerry....

But if ya'll want to claim ignorance and play the black and white game, go ahead. Whatever helps you sleep at night. :toast:

Julie

[kiahzero]

28. Winning media attention should garner media attention?

That's curious.

As for the others, if you consider those winning, then that's fine. But there is no apparent contradiction in the OP's point - if he doesn't consider financial support / grassroots support / polling as "winning" before the primaries or caucuses, then his original statement is still true.

[JNelson6563]

37. your reasoning and comprehension are curious

not my points which youapparently were unable to grasp.

Nevermind.

Julie

[ShaneGR]

18. Eh???

Dean didn't win anything.

[HFishbine]

19. That's it

That's the point exactly. The media attention goes where it goes. There is no predicate.

[Turkw]

34. Actually that is not true, I've looked at some of the data at the watchdog

sites. Kerry got a big rise in coverage, just before Iowa. Dean's coverage turned negative, so he didn't get additional support, but the media was wrong to say he lost support. Edwards has not received as much coverage, but he has gotten the least amount of negative coverage. The media waited days after New Hampshire to show any state BUT South Carolina. In that time Clark dropped in the polls. Kucinich has been totally blackballed by the media. Issues are almost nonexistent in media coverage.

But OK, just wait, the media may start to turn on your guy. FOX thinks that Kerry is going to be the nominee, so have turned on him already. I'm not so sure who the others will go after next, finish Dean or go after Edwards, but I think they are happy with Kerry as the nominee. The media corporations are backing him financially.

[Kahuna]

38. Amen. I see Clark's demise as directly

connected to not contesting in IA. Iowa voters where looking for an Anti-Dean candidate. Clark wasn't in the mix so he missed out. That is Clark's fault. Not the media's.

[HoosierClarkie]

43. That is

not true. Clark beat Edwards in NH with the wind at Edwards back. Then it was black out Clark. "Look out for an Edwards surge" exclaims the the pundits all day everyday before OK and before one percentage point moved. That is a fact.

[Edwards4President]

45. Clark barely beat Edwards in NH after practically living there for weeks

The media began to lose interest in Clark when he came in a distant third, only skimpily edging out a candidate who had hardly been in the state in the preceding weeks after positioning himself as THE man to beat Dean in New Hampshire.

Forgive me if I'm not bursting with sympathy for Clark's media problems. After all, it was Clark who stepped all over Edwards' announcement by leaking HIS own announcement the same day. He didn't seem the least bit concerned about inequitable press attention when he did everything he could to suck up the media spotlight back in September with a graceless and tacky move. A candidate who capitalizes on his status as flavor of the week cannot complain when the press loses interest, moves on and leaves him in the dark to pursue a new taste treat.

Clark didn't fail because of lack of media attention. He failed because he didn't perform. He's a good man but he was a terrible candidate. Clark's inability to connect to voters was not the fault of the media. He just lost, plain and simple.

[HoosierClarkie]

48. That sounds

Just like Judy Woodruff. At least I know your watching. :)

[Edwards4President]

49. Or maybe I figured it out all by myself

since it's true.

[liberalnurse]

5. You said that with heart. The basic good voter

the ones who barely pay attention and fail to take an hour out of their week to research candidate issues are the prime targets for media propaganda. I call it "McDonald's Voting" or "Drive-Thur voters".

Active participants in the election process, such as folks here at DU will not be swayed by the media, since we link/post every written word printed here for discussion of sorts.

[StClone]

8. We had Nine choices

I doubt that the media was the sole motivator towards Kerry. If you look at Iowa's bold (and oft-decried) move towards Kerry I can't see the Iowa Dems as Media led stooges.

How ever it is interesting that Dean was defanged just after his pronouncement that if elected he dismantled media conglomeration and his "EEaaaww" was far over blown by said media.

Media may be complicit but I think there is more to it.

[LiberalBushFan]

17. The more candidates there are,

the EASIER it gets for the media to choose the winner. Think about it.

[LiberalBushFan]

4. Congratulations,

I'm glad you've seen the light.

[JNelson6563]

7. Well now you know

Spare me. All of these same remarks were applies to Dean supporters back in the day. In fact, if I recall corrrectly, didn't you participate?

Ugly ain't it? Well, now you know.

Julie

[9119495]

10. Dean got negative coverage

The Columbia journalism review looked at coverage from 2003 and found that Dean stories were only possitive 40-some per cent of the time. The other candidates had 78% positive coverage. If your contention they were ignored is correct, than maybe that was a good thing for them. In any case, the media attention, or lack of it matters.

[Edwards4President]

14. Then why did Dean lead in the polls throughout 2003?

Sorry, but I don't buy the "Dean's losing because the media's picking on him" excuse. Dean's losing because voters in every region of the country have decided that they prefer someone else to him. Voters aren't stupid; they are fully capable of seeing past media bias and vote on the issues, just like you are. You seem to think that you are smart enough to think for yourself - why don't you think other voters aren't as clever as you?

The attitude that anyone who isn't for Dean is a brainwashed nincompoop is one of the reasons that Dean is not doing well in the primaries. People don't like being told that they are idiots and they certainly aren't likely to fall all over themselves to vote for a candidate whose supporters seem to think they are.

[Edwards4President]

11. Well, now you know

And you thought you actually had a mind of your own.

[spooky3]

12. Tim Russert on Today is now pronouncing the race over.

I think this is another example of media bias and failure to meet their responsibility to inform voters.

I have no problem with the pundits' giving the data and letting people conclude what they will. I also have no problem with an in-depth analysis presented as that. But what Russert is doing is neither.

I have a problem with much of what the media have done throughout this campaign.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

29. He's just stating the obvious

Kerry has won 12 of 14 primaries. Unprecedented. Kerry is leading by double digits in polls in most other states.

That's not media bias. That's telling it like it is.

[spooky3]

32. As I said, I have no problem with reporting data,

such as that 12 of 14 primaries won by Kerry. However, the full story would include reporting such information as that only 15% of the delegates have been chosen and the results of exit polls regarding the reasons people are supporting Kerry, etc.

It IS media bias to leave out relevant data and to proclaim that 15% speak for everyone else. While you and everyone else are entitled to your opinions about how to interpret the results to date, the media have a special responsibility that you don't have (unless you're in the media too). That is to present facts as facts and opinions as opinions, and I would argue, to go beyond superficial opinions.

See this thread for elaboration:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=310341

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

35. But YOU are the one spinning the "15% are speaking for everyone"

That's a slanted perception. The fact is, it is known already that Kerry is polling ahead by double digits in most other states. His wide support IS already known. That they haven't had their primaries yet to make it official doesn't mean the media doesn't have a clue about the outcome.

The media pundits reporting this didn't just fall off the turnip truck. Kerry is gaining supporters and endorsements. Dean is losing them. Kerry just won 2 southern states last night. An ominous sign and message to the other candidates. Clark dropped out, Edwards knows he's in trouble now, and Dean, well, it's over for him.

The media is just telling it like it is. That's politics.

[spooky3]

41. Votes are votes. Polls are polls. You and I disagree

in that you view them to be the same thing. I am not spinning anything; I am asking that data be reported accurately. That's my final answer.

[janx]

46. I guess it's mere coincidence that an unprecedented number

of media execs are contributing to his campaign. :eyes:

[Kahuna]

39. I think that's based upon Kerry polling at 40% plus..

nationally. And polling far ahead of all candidates in upcoming elections. I think that's why. :eyes:

The next debate should be a good one though. :D

[spooky3]

42. when the votes are cast, I'll be happy to count them.

Until then, pundits should report votes as votes and polls as polls.

[patricia92243]

13. EVERYBODY - He's being sarcastic.

[arwalden]

15. LOL! Nobody's Perfect!

Not even the smartest of us, eh?

-- Allen

[mmonk]

20. It has been party led

for speed, not necessarily examination. The DLC does have quite a bit of power. The media always picks as the election proceeds. It also decides where to direct its coverage and who to make an issue out of (ratings driven).

[ShaneGR]

22. The DLC has no power, their candidate was Lieberman

???

[polpilot]

27. Go to the DLC site and REVIEW their candidate...then post back..."Oh

I see."

Dean '04...

[LynneSin]

21. I have a picture of sgr2 watching TV

:eyes:

If you are a braindead zombie for voting democrat then so am I

[BootinUp]

24. Was there a particular post directed at you

Or is this an attempt to claim that Kerry and Edwards shot up in the National polls just because voters finally decided they were the best candidates, and not because the political journalists and insiders decided they were the only candidates that deserved positive national coverage in the media after IOWA?

I don't deny Clark made some mistakes, the question is who was it that decided they were mistakes and how it should affect his candidacy?

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

25. Yes. When Dean got the lions share of media coverage all last year

And was anointed the front runner and inevitable Democratic nominee by the media and all his supporters, if was because the people were all politically aware and well informed.

When it came time to VOTE and people made up their OWN minds INSTEAD of what the media fed them, people are stupid idiots and don't know what the hell they are doing because they didn't pick the "right" candidate, according to "some" people.

Kerry didn't get media coverage until he started winning. Winners get the news - that's how it works. It's as if the media was supposed to ignore him and continue to sing Dean's praises for falling flat on his face over and over again.

Dean took a big gamble pouring all his money into IA and lost that gamble. He STARTED the negative mudslinging with Gephardt and they both paid for it in votes. People don't like it. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

[Kahuna]

40. The media gave Dean a pass on his flip flops for a long time...

Whatever the media printed about Dean from what I observed was true. I don't think we should blame the media for reporting the truth.

[Stuckinthebush]

26. There will always be people who will believe this...

That the media is telling us who to vote for, that is. There were people here saying that about Dean when he was the front runner, now Kerry is the media's choice, according to some DUers.

I guess it is human nature to blame some outside force when your chosen candidate is not doing well. How else to explain that Democratic voters do not see that XXXX is the best candidate? It has to be the media's fault!

Sure, Dean got screwed by the media with the scream deal, but he did play into the stereotype over the months as front runner.

Yes, Kucinich is ignored by the media - but is this because the media doesn't want him to be the nominee or is it because he has been polling in the 1% range forever?

Every candidate has a group of supporters who say the media doesn't want their candidate.

Always remember this, the majority of DUers are thoughtful and pragmatic.

[redqueen]

36. Kucinich got 15.7% of the votes in Maine.

That's way above 1%, don't you think?

Have you noticed any more media coverage for Kucinich?

:eyes:

[theboss]

30. Dean supporters were demanding we fall in line months ago

I don't buy the "Media chose Kerry" argument. Until Iowa, the media had declared Kerry dead, buried, and slowly returning to the soil. Then he won big, and they looked at him again. Meanwhile did went from first to a bad third and THEN had his meltdown on live tv (I saw it live and said here seconds later that he had just ended his campaign with it). So the story naturally became "Kerry Surging/Dean Fading?" Then NH confirmed it.

Yes, the story does perpetuate itself to some degree. But after Dean collapsed in Iowa in NH, what should the story have been? "Dean blows double-digit leadsm, screams on tv, but is still the mand to beat Bush."

If that had been the story, Edwards and Clark supporters here would have freaked out.

[LiberalBushFan]

33. it's really not that complex

media first choice: Dean
media second choice: Kerry
plus Dean's comment about breaking up the media conglomerates

Three simple points. Is it THAT hard to understand? I don't think it's so convoluted an explanation to classify as a conspiracy theory.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

44. Well, now you know.

:evilgrin:

[corporatewhore]

47. have you ever heard of Noam Chomskys Manufactured Consent?

explains why some of us question the role of media in campaigns and such

[andym]

50. The media plays a role for those who don't pay attention

The media plays a role for those who don't pay attention, but most of the info they convey (network TV and radio) is who is the front runner (=winner) and who are the serious challengers= horserace. OTOH, the cable media has more of an agenda, as do some in the press.

The national/network media plays an especially strong role this year, because there are so many primaries held in such a short timeframe that it would take a very large sum of money to contest them all via TV ads-- and ads are no substitute for positive or negative free media exposure.

The Democratic primary system this time was designed for an early winner to run the table, since it would be so difficult to individually contest the subsequent states by ads (too expensive).

The key this time was to be the front runner-- the front runner coming out of Iowa! The problem with being the front runner going into Iowa was that you would be the subject of attack from the others who wanted to be king of the hill. In a small state like Iowa, it was possible to use ads and oppo research submitted to friendly news outlets to do the dirty work of bringing down the front runner. And that is what happenned!

[jpgpenn]

51. Perhaps, Now You Do!