The Media is Lying About KERRY and Special Interest Money

[liberalpragmatist]

Here's a great article from the American Prospect by Eric Alterman and Michael Tomasky:

http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/3/alterman-e.html

> In the runup to John Kerry's February 3 victories in five states, The New York Times' Glen Justice and John Tierney published a front-page article examining Kerry's and other Democrats' contributions from special interests. Fair enough: The public has a right to know. But it also has a right to knowledge that's placed in some sort of sensible context. Take a look at this sentence, for instance: "Mr. Kerry denounces President Bush for catering to the rich, but he has depended more heavily on affluent donors than the other leading Democrats except for another populist, Senator John Edwards." Just how does Kerry's standing vis-à-vis the other Democrats provide a useful measure of whether Bush caters to the rich? And do Kerry's contributions from special interests come even close to those of the president? This question is not explored with reporting. Instead, the authors tell us, using the paradigmatic "to be sure" construction, "To be sure, none of the Democrats have collected donations on the scale of President Bush's campaign, and they generally avoid donations from political action committees. But the Democrats are hardly naifs when it comes to enlisting support from special interests in Washington and elsewhere, from corporate leaders and from unions in the public and private sectors."

Talk about your false constructions. Did anyone accuse the Democrats of being "naifs when it comes to enlisting support from special interests in Washington and elsewhere, from corporate leaders and from unions in the public and private sectors"? A single sentence of context -- provided with no numbers whatever -- hardly gives readers a fair sense of who's giving what to whom. Rather, it plays perfectly into the Rove game plan of selling the country to special interests while proclaiming it to be in the public good. It would have taken Justice and Tierney about 90 seconds to go to a Web site every political journalist knows and discover that in fact, Bush has received 28 times more money in PAC donations than Kerry has.

***

This article from tompaine.com is also useful and helps to put things into perspective which has been lost by the media (which continues to harp on Kerry w/out considering Bush):

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9938

Under the current campaign finance laws, all candidates must raise significant sums of money from wealthy donors in order to win. That is why it is important for voters to look not just at where candidates raise money, but at where the candidates stand on overhauling our political fundraising laws. Sen. Kerry was the lead sponsor with the late Sen. Paul Wellstone of the Wellstone-Kerry bill, modeled on successful and comprehensive public financing laws in Maine and Arizona. Gov. Howard Dean signed into law a full public financing bill in Vermont, and has proposed dramatic reforming of the presidential system.

(snip)

The Bush Administration provides the clearest example of pay-to-play politics since the Gilded Age of robber barons and railroad trusts.

Former oil, gas and mining industry lobbyists staff key posts in the administration. They have a record of secrecy and privileged access for contributors in policy-making meetings. The Bush campaign encourages wealthy donors to bundle hundreds of thousands of dollars together, while keeping track of who delivers the big money.

The paybacks are a matter of record. For example:


* Halliburton Corporation gets a no-bid, multi-billion dollar Iraq contract, while continuing to pay Vice President Dick Cheney's deferred compensation.

* The Clean Air Act gets gutted while executives for electric utilities raise millions for Bush.

* The pharmaceutical industry contributes heavily to Bush's campaign as he signs a Medicare bill protecting their profits at taxpayer expense.

This is a pattern that emerges from an obscene and excessive race for campaign cash. President Bush has raised at least $142 million so far, and is well on his way to collecting and unleashing a quarter of a billion dollars for his re-election efforts.

[papau]

1. the media - the national media-is a reprint machine for Bush/Rove handouts

The best a Den can do is get an op-ed to 1 out of 6 stories generated by the Bush handout.

I really think the name writers are no longer sure of their skill, and prefer to fall back on concepts and wordings handed them by Rove.

[feistydem]

2. The media is also basically lazy

Time and again they (the mainstream press) chase a story without doing any investigative work. Other times, there's a story out there just screaming to be reported on --like Bill Frist's office hacking into Senate Dem's computer files -- and they only follow what is being said in news conferences and press briefings.

No Woodwards and Bernsteins in this lazyass group of GOP shills.

[The Magistrate]

3. An Important Point, Mr. Pragmatist

And one that should be taken to heart by Sen. Kerry's intramural foes as well, when they are tempted to repeat the line being peddled by these journalists.

The "Received twenty-eight times as much money from Political Action Commitees as Sen. Kerry" figure is a very useful one: it puts the matter rather clearly in perspective....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"