A Possible Lesson from the Corporate Owned News/Media Elite (aka the CON/ME)

[Blue Velvet]

As an infrequent poster (but very frequent lurker) on this forum, I'll begin with a disclaimer: what follows is an epiphany-of-sorts that I had just now and wanted to share, so it by no means is well thought out at this point. I'm posting this largely because I'd like you to help me think it through. Also, since I myself haven't fully decided for whom I'll direct my full support in this race, my hope is this thread does not devolve into a candidate-specific flame war (I can dream!) - rather, it's just an evaluation of an idea.

*clears throat nervously*

So last night I was watching the primary results trickle in on MSNBC, hoping that the presence of Keith O. would help mitigate the coverage bias of what I like to call the Corporate Owned News/Media Elite (aka the CON/ME). And though I admittedly didn't see more than an hour of their broadcast, I was still struck by how little John Edwards' name was mentioned, what with his latest surge and strong showing in Iowa. Alas, even the mighty KO could not deliver a knockout blow against the mighty propagandic perceptual filters of GE and Tweety, it seems. But I digress.

Today, I've caught up here on a lot of the charts and graphs and ins and outs of the CON/ME Edwards brownout, and it's nothing short of astounding: the more popular the populist gets, the less you hear about him. Now granted, any fan of Kucinich should not be surprised by this. But it still gave to me this revelation, which I invite you to help me dissect: The more a candidate is a threat against the CON/ME, the less you shall hear about them. Therefore, the less you hear about any viable candidate, the more you should look into their positions and consider directing your vote their way.

Not exactly rocket science, I know, but it seems like this could be a somewhat provable rule based on the threads I've read. Please note: I use the word "viable" above because obviously if a candidate has no chance of winning or is a total whackjob, you might not hear about them for reasons other than a deliberate CON/ME ploy.

In closing (and with full disclosure), I ultimately think the entire multi-year presidential election "season" is yet another CON/ME brownout, distracting many from remembering and/or railing against the many easily proven crimes of the Bush administration; the CON/ME is a self-sustaining Perpetual Memory Hole Machine of sorts, I do believe. But as we get closer to Election Day, I might just be convinced that one very good metric to consider in evaluating a candidate is: how much is he or she ignored by the deceptive, anti-Democratic shell game of the CON/ME?

What say you?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. You may not post often,

but when you do--wow! Love the CON/ME name for MSM. Hope it catches on.

[Blue Velvet]

6. Thanks. I'm always good for an acronym or two, if nothing else...

Plus I'm a bit keyboard shy and only post when I feel like I might have something interesting to add. Thanks again for the encouragement, though!

[dflprincess]

2. I agree completely.

I said something along the lines of what you have in bold type yesterday. The problem is that the majority of the voters are not political junkies like most of us here and haven't yet figured out that what they're hearing on the evening "news" or reading in their local paper is not all they need to know. If they did, Edwards and Kucinich would be doing much better.

[Blue Velvet]

7. True. I guess that's why we have to be our own media, now more than ever... n/t

[KoKo]

3. I have had your same experience watching the coverage.....

and it's not only blacking out the "populist message" it's distracting from the Bush/Cheney Crimes and ongoing Criminal Activities that are in progress now...in the background while the media drones on with polls and Brtittany and various other bits of trivia. Notice how they cover less and less about floods and weather related incidents that affect alot of people...while covering trivial incidents, too.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. I think you're absolutely right

Kucinich has been marginalized for two election cycles, and Edwards was okay by them until he started his anti-corporate campaign.

[AndyA]

5. A lot of people have noticed the absence of John Edwards coverage in the media.

And the obvious question is, "Why John Edwards?"

Obviously, he has enough support that he's worth covering. After all, he was #2 in Iowa. So, that's not it.

Is he newsworthy? I think so. He has a strong change/anti-corporate/people first message that should resound strong in the hearts and minds of Americans, so that's not it.

Which leaves one other thing. The CON/ME (I love it! ;) ) has orders to NOT COVER John Edwards. Why? Could it be that the corporate big wigs have placed Edwards on the "Most Feared" list? Instead, we get served up hours and hours of The Barack and Hillary Show, which features interesting topics like:

- Did she cry or didn't she?
- Does Barack always wear matching socks?
- Clinton campaign upheaval rumor - details later
- Will Barack remove the mole from his nose?

It's pretty obvious to me the CON/ME has no problem with Mr. Obama nor with Mrs. Clinton, which makes me wonder why that is. Could it be they've decided there is less danger to their bottom line with an Obama or Clinton Presidency as opposed to an Edwards Presidency?

I think that's it. Which reinforces my decision to support John Edwards. I want CHANGE. REAL CHANGE. Not just a sound byte designed to garner votes, and then forgotten before the oath is taken.

If big business in America is that worried about John Edwards, it's clear to me that he's the best candidate for President.

[bpeale]

8. actually, i was pissed the other night (after Iowa)

when KO was discussing how the election was OVER after NH & that no one had ever been nominated unless they took IA & NH. even KO is seeming like CON/ME to me.

[Blue Velvet]

9. I'd certainly like to believe KO is not a CONman. Then again, if I was sent mysterious white powder

and then mocked by the NY Post for being worried about it, perhaps I would begin to hedge my bets - even subconciously. I didn't see MSNBC's Iowa coverage, so I hope what you saw was perhaps an aberration.

[Supersedeas]

10. the American Chamber of Commerce hears the same thing that you do.

[Blue Velvet]

11. Well, don't get me started on those CoC suckers... ;-O