Big Three Networks Dim Their Lights on Kerry

[Newsjock]

http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert235.shtml

By Timothy Karr
MediaChannel.org

NEW YORK, July 22, 2004 -- The Kerry campaign's share of network news coverage has been on a steady slide since the Massachusetts senator all but clinched his party nomination after the March 2 "Super Tuesday" primaries. According to a survey of media election coverage during the first half of 2004, President George W. Bush's share of the nightly newscasts has risen steadily through the year, while Senator John Kerry's image and words faded from network screens.

The study, released today by Media for Democracy and Media Tenor, is based on daily monitoring of network evening newscasts from January 1 through June 30, 2004.

During an average evening newscast in June, the networks were nearly four times as likely to mention President Bush as the Democratic presidential candidate. By contrast, in March of this year, network mention of Senator Kerry (40 percent of all coverage of Kerry, Bush and Ralph Nader) nearly rivaled coverage of incumbent Bush (59 percent).

... Continuing analysis into July shows that Kerry enjoyed a jump in network coverage following his selection of Senator John Edwards as his running mate, but that this attention flattened to June levels during the last week surveyed -- July 12 through 16.

more

[Zorra]

1. Boycott the advertisers of these networks, and refuse to watch them.

I'm dead serious. You want to change things? Show me the money.

Boycott the fascist media and their fascist support!!!

It's easy, and fun. Kids, you can try this at home.

If you want to influence a republican, hit them where it hurts.

Republican self-worth is directly proportional to what they have. During the Great Depression, these suckers jumped off buildings just because they had lost their fortunes.

That's all they are. They are only money.

Take away their money, and they are nothing.

[mom cat]

15. I am boycotting all corporate media , including the pseudo "public"

media. We have to put our money into our media, products, communities, etc.

[TA]

19. It's easy to do folks. Don't watch the cable news propaganda

There's now some good radio stations to listen to for news and the web gives us access to many non-local newspapers. Be sure to register to the newspapers you read via the web. It gives them numbers to use for their advertisers. And if you become disappointed in the news they tell you a quick message with a request to unregister sends a strong message.

[progressivebydesign]

24. I already do...

.. it's harder to get all the news, but I find that DU people post links to stories from all types of outlets, here. I can't stomach broadcast news or even broadcast t.v. Haven't watched it in years..

[Lorien]

20. Won't help at all UNLESS

you WRITE to the advertisers to tell them WHY you aren't buying their products.

The right is organized, they get results. We are not-how can we be surprised by what they get away with?

I hardly post on DU anymore because I'm taking that time for actism now. Please consider taking just ONE HOUR a week to write to the media or their advertisers. It's now or never, folks!

[StandUpGuy]

28. I admire your activism

My only concern would be that you assume the Right wing fringe pressure groups are some how more organized and effective with their activism.

I say that conclusion is false.

The REAL RW PRESSURE is Corporate Fascism.

Consumer activism traditionally allowed for the consumer to boycott a product and buy the competitive product.

With mega mergers and investment fund managers we have less choice every day.

The DougfromUpland type loser RW freaks are the fringe, they are the decoy.

[Lorien]

31. False? Really?

Maybe you should check out this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=702546&mesg_id=702546

or how about checking out the "activism and events" forum-one of the least visited forums on DU? Or any thread started by Kanary or any other lonely DU activist? All they get is a handful of helpful replies, and buckets of "it won't help, why waste your time, just vote! I'd rather spend my time (posting music threads, whining, preaching to the choir, coming up with witty and scathing replies to posts I disagree with,etc. etc.) than wasting it on pointless letters, it won't help because the pugs own everything, Corporate Fascism can't be beat..." etc. etc. etc. etc.

Doing nothing has a guaranteed result; the "status quo" remains intact, or things continue worsen. Any form of activism is productive and should be encouraged by all truly caring and committed Democrats. If we don't use our voices now, we most likely won't get a second chance. That may be fine for some who just love having nasty events to bitch and whine about, but I'm hopeful that the vast majority of DUers are better than that.

Enough ranting, now back to actually DOING something about this mess!

[trogdor]

27. Cheer up!

When most of the news about Bush is as BAD as it has been, as Martha would say, it's a good thing. ;-)

[doctorbombeigh]

2. It's about what you'd expect, no?

He's not the president - yet.

With things going so poorly for Bush in recent months, I think there was something of a calculation in Kerry laying back. Let Bush hang himself, he hardly seems to need assistance. It wouldn't bother me, but Kerry kicking Bush when he's down isn't "presidential" to most folks. I think too many hits coming from Kerry lately would have hurt him, projected the wrong image to those who haven't yet made up their minds or are waffling. We have a foolishly vindictive POTUS now, we'd like to get rid of him, we don't want to elect another one like him.

As long as Kerry's numbers continue to look good, I don't think the news coverage is much cause for worry. Partly it's just the rhythm of a campaign year and the rest was, imo, a sharp decision from the Kerry camp. After the convention, he takes the bounce and runs with it. That's the time to really revv it up.

It seems to me that Kerry and his team know exactly how to play it. In fact, I've been thinking that about a quite a few of their moves lately.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. It's exactly what I'd expect...

since whoever happens to be the President is always guranteed coverage beyond photo ops and campaign events. That's just the way it is.

The primaries are long over, so there isn't be much campaign coverage at all until the conventions are over and it "officially starts. They don't even plan much coverage of the conventions, since it's all the usual speechifying.

I agree that Kerry has been playing it smart by laying low and giving Shrub&Co more than enough rope to hang themselves. He's been doing that since the primaries started, and it's working well. Shrub has nothing at all to point to as an accomplishment and is reduced to insulting Kerry. Shrub's numbers aren't going up no matter what they do, so Kerry is simply sitting back and watching them self-destruct.

As it gets closer to the election, we'll probably see some fireworks, and much more campaign coverage.

[JI7]

3. this is why they hold many public events

they know they can't depend entirely on the big media to cover them. and if they do cover them to do it without some right wing spin added on.

[0007]

10. These guys look so refreshing compared to junior & cheney

[Democat]

5. If it looks like Kerry will win, the more the media will undermine him

Look at what's already happening.

The mainstream media will do everything they can to help Bush get elected and to undermine Kerry. If that means attacking, they'll do it. If they think ignoring Kerry will help Bush more, that's what they'll do.

[Algomas]

6. Maybe if he said something worth reporting...

he would get more coverage. His Bush-Lite act is boring. He needs to start throwing some punches. Why isn't he???????

[JI7]

7. yeah, because what the media reports is worthy news

and there is no bush lite act. he is going around speaking to the american people about the issues. most people don't care to hear bush being bashed only for their own entertainment purposes. they actually have problems they have addressed.

not that those who complain on here care since they never respond to posts which tell of things he said or did in his campaigning.

[Racenut20]

8. We never see it.

The things he did or said in the campaign. I am sure there must be at least a sound bite or two worth reporting, programs to promote, policies, etc. But all we see on media is BushCo, or something negative.

[JI7]

9. yeah, the big media doesn't report it

but i hear about it by researching and from people who attend his events (most of his events are open to public). but it's still something one has to look for rather than just something that the big media reports. but he does a good job based on those who see him. and of course i watch cspan and try to catch him anytime they show him and he does well there also.

it was kind of the same thing in the primary where he was written off by most especially the big media. but he kept going around to the people and campaigning and trying to get their support.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

13. When's the last time you actually paid attention to anything said...

...by Kerry and/or Edwards?

Your job is to find out what they're actually saying instead of waiting to be spoon-fed.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

25. Thanks for the update!

I haven't received my Republican Talking Points today, so it's really helpful for you to repeat them here.

[andino]

11. the networks were nearly four times as likely to mention President Bush

Most of that was BAD NEWS!!!!

So what they said his name more.

They also tied it to such words as 'torture', 'deficits', and 'No WMDs'...

I kinda like those ties...

[dbt]

12. Something similar is happening to Farenheit 911.

2,000 screens and $94 million for a DOCUMENTARY is unheard of. Yet, after an initial round of reporting on the movie's opening, any mention of it is curiously absent from the "news."

Somehow, the networks found time to accomodate every GOP nay-sayer/debunker who wanted to tell them how F911 is full of lies, but they continue to ignore the story.

The story is that this tiny, low-budget film is kicking major ass without the big theatre chains picking it up. The story is that this "popular wartime preznit" is a major criminal AND a fuckup who SOMEHOW keeps getting away with his Truly Evil plans. The story is that every "scurrilous accusation" made in the film is TRUE.

Liberal Media, my shiny metal ass!

:argh:
dbt

[Bread and Circus]

14. If true and continues, it looks like Kerry is getting "Clarked".

[johnnie]

16. Is that damn liberal media at it again?

Those left winged, commie, tree huggin bastards are one sided. I'm sick of the liberal press making all our decisions for us!

[soothsayer]

17. It ain't hurting him, so big deal

He just needs to sit back and watch dummy self-destruct. The less said, the better, frankly.

[Tommy_Douglas]

18. Outside of picking Edwards...

Kerry has stayed out of the spotlight, and made sure Bush has enough rope to hang...

[jdj]

22. Plus now when they mention Kerry they have to say Edwards...

And John Edwards is every repuke's nightmare, a REAL hometown boy done good, whose family isn't a thug mafia like Bush's.

They don't want to give John Edwards any airtime AT ALL.

Even poor pukes will be touched by his American story. I want to be voting for him in 2012 for president. Hilary can be veep. Or they can do a co-pres thing, I don't care.

[SiouxJ]

21. I love when they show Shrub trying to form a sentence

I think it hurts him more than it helps. Polls seem to agree (his approval rate goes down the more coverage he gets). Keep showing the idiot. Every time I see him on the evening news, I just imagine John & Joan Q Public watching him mangle the English language, then turning to each other, shaking their heads in disbelief.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

26. Yes, but...

Kerry needs to provide a clear alternative to Bush -- not just be the "Anybody But Bush" candidate. People need a reason to vote for John Kerry and not just against Bush, so getting his message out to the voters is critical. I can see Kerry buying half-hour blocks of airtime if this keeps up.

[progressivebydesign]

23. They're fucking doing it again!!!

They're doing the "Gore" on Kerry now. What dipshit came up with the idea that we had "liberal" media? Perhaps, back in the 60's and 70's before it was totally swallowed by the corporate monsters, when people actually did real journalism... Now? We just have a bunch of empty headed, botoxed, news-readers doing their bit for their corporate masters (who are Republicans).

Pardon my rant.. but WHY? WHY? WHY? are the die hard republicans, who SCREAM for personal rights and preserving the Constitution NOT even fucking QUESTIONING the loss of so many of OUR inalienable rights???

FREE PRESS? FREE SPEECH? Bush, the GOP, and their henchmen are using our Constitution for toilet paper.. and all the right wing faithful can do is flush the toilet for them.

[JDPriestly]

29. What does Big Dog say about this?

"What are your criticisms of the Kerry campaign?

I think he's doing well. And the number-one thing that people have complained about before today, when he's making big news, is, you know, they say he's not saying something to get on the news every night. I think that's a good strategy. For the simple reason that, first, he's got a lot of groundwork to lay. A couple of weeks ago, he gave a whole series of serious speeches on national security. They were thoughtful; they were good; they were solid. And the kind of people that read them are the ones who are going to be writing editorials in October.

If John Kerry were saying things that got him on the evening news every night, he'd probably have to say things that would run the risk of his losing the election."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story?id=6298179&rnd=1090333548740&has-player=false

[JerseygirlCT]

30. I was thinking on these lines, too.

Meanwhile, Bush gets lots of coverage, which isn't helping him much, is it? He's just shown as the idiot he is.

I haven't been seeing much happy, happy Bush coverage. (Probably b/c I turn it off then!) but what I've seen is lots of scandals, potential scandals, problems and bad poll numbers.

Maybe I'm living in a dream world?

[qwlauren35]

32. I think this is a red herring.

Like it or not, Bush is the president. He is going to be covered because of that, and I think that's reasonable.

Like it or not, Kerry is just the "contender". He is not in the process of making history at this moment. If he does make history, it will be in November.

I'm amazed that anyone would take statistics on this or worse still, be upset about it.

[candy331]

33. Maybe they shouldn't have wrapped up the nomination so soon

then the media would be forced to cover the Dems but the coverage now is about what was expected.

[Catt03]

34. Where's Al Gore's new network?

that would help.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33179

[Citizen Daryl]

35. "Orwell Rolls In His Grave" < - You Need To See This Film

Buzzflash is selling it right now. I pretty much knew the extent of the corruption of our news media, but this film lays it out in a way that is absolutely chilling.

We are now faced with the reality that our news media is little more than Pravda and TASS were during the Soviet era. I never thought I'd see the day.

[DrBB]

36. It's called "The advantage of incumbency"

This is why any 2nd-term presidential election is the incumbent's to lose. He's got the office, he's doing stuff, it's gonna get covered. I don't see this as evidence of anti-Kerry or anti-Dem bias. Not but what you can find evidence of that if you want, but this isn't it.