MediaMatters.org highlights debate "importance spin" by CNN.

[Career Prole]

They highlight the complete and unexplained reversal of position by Blitzer and others. If not for the manipulative CNN clowns JK's bounce would have been even bigger.

An example...
CNN host Wolf Blitzer:

PRE-DEBATE:

A pivotal night in this presidential campaign, perhaps a decisive moment. A key opportunity for the Democratic challenger, John Kerry, to break through, to try to establish himself as a formidable candidate in this race.

<...>

A defining night. I think everybody agrees potentially. This certainly could be a defining night. Historians will be writing about this for many years to come.

POST-DEBATE:

So even if John Kerry decisively won the debate, we shouldn't jump to any conclusions, let alone on the final outcome on November 2, but even if there will be a significant movement in the poll numbers, the real polls, not these instant polls over the next three or four or five days.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410010011

I swear they're trying to manipulate public opinion just because they want another contested election for the ratings.
I'm disgusted.

[dumpster_baby]

1. fascinating! I used to think all these news people were liberal!

Back in the day, when I was voting for reagan, bush 1, perot, then buchanan, I used to think all these news people were liberal. Now I see that there is really only a handful of people who get regular TV time who really are liberal. Bill MOyers and David Brancaccio? I do not have cable tv, so my field of vision is limited, but I can think of no one else off hand. All the rest are either neutral, or conservative. And not surprising, either. These talking heads and reporters make millions....

[unblock]

3. it's not so much that they themselves make millions,

it's that their bosses make multi-millions.

so their bosses breed a culture of sucking up to conservative politics. even the liberals quickly figure out that you get promoted only when you tilt to the right.

[kokomo]

5. The folks over at Media Research Center still think the media is liberal.

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/

[SHRED]

2. Awesome

:kick:

[Skinner]

4. So true.

Oh, the irony.

[lefthandedskyhook]

6. Nominate Blitzer for "worm of the year"

[w4rma]

7. AOL-TW doesn't care about slightly higher ratings for this one particular

outlet of AOL-Time Warner. They care about less regulations to stop them from expanding further and moving more overseas. They care about less taxes on their owners, stock-holders and company.

[trogdor]

9. Without ratings, none of this matters.

I've said it many times before, they want it close. Kerry crushed Chimpy last Thursday, and it might cause a significant shift in support (indicated by polls), and render the race more or less over. That is NOT what CNN/FOX/MSBNC/etc. want.

The debate got extremely high ratings because people were anticipating a good fight. Just like nobody wants to pay $50 to see Mike Tyson KO some bum of the month with the first punch, or watch the Twins crush Kansas City, people aren't going to watch this made-for-TV spectacle if they think the outcome will be a very predictable blowout, no matter which candidate they support.

If, on Novemeber 2nd, Kerry is beating Bush handily by 10 PM, we're all going to bed. The networks want us to stay up until the wee hours. That's what it's all about, my friend.

[PATRICK]

8. Newspapers

The medium matters I suppose. Somehow, most of the papers I saw, had cerebral headlines "balanced" in terms of a lively debate between two very different sides. What happened to the emotion either Blitzer 1 or 2? Even the reporters and the ad hoc focus groups(whatever shanghaied civilians or watering hole the journalists happened to find for the ritual) seemed to have experienced a different kind of debate. Except for the paper that went to Lycoming campus near Syracuse, NY, the staid middle aged dullards, whatever their affiliation had turned their emotional receptors off and their much abused cerebral, responsible citizen, issue monitor minds on. The reporters, like little old ladies were somewhat ruffled and apologetic for the rowdy reactions(the NORMAL reactions for those not inhibited by appearing as media reps and astute judges). This should make you think long VERY LONG and hard about taking the fabled focus group at its word in settings that inhibit more honest gut feelings.

That went for the gamut of papers although some, somehow, managed to convey the strength of Kerry, especially if you read way down into the story. I found this immensely interesting since it dispelled the paranoid theories of stacked focus groups, Rove hotlines and programmed reactions and replace it with something that gives another natural reason why reaction to the debaters are so slow. Newspapers inhibit the visual, visceral reaction in true NPR radio fashion. Interviewees also make one think very much of how focus groups try to keep their hearts in check as they pose as "issue" judges and sage adults for the interviewers- and audience. And not to worry, those doing the writing and editing have a long history of selling papers that offend no great portion of the community- a great reason why the sleight of hand about admitting a great divide among the consuming public fits so softly into bland, non judgmental reporting. Neutralizing- not neutrality is what it is about. One begins to wonder if any for-profit information service based on ads and subscription can ever really adjudicate information. The rube consumers reciprocate by fitting into the ritual surfing of the divide with dull pretensions. Yes, sensational bloody pictures go for the gut. No one EXPECTS that from a simple debate, though Shrub did his best to simper for the camera.

But it was in the visual media- watched at home or in other relaxed surroundings where the issue man is left on the floor with the crumpled newspaper- that something ironic happens. The boob tube of boxed emotions frees us to feel. That is where the stormy awakening to the Bush of F9/11 times ten is ENGAGED, baited, argued down and destroyed. And Kerry is allowed to be seen as well for the very first time for most Americans only familiar with conflicting sound bites, dull print messages and the ceremonial atmosphere of the Convention.

This is a testing moment. The manipulators, the blind fans, the incompetent skewed journalists and pundits, are victims of their own nexus- the point of excitement and superfluous image into which any idiot can step if the half wise do not prevent them. There was supposed to be some physical setback, some symbolic, dully issue- oriented insufficiency to Kerry- a negative emotion- a lost message- while Little Bush would be all emotive, mouth enough empty phrases to fill the balance in the papers. It was prepared. It was naturally ready without conspiracy to just happen. Then as in 2000, Bush blew it big time. The situation was turned.

And we were there quickly so he couldn't sneak by again with a cheat. The Kerry bounce is real unless they again trick people into not trusting their eyes and gut. The noise machine dims. Go to sleep.

There is an agonizing effort to keep the slow dawn from coming upin a few days. The polls naturally(especially in GOP hands were the situation favoring Bush!) would, to be scientific, be gradual as the "adults" did their slow take, as the shock sets in, as the feelings are shared. So let's not rest one bit. Not presume or predict that Kerry must perform miracles at the next debate or that will signal a "comeback"(never to said as such, rather a "reassertion") of Bush supremacy in a race that never ever, by the private interest gods who control the media, be anything else than too close to call.

This country of clouded minds will vote(or stay home) from the heart. Bush is losing there big time. So where are the new votes coming from to make any change in the 2000 demographics? Where? No one has justified anything other than a serf-like flexion of the knee to the sitting president.

There was one thing true about 2000 that would have to true about 2004. The only heart Bush can rely on is hos own cheatin' heart.

[Career Prole]

10. Wow! I appreciate the work that went into your post and I enjoyed

reading it. Good job! :thumbsup:

[dxdem]

11. Remember, the media is Liberally Biased, right?

I expect this from FOX opinion channel, but for some reason, and I may be wrong in my assumption, not from CNN. Thank god for the internet, huh?

[StlMo]

12. Unfortunately, most of CNN whores for Bush (just not as obviously as Fox).

Edited for punctuation by StlMo

Unfortunately, most of CNN whores for Bush (just not as obviously as Fox "News").

Yes, thank God for the Internet.