Dean phenomenon created by Media?

[Quixote1818]

I was just talking to my Dad and we were both Dean supporters early on until Clark came into the picture however we thought it was the Media who kind of created the Dean phenomenon. The media grabbed onto Dean's angry at Bush, Internet thing with his early support and ran with it. Everything Dean did the media followed and so Dean just became like this Media monster and when people were asked who they would vote for they said Dean because he was on TV 24 hours a day and it was hip. Once people really slowed down and started looking at the candidates with reason knowing there vote would really matter it became more about "reality" things like running someone strong on National Defense and more centrist and electable. It seems to me now that it was all just an illusion created by the media but not what people really believed. It was all a media show. What do you think?

[bhunt70]

1. I've had those same thoughts.

At the same time I don't want to presume that people bought into dean just because he was on tv a lot but more because they agree with what he says. I think there is a bit of truth in what you say though, a certain amount of people will respond favorably to what is being presented to them and not investigate further. Some of those people who do either make their minds up to stay with dean or to look elsewhere.

To me it's like when you decide "Im gonna buy a tv" and the first big impressive one you see in a commercial is the model you use when shopping around to compare and contrast at leisure.

You may go back and buy that one, it may have all the features you want, or you may find one that suits you better.

[nankerphelge]

2. Is this the same media that.

has consistently negatively reported on Dean? http://www.cmpa.com/pressrel/EW200401.htm

[blm]

16. That's a Scaife generated "study"...Follow the money.

Scaife hates Kerry and his wife. He launched an Arkansas Project on Kerry long before Clinton's name was known.

Note that the "study" never gives details, but is written to make the Dean supporters feel more aggrieved.

[nankerphelge]

18. interesting to know

Thanks

[intheozone]

3. I think you are wrong . . . .

it was not the media that was making all those contributions to Dean's campaign. Don't forget, Dean has raised more money than the other Dems and he has done through small contributions from ordinary people, not large contributions from big contributors. The media cannot just create those contributions! So for the most part, no I don't think it was a media show at all.

[Quixote1818]

10. Over Stated

Sure Dean had a very energized following and made a lot of money and was slightly ahead of everyone at first but I am talking about when he was up by 30 points over everyone after Gore endorsed him. In my opinion Dean has solid support but that 30 point lead was very soft it appears. It was created by Gore’s endorsement and the media. Before Gore endorsed Dean he was neck and neck with Clark and about 5 points ahead of the other candidates.

[xxqqqzme]

4. I first heard the good

Dr. on cspan in Nov '02. I was impressed w/ what he was saying and his directness. I have not wavered in that support over the last 14 months. The media caught up w/ the Dr. long after the meet-ups started. The media did not create Dean - his grass roots supporters did.

I just returned home after spending the long weekend in New Mexico. About 50 of us from SoCal worked w/ the NM Dean supporters walking precincts, entering data, prepping precinct kits - whatever they needed. The media didn't do that, WE DID! The media did not create the meet-up attendence - WE DID. The media might want 2 take credit, but they arrived @ this party very late!

[stickdog]

5. Yes, all of Dean's record fundraising, meet up supporters. volunteers,

leading internet presence and wonderful endorsements were all a media creation. And the fact that his Iowa caucus results fizzled had nothing to do with the media.

In addition, the fact that John Kerry had to mortgage his home just to get to Iowa proves that his support was deep and rock solid and certainly not the result of the Dean-infatuated media.

[killbotfactory]

15. Exactly.

Very lucid analysis.

Dean = media puppet.
Kerry = strong grassroots phenom.

[NashVegas]

6. Yes And No

The mainstream media had Dean in the 'dismissed' column until the 2nd quarter fundraising results came out and it turned their heads.

When the 3rd quarter results came in it raised alarm bells. Although Dean has by far received the most coverage, one can't exactly say it's been positive coverage.

[shance]

7. Not at all, but the Dean Denigration factor is created by Media.

For supporters who have been involved in the campaign, we know what Deans candidacy is all about.

Its about community involvement and Americans connecting with each other, which is the only thing that will bring this country back.

I used to be more establishment per se, involved in all the big fundraisers and Dem receptions, and then after getting involved with the Dean campaign I began to see whats more important. Community. Governor Dean gets that as well.

[DrBB]

8. It's a "follow the money" thing

Been a couple of articles about this since the last Pres election. How the best money-raiser tends to get the most media attention, encouraging more money to flow to him, followed by more media attention, etc etc.

There's no question Dean has been THE story--the guy from outside, the internet thing, and of course the stupid "he's angry!" meme. He's made good copy. And the more attention you get, the more attention you get.

Tonight's results do indicate some kind of bubble effect. I don't think people like having the media shove a candidate at them. In this case even worse, because at the same time they were showing Dean Dean Dean all the time, they were also saying "Angry, unelectable, can't carry the south, shoots from the hip" and all the rest of it. Like, "Here's your candidate--we've already decided, and here's why he doesn't have a chance!"

I actually think it may be good for him to be out from under that. He'll have lost some momentum, but he has been working much harder and longer than a lot of the candidates building his infrastructure in the upcoming states. FAR too soon to be writing off Dr Dean, IMO.

[Fleshdancer]

9. no. it was the grassroots effort early on

3200 people at Plaza Santillo in Austin TX last June when Dean was still considered an unknown was not created by the media. Hell, it was barely even reported. His Summer tour that drew hundreds, if not thousands of people to rallies in cities all across the country was not created by the media.

The media finally looked in Dean's direction the moment the campaign started raising big money. By then, the phenomenon was already well on its way.

[maggrwaggr]

11. Wrong.

Dean is a true phenomenon. I gave him money! I've never given a candidate money ever in my life. How do you think he raised all that private money?

By striking a nerve.

It wasn't the media, it was the message.

The media's been bashing the shit out of him lately. How 'bout that Newsweek cover story "Doubts about Dean?"

[goodhue]

12. most certainly

I never thought otherwise. I blame Doonesbury, Newsweek and the ever-gullible New York Times. Very much like McCain in 2000, who's surge was similarly created quite literally by the media bandwagon.

[oasis]

13. The media also said the nomination was "Dean's to lose". And he lost it.

"sit Down". "Is Osama guilty?" "I know the bible" "cockroaches" etc.

[Raya]

14. Seem that word came down from High Up to give Dean a lot of coverage

Some was positive, some negative. But it all boosted his general recognition and the sence on inevitability that drives national poll numbers.

[youngred]

17. That is very very true

which is why all the Dean supporters complaining about how the media hates Howard is so mystifying to me. Dean was made through grass roots organization and a kind media. Live by the sword, die by the sword however

[bhunt70]

19. well spoken from a kucinich supporter...

who doesn't get his just-do from the media.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

20. I don't think so

"The Media" is not how I came to be a Dean supporter, and I don't think I know anyone who supports him that picked him because he was on TV a lot. In my case, a friend told me to visit his website and check out his positions. He said a lot of things I agreed with and I appreciated his intelligence. That was what warmed me up to him. Almost all the other Dean supporters I know came to him the same way.

I know I'm probably alone in this, but I don't really give The Media much credit when it comes to either building up or tearing down individual candidates. When I read in the august pages of Democratic Underground's forums that Dean is simply a media creation and his supporters back him because they are all sheep who believe everything Paula Zahn says, I have to laugh, This argument is, to my thinking, no different from when Bill O'Reilly blames "the liberal media".

If the media creation argument was true, then how to explain Kerry's surge? The media has completely ignored him.

Basically, I don't think the media made Dean who he is any more than I think they're tearing him down now. It would be nice to have a single entity to blame (or thank) for these things, but life is more complicated than that.

[Southsideirish]

21. Media destroyed Gore and now Dean - your guy will be next.

They, in league with their owners, and the RNC will do everything they can to prevent a Dem from ever gaining office again. Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough admitted this last night - that the media waged a months long campaign to discredit Howard Dean.

[mandyky]

22. Dean and media coverage

only happened when they could not ignore him anymore. 3 quarters running he raised more money and had huge crowds etc. Except for CSpan none of the media is really covering issues, they're covering the horse race. The debates really don't cover issues seriously, because with 10 people running at on time, 1 minute each is not enough the even start addressing an issue. And then most debates turned out to be subject du jour and not real issues facing our country.