I'm now inclined to believe that the news media isn't the problem

[dolstein]

I see some people are still fantasizing about having George Soros assemble a liberal television network to carry the Democratic Party message.

But Rahm Emanuel's dismal appearance on Meet the Press is just another reminder that the Democrats have yet to master, in the way that Republicans have, a coordinated message strategy. Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder whether the networks and cable news shows are as hostile towards the Democrats as people have claimed, or whether it merely appears that way because the Republicans simply manipulate the media far more effectively than we do. Sure, Fox News is never going to let our message through regardless. But our problem isn't Fox -- our problem is that we're getting our asses kicked on CNN and the major networks.

Just how hard IS it to come up with a set of daily talking points and recruit surrogates who have the displine to remain on message. The lack of message discipline was, in my opinion, devastating to the Kerry campaign. When watching the cable shows, I always knew what the Bush campaign reps were going to say, but the Kerry surrogates were all over the map. Joe Lockhardt was one of the only people in the Kerry campaign who I found to be a consistently effective surrogate, but obviously he couldn't be everywhere at once.

Unfortunately, it appears that the pattern is continuing. On social security, the Bush administration and its surrograntes have their talking points ready and they are already pounding away relentlessly. But despite being overwhelmingly united against private accounts, the Democrats have yet to formulate a sound-byte ready message to counter the administration's efforts.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. No no no, the media is still a BIGGER problem.

[oscar111]

9. WRONG!! Limbaugh has 18hrs/wk.:You forgot that influence on Joe Citizen

tv is less than half of the media influence, if even that.

Average Joe probably does not watch many sunday pundit shows, but radio plays in the background in many workplaces. Yes, it does.

Limbaugh has hours to put across ideas in detail. Pundit shows allow long soundbites at most .

Our ideas are now a bit strange to millions, so we need HOURS to put across detailed evidence.

Only AAR can do that.

PS i agree with you, our pundits need to pilgramage to CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS, and practice debate. CAP... remember that place. Our answer to Heritage.

Get DNC and the disappearing AFLCIO to massively fundraise to subsidize AAR.. or DNC's own clone of it.. but have the clone never compete with AAR. We cannot waste resources now.

[SemperEadem]

62. Exactly.. the influence of rw radio is the problem

RW talk radio is the lullaby of the cult; it lulls their listeners into a stupor-trance from which they cannot awaken. When the listener switches off the radio and goes and turns on the TV, they cannot process the blatant lies being put forth because of the mind-control they're under from the talk radio. TV is viewer/sponsorship dependent, so if those tuning in are already under the influence of RW talk radio, they're not going to watch shows which don't continue the cacaphony being broadcast on the radio. Businesses aren't going to advertise on a TV station that is turning off viewers with what they see.

Talk radio needs to be far more balanced--there are too many RW shows on and not nearly enough strong, liberal advocacy radio programs on with a cogent and irrefutable message about why it's better that we have opposing viewpoints on the air. It's turning into a Red State--and by that, I mean it's taking on the shape and sound of communism, but instead of it being an atheistic communism, it's a theocratic communism, which is far more dangerous when you consider history and religious wars of the past.

[vpigrad]

2. What you call "a coordinated message strategy,"

I call lack of thinking. Unlike the repukes, the party is made-up of independent people that do their own thinking. A group of smart people will never have the same exact message. A group of mindless idiots spoonfed by their churches and by the media and by Rove will have the same message because they are unable to think for themselves. Be thankful that we are the party of thinkers.

[dolstein]

5. Keep telling yourself that when the GOP has reshaped society

in its own image. Sure, they may succeed in destroying what's left of the New Deal and Great Society. But at least WE have a party of independent thinkers.

Yeah, some consolation . . .

[Nite Owl]

3. This is just what I tried to tell

the dem strategist poster that was on DU. The media is going to follow the story but the dems have to make the news. If they sit there and agree or slightly disagree with the repukes there is no story. The dems we got going on the news programs seem to miss every chance that they are given to make something a story. Call * a liar? Nope can't do that, wouldn't be 'nice'. Stop being so nice, it doesn't make news. Answer a question the way they want to get in certain points.

[purduejake]

8. What we need to do is....

stop being so damned polite in how we talk about the criminals in office. The dem leaders just don't call stuff for what it is and then take a beating without even trying to fight back. Some may dismiss it as mud slinging, but people want leaders who stand up for what they believe in or can at least clearly state why they hate Shrub so much. I'm not even willing to vote for the dems next time unless some drastic changes are made. I want somebody to stick up for me and say what I want to hear!

edit: clarity

[Nite Owl]

16. Exactly

they may call it mudslingling but they want to see that has the guts to fight because then they will fight for them too. I really think that that is the way it translates.

[bliss_eternal]

24. Yes, EXCELLENT!

Not to knock anyone that likes this guy, but I lost a LOT of respect for Dean because of his inability to call Bush on his racist, sexist bigoted behaviour.

I can't (and won't) support anyone that doesn't call them as they see them HONESTLY.

[ldf]

25. huh?

you post to trash the one democratic candidate who tried to be honest?

hmmmm.

:think:

[bliss_eternal]

50. I don't see how my choice

to disagree with his stance that shrub does not hate gays, and isn't racist.

Maybe you should re-read what I said.

Trashing is a strong term. I stated one thing that I didn't like about him, I don't think that could be construed as 'trashing' an individual.

[purduejake]

48. I think Dean is a good guy, though.

He does say a lot, at least from what I've seen and heard at the Democracy for America meetups I've been to.

[bliss_eternal]

51. I didn't say he wasn't a good guy...

...sorry to the originator of this thread. I didn't intend for my comment to take things off topic.

:)

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Actually this is not a mesaging or the media

it is all part and parcel of it.

We do need a message central, (Rockridge may become that)

We do need message discipline... go over to the frame the debate and use some of those frames. Use them consistently, it is not only to our leaders by the way.

It is the media... those who think it is not, just need to read The Republican Noise Machine and realize this all comes from a little known memo called the Powell Memo.

Oh and it is the BBVs problem, it does nto matter who votes but who counts the vote.

We are facing a multi pronged attack and trying to find a single solution will not help you.

By the way, speaking of the media, they are not the mainstream media, they are the stenography corp.

[Leilani]

6. Agree with la lot of what you said.

The Dems media strategy & message has been abysmal.

Republicans have, for a long time, held a daily strategy meeting each AM. They decide the message of the day & hand it out to all their surrogates & mouthpieces. After being repeated hundreds of times, no wonder people remember it.

Perhaps the worst example of Repubs vs Dems message strategies was during the conventions. Kerry's convention was covered by wall-to-wall Republican talking heads, each parroting each other, However during the Repub convention, there was a giant silence from the Dems. That left the media pundits free to interpret & repeat Their speaking pts.

When raising this criticism, I was told the media doesn't INVITE the Dems to respond. Do people think the other side waits for hand-engraved invitations?

[Career Prole]

7. Hmmm...we went to war over a "threat" which never existed then the guy

who did this says no one will be held accountable because he won the election, and he's not being taken to task for it in the media.
Nope. That ain't a message problem, it's a media problem and that's just one example of many.

[KJMagic]

10. It is the media because...

The media controls the frames... he who controls the frames controls the majority. That simple.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. Yes, but Dems did appear in the MSM before the war, and

how many of them called Bush a liar and a warmonger? How many expressed support for the protestors? :shrug:

How many said, "I support the president"? :-(

[KoKo]

11. Be careful the DU "Swat Team" will come after you...

for suggesting that some Dem reps who appears in the MSM might need a little help getting their message organized. Just remember, that our folks are trying desperately "NOT" to be like "them." And, they really do the best they can and we shouldn't expect them to be able to be better than what we see. They are just learning, and everyone has a "bad day" now and then...it's just that we are always looking for them to fail because some of us just "hate" Democrats. :eyes:

Just passing that along...in case you need to pull your "flameproof suit" out of the closet. :D

[Kahuna]

33. Our guys, when answering a question should first ask themselves..

what would the repukes say. And assert the Dem talking points (which we don't have yet :eyes:) something and stick to it, absolutely the repukes do. The dems though just sit there like polite little lambs, afraid of their own shadows. And they actually must think that people are actually impressed with them because they are being so polite. :mad:

[meppie-meppie not]

12. I think the media IS a big problem and I think what we

witnessed was another Democrat pandering to them to ensure a call back to be on their network again. We need Soros to form a new network for the left so that our representatives can speak freely without fear that they'll be black listed by doing so.

[No Exit]

13. Maybe they're not, but I reserve the right to despise them,

I mean, all one has to do is watch about 5 minutes of cable news to get that nauseated feeling all over again. For example:

I just watched the last part of Keith Olbermann's show, and after Keith was over, I saw:
"Coming up! MSNBC Reports. With Pat Buchanan. (Cut to face of Junior saying something about his "faith".) Has the line between church and state been crossed? And... saving Social Security! All, coming up on MSNBC!"

I can sum up in 5 seconds the entire content of this sorry program: President Bush, Social Security is a WHOLE LOT more "saved" than YOU'RE ever gonna be!

[unblock]

14. you are presuming that a democratic hardliner would get invited back

i agree that the democratic party would be well served to spoon-feed our message, make it easy to have find a relevant spokesperson, etc. the way the banana republicans do.

however, the media still has a lot of say in who they invite back, and most dems know that they can't get away with saying what some of us would like them to say. they also know that the banana republicans can target ANY of the dems for early retirement by pouring in national cash into a district-level campaign.

to counter this, dems need to be organized, stick together, and speak as one. you can't blame any particular democrat for the fact that we don't have this.

[oscar111]

19. AAR and GORETV needed for getting invited back

that solves the problem you raised.

Use kerry's leftover campaign millions for setting up more AAR and beginning GORETV.

Was it 18 million?

[NYCGirl]

31. Gore TV is not a news station, it is a "youth-oriented" channel

Here are some of the planned programs:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45826-2005Jan3.html

[NYCGirl]

15. I can't believe I'm agreeing with Dolstein. Must be a holiday or something

:evilgrin:

The media is a problem, but not because it's especially biased (Fox being an exception), but because newspeople have gotten away for a long time with being incredibly lazy. The White House puts out its talking points, and it's much easier to parrot them than rock the boat and have to work for a living.

It's really all dictated by money (ratings), and if the Democratic Party would start standing up and saying the things it stands for in really compelling ways, I think the media would be there.

[sendero]

27. I know....

... I've locked horns with Dolstein more than once. But he is dead correct about this.

Dems better learn the art of fiery oratory and they'd better learn it quick. Those who are afraid of "being targeted" really should just go away and let a patriot take their job.

[itzamirakul]

53. I think the media IS biased and that

that is its MAJOR problem. There are no checks and balances apparent in any of the news comments that are favorable to the administration or to rw ideologies. There is no non-biased "other side" from the tv talking head. There is constant promotion of issues and policies that Bush wants to enact.

And let's not forget how many of these media people have
ArmstrongWilliam-ized themselves and so CANNOT speak anything but the party talking points. Even if, deep inside, they REALLY WERE Democrats, most if not all, have been bought and paid for. Not just with contracts like Williams, but with gifts, trips, favors....etc. So how could they be expected to report the unbiased news? To report Both sides?

There are no more effective "compelling ways" to prove a point that honest TRUTH. A LIE is a LIE is a LIE..and all the Democratic centrist calling of it as "misguided" does not make it less of a LIE. It merely serves to make us appear WEAK by portraying our politicans and leaders as WEAK.

Also, we need to consider the fact that many TV news personalities now make MORE money than the Bush and his crew. The talking heads and pundits are saving an awful lot from Bush's tax cuts and gaining a lot from investments through his other favorable deregulations and issues to benefit the rich. Why the hell would they even be INTERESTED in telling the TRUTH?

[ooglymoogly]

17. if you cannot see that tim russert is a pug whore

or that most corporate media is magnetically charged to the right, you are not watching the news. rom emanuel was too easy of a target. it was like taking candy from a baby for fussert. oh gee do ya think...but that is the way it is these days on cable news. bush cheated fair and square so get over it. we are going to spin every syllable every question mark every scandal in favor of the pugs and our glorious fuhrer so get over it, that is the new mantra of most newscasters. so you better take a closer look.

[Kahuna]

35. Russert is a pub whore and all dems ought to know that by now..

And they should make it their business to be prepared for Tim, and know how to make Tim back down.

General Clark figured Tim out, and knew how to make him back off. Even Kerry knew how to do it. The secret is, to first anticipate how Tim will try to embarrass or trap you. And, that Tim is going to bring up press releases that you should know about. But what you have to do, it to cite facts that Tim is unaware of. Tim gets befuddled and afraid of looking like he is not in control of the facts and will then back down.

[grasswire]

18. the problem now is three-fold.

1. Media
2. Lack of message control or spine among Dems
3. Pugs are now operating outside any restraints of civility, integrity, or honor.

I'm not sure rank and file Democrats have yet understood that Republicans are now engaging in "nuclear" actions to force their ideology on the people. Bribes, entrapment, gutter politics, political blackmail, fearmongering in Congress -- all of these and more are now in the repertoire.

Unthinkable acts: stealing documents from the computers of Senate Judiciary members. Holding votes open longer while Senators are beaten up to change their vote. Calling Capitol police to break up a meeting of Democrat representatives. Lying. Slander.

And then think about the massacre of CBS.

We're in uncharted territory. Dems had better start thinking strategically.

[oscar111]

21. add VOTETHEFT MACHINES to the list.. republican vote machines

and election theft

[Al-CIAda]

61. Agreed! eom

[terry4kerry]

20. maybe it is both

Unfortunately, I don't think the answer is pointed in one direction. I agree, I think it is the Republicans are extremely manipulative and that message seduces the media. I have a feeling that the Dem's are so surprised that anyone would fall for this BS, that it leaves them not knowing how to respond. It probably leaves them speechless because you start to try and understand the irrational message, that can just tie you up in knots. I think what is even more amazing are that people actually "buy it."

[oscar111]

23. 60 RW radio hrs/wk, adding in o'reilly, hannity, local wannabes to Rush

that is the real media problem

we need more AAR stations

[Jim__]

22. If you couldn't see the difference between the way Russert

talked to bush's boy and the way he talked to Emanuel, you weren't paying attention. If every time you open your mouth, the interviewer contradicts you, you're not going ot come off looking good. The media is definitely part of the problem.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. Then anyone who goes on Timmy's show needs to be prepared to

say, "Stop interrupting me, damn it!"

[sendero]

26. You are absolutely correct...

....Dems are afraid of making a dramatic statement, and the media is only interest in dramatic statements.

Dems are afraid of using blunt, coarse descriptions of the shortcomings of their opponents, Repubs are not.

The media is about getting viewers and the Reps are much better at giving them red meat than the Dems. It is as simple as that.

(sure there is some bias, but it could be overcome in no time if we just had a few firebrands instead of a team of milquetoasts)

[w4rma]

28. Sinclair. Clear Channel. AOL(CNN). Rupert Murdoch. Rev. Moon. GE. (nt)

[Time for change]

29. The media is the problem

Personally, I think that in general Democrats do a better job on TV of sounding knowledgeable and sincere than Republicans. Bush himself is the prime example of a Republican idiot who never makes any sense except sometimes when he reads his speeches word for word. But the media never hold his feet to the fire.

[Kahuna]

30. The media IS pro bush, IMHO, but that doesn't excuse the Dem's

lack of message. This has been discussed over and over and over. They seem incapable of getting it together. The only thing I can come up with it must be an ego thang. Otherwise, I cannot begin to explain it. :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

32. I think that the media is gigantic part of the problem.....

In that several types of news organizations work in unison....in a "not quite total" method of collusion.

The corporate media stands to gain as long as the "Free market" boys are running the show...and so they "do what they can".

IT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS.

If you think that General Electric in the form of MSnbc, NBC, CBNBC, Newsweek...

And Time-Warner in the form of CNN and Time Magazine,

And Disney, and Viacom, and Fox News, and Sinclair, and Clear Channel,

And the Washington Times, and the New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal, and the Economics, and Forbes, USA Today,

and even The "poor" New York Times and WAPO....and the most important dissiminator of news, AP Wire story.

aren't determining what our news will be and what the message is.....

then there's little to say.

I understand that the Dems have to call them on it....but please know that these news Orgs are holding the microphone, and they decide how loud the voice heard will be.

There can be a great breaking story in the New York Times...but if the cable or network folks don't talk about it, the story disappears into the fold. Radio will take whatever story they want highlighted and talk about it until TeeVee picks up on it....and then it heads to print. Shortly after AP spreads it everywhere....it the story, and nothing can stop it then......as you can be sure it will eventually end up in the weekly Newsweek and Times.

Example:
New York post publishes a story stating that Hillary Clinton is overheard to say she will run in an opinion column (which means no facts are required).

Rush & et al talk about it throughout the day.

Fox picks up on it in the afternoon.

CNN in the late afternoon...

and MSNBC that evening on Hardball or Joe Scarabrough.

The next day, Washington Times and The Wall street journal run with the story....
and MSNBC on line gives us the "Newsweek" special article on it.

Then Fineman, who writes for Newsweek shows up on MSNBC News being interviewed about it. News source interviewing news sources.....

CNN has Sneider come on with a poll showing H. Clinton winning over other dem candidates in a "imaginary matchup" (they forget to tell you their polling methods).

Two days later article written by WAPO columnist who also has a show on CNN.....repeats the information.

AP picks it up and dissiminates to all of the papers that buys from them (several hundreds, at least).....

The New York Times is finally compelled to run the article...and then networks must start talking about the story by then.....

The deed is done....and in fact there is not stopping it from here on in.
------------------------------
Is it possible for the Dems to be heard a little clearer? Yeah, but always remember who is holding the microphone. The strategy has to be deliberate and clear. That's how tough that fight will be. To get through to the people, the Dems will have to declare "war" on the media....something most are just too afraid to do...because there is no guarantee how effective it would be. The Dems have to work in Unison and no one can break from the line of scrimmage.

Some of us can deny it, but the media has us by the balls....and they are not about to let go. Understand that and attempt to plan based upon it. Like....don't believe anything you see or hear brought to you by Corporate media.

[itzamirakul]

57. FrenchieCat; This is one heck of a good post and

I think you should send a copy of it over to PDAmerica (Progressive Democrats of America) so they can post it or make reference to it. And especially so that they can help explain our concerns to any of our politicians who still listen to us-the grassroots.

You should consider sending short articles like this to Common Dreams and Buzzflash. They often publish short pieced from their readers and it would give you a wider audience. Exactly what we need.

[Hippo_Tron]

34. Joe Lockhardt was awesome, for the 2 months that he ran the campgin

Had Kerry demoted Shrum to a speechwriting job and hired Lockhardt, Carvile, and Begala in March instead of September, Kerry would be President of the United States.

On to the bigger point of national news media, I think the bottom line is that they want to sell a story instead of being real journalists. Faux news is obviously right-wing bullshit. CNN has liberal, conservative, and inbetween viewers. Thus, CNN has a different approach, DON'T ask any tough questions and DON'T piss anybody off. In a nutshell, DON'T have any real journalism. That way people of all leanings think that they can "trust CNN" when they watch Wolf Blitzer and Judy Whoredruff. The only real journalist that they have on that network is Lou Dobbs and the only reason he's there is either ratings or because soembody at Time Warner likes him.

[w4rma]

36. AOL owns CNN. That should clue one onto their agenda. (nt)

[Hippo_Tron]

39. Actually Time Warner merged with AOL

I'd imagine that the Time Warner portion has more control over the AOL portion than the other way around considering the fact that AOL doesn't make any money.

[w4rma]

45. Also, Ted Turner has been gone forever and his former buisness partners

are riech-wingnuts (and backstabbers). So the ownership is between Fundie-run AOL and Turner's former buisness partners who are known right-wingers.

[Hippo_Tron]

59. Very true, CNN was much better under Ted Turner

Too bad he's gone.

[KoKo]

40. Joe Lockheart was the best! We need a couple more like him...

sadly...they don't seem to be out there to help.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. Lockhardt, Begala, and Carville are all great, Kerry decided to hire Shrum

Gore did the same. Kerry didn't win and Gore's margin of victory was close enough to have the election stolen from him. Clinton won in a landslide. I think that Carville, Begala, and Lockhardt all had something to do with it.

[KnowerOfLogic]

37. *Both* the media and Dem incompetance are the problem. nt

[welshTerrier2]

38. message discipline, the platform and the media

when statements are made that the Democratic Party doesn't "stand for anything", I think the motivation for such statements is often the erratic presentation of ideas coming from one Democrat or another in a haphazard manner ... we are a Party that is pro-life and pro-choice ... we are a Party that is anti-war and supportive of a military solution in Iraq ... we are a Party that supports labor but also supports NAFTA and the WTO ...

many of these send unclear, inconsistent messages ...

so i absolutely agree with your call for "message discipline" ... unlike the republicans, Democrats "allow" their candidates to define their own stances on issues ... to some degree, this may be necessary ... but every Democratic candidate should be thoroughly schooled in the Party's core values and positions ... every candidate should understand that "central Party themes" lift all boats and that too much individuality weakens the core message ...

and while we're on the subject of a central Party message, what should the source of the Party's core values and its platform be? I'd like to see a much more open process ... i'm concerned that the current process remains in the full control of "party insiders" ... the intent of my call for a wide open platform referendum is to open up the general directions and themes of the Party ... specific wording of the platform and the development of strategic talking points in support of the central platform is work best left to skilled Party operatives ...

one last minor point ... the fact that many of the Democrats' communication problems may be of their own doing does not at all absolve problems we have with the mainstream media ... increased centralization, the profit motive of news divisions and the dumbing down of news does not work to our advantage ...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. I can't believe I'm agreeing with dolstein!

Dems may have few opportunities to get their message out in the mass media, but I've seen too many occasions in which they've squandered the opportunities they get.

If I were a billionaire, I'd send all the Senate and Congressional Dems for assertiveness training and simulations in which they would learn to deal with rightwing blowhards.

Congressional and Senate Dems also need to make better use of their trips home, seeking ways to get their message into their local media.

[BlueInRed]

46. Me too!

I was just about to post the same thing!

[kentuck]

47. Yep. I tend to agree with dolstein on this one...

We have to have spokesman that are ready to speak up for our side - we can't depend on the media to do it for us.

[whirlygigspin]

49. so many people agreeing with Dolstein

what are the odds??? i'm going out to buy a lotto ticket-

this must be a sign of apocalipse.

[rman]

55. but does it mean the media are NOT a problem?

that's what dolstein is asserting.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. I don't read that in his assertions at all

I think that our side is not as media savvy as the Republicanites, who years ago signed on the most ruthless advertising and marketing types to coach their candidates and media figures in propaganda techniques.

Very occasionally you see a Dem who gets the best of a rightwing interviewer, but most of them look sadly unprepared and are reduced to stammering or agreeing with the Repubicanite.

As I've said before, if I were wealthy, I'd put the whole House and Senate through assertiveness training and an intensive seminar in propaganda techniques.

And even if the national media are hopeless, Congresscritters and Senators still have pretty much automatic access to their local media. They need to learn how to control their own message as they are being interviewed.

[BlueInRed]

58. I took it as

we need to be media savvy to capitalize on the few opportunities we do get in the MSM.

I think we have 2 probs - the MSM and a unified message. If MSM wasn't a problem, the unified message wouldn't be so important, but with only a few opportunities to get heard, we need to be on message for our major priorities 100% of the time.

[formernaderite]

52. Agreed...but if we just promote democratic insiders....

...who are less about philosophy than a career job, we'll continue to hear a weak message.

Simply put, they have no passion and all you're left with is twisting in the wind. Rahm has spoken out of both sides of his mouth, which is why the press can simply replay his statements. He's typical of the career pol who simply states what he thinks sounds best at the moment for his own advancement.

We need NEW blood in Washington. I'm tired of listening to the same spiel from people who've lived in DC for so long, they only recognize the echo chamber of political repitition and expediency.

[ArkDem]

54. There aren't enough 'smart people' to support a liberal

TV network.

[sendero]

60. This is ...

... communications 101 but not only do Dems politicians not get it, most folks here don't get it either.

Want media attention? SAY SOMETHING ATTENTION-WORTHY.

Long-winded erudite policy wonk crap won't cut it and neither will half-heated denunciations.

Sure, I'm taking the pragmatist view. It would be nice if Americans cared about the nuances of issues - BUT THEY DON'T. DEAL WITH IT.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

63. I blame the Dems and the media. n/t