Noticing Media trying to trash Clark as VP

[jpgpenn]

Woodfruff for the second straight day has been trying to undermine Clark as VP. The past 2 days she has put out in great detail Clinton pushing the bigwigs of the Dem party to appoint Clark as VP.

I also seen Woodruff gleefully praise Gillespie when he said "Cheney was the best VP this country has every seen". Her reply was something to the effect of "if anyone would know such a thing it would be you".

First they did everything possible to destroy Clark's presidential run, now they are doing everything possible to destroy his VP run.

I predict a major carreer shakeup for these anchors so willing to do what they can to help *Bush and company when Kerry and company take over!

[NV1962]

1. I noticed that too

I was interviewed towards the end of last week, presumably on Wes Clark's positions, but when the interview took place it turned out to be an ambush on the SOA.

There *is* an orchestrated effort to weaken anyone who looks like a strong and "dangerous" adversary for Bush in these elections.

Before, I saw Dr Dean as a perfect candidate for HHS - now I'm looking sympathetically at the idea of him replacing Powell's offspring, kicking serious butt at the FCC, delivering on his promise to tear the dangerous media corporations apart.

[asjr]

3. Woodruff, Crowley and

Schneider are the wicked triumverate.

[jpgpenn]

4. make that all CNN

It comes right from the top! CNN= Crooked News Network!

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. She's a damn WENCH!

She needs to just shut up!

I hope all their asses get fired when a Dem is elected. They have been complicit in letting the PNAC further their agenda and haven't had the guts to stand up to this fascist regime. Pink slips for ALL of them! Let's hire Michael Moore, Al Franken, Joe Conason, David Corn, Donahue, Bill Press, ect... to replace them! I would LOVE to see the whiny ass repukes crying over a TRUE "Liberal" media. I'd LOVE to see Faux News put out of business too! Man I hate the media! :grr:

[AP]

5. That study that everyone was citing yesterday showed that the media was

actually extremely kind ot Clark in January. His problem wasn't the quality of reporting. It was the quantity. That's a problem too. However, the page in the study which showed Clark's support said, I believe, "Clark: the secret favorite" -- which is a way of combining the problem for him and the advantage.

[jpgpenn]

6. and how does this relate to what WoodRUFF said?

[AP]

8. It relates to what the poster above said about media treatment of Clark.

I think NPR was really nasty to Clark when he announced, and I argued that here.

That study, however, said that Clark, although not getting a lot of press, got VERY GOOD press in January.

[jpgpenn]

10. well since i didn't see this said study...

I can offer what I SEEN. Clark was trash, ignored words taken out of context and all the other lowerbellied tactics you see whan the media is trying to smear someone beyond mention!

It was like this from beginning to end. What ever study you are quoting they can stick it where the sun don't shine!

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. He got NO PRESS.

They completely ignored him. If he happened to get a quick little blurb on a network and it was "positive", so what! He was rarely given a mention. Remember the week following NH??? I DO! They ignored him EVEN though he came in 3rd AHEAD of Edwards. Remember OK??? I DO! They spent the ENTIRE WEEK ignoring HIM AND HIS WIN in OK...NOT a TIE with Edwards, A WIN....and a 2nd in NM, ND and AR........AWESOME showing! yet, all we saw was Kerry, Edwards, Kerry, Edwards, Kerry Edwards! Please. LOOK at how they are NOW reacting to an Edwards 2nd place in Wisconsin...Va.....and Tn.! NO Comparison to how Clark was treated! :grr: Deliberate and the whole thing SUCKS! :grr:

[Skwmom]

9. The study is a piece of crap.

I watched the coverage of Clark and it was anything but kind. They either ignored him or smeared him.

[NV1962]

12. Sure

It refers to their tracking of a few mainstream media during the month of January; it also shows that the Wall Street Journal was negative on the General. So what?

The point of that study wasn't to prove or point out how "positive" the selected mainstream media were overall towards Clark, but about the counter-popular coverage of the overall Dem campaigns, with an arguable exception (Clark) in those observed media confirming their overall correct "rule."

Having said that: Drudge isn't "mainstream" yet a brief look around here, on DU, shows the extent of the impact of smear campaigns, that obviously aren't launched by / from mainstream media as formal editorial policy, but by the operatives "out there" - and Judy Buttscruff is simply one other example of a consistent embedded piece of... work.

There's no "conflict" of sorts between what you assert and the topic here.

[democratreformed]

14. Another thing I have learned from all this is that you can find a study

to support just about anything you want just like you can find a poll to support just about anything as well.

[West Coast Democrat]

7. Just means he's a top pick for the nomination

Keep your fingers crossed!!

[w4rma]

11. Clark WILL be in the next administration, I hope.

Whether as a cabinet member or as VP. So, we all need to protect his rep, IMHO.

[bravejet69]

15. The Media (because of Bush) doesn't want Clark near the White House

No matter in what capacity. Whether it be VP, or Sec. of State, or Sec. of Defence, or where ever. They have done everything they could to discredit General Clark, and no one in this Administration is worthy to polish his boots.

Judy Woodruff is pathetic. It almost looked like she had a thing for General Clark and she didn't get the time of day from him. I only hope the Democrats come out in full force to support our candidate in November. Maybe then we can get this country headed in the right direction.