I am still pissed how the media blocked Edwards

[blues90]

And I'll never , ever trust campaigns ever again . This was an abomination and to be forced to choose with what is left makes me ill .

It seems like a year ago already this happened , and what is yet to come is sickening at best .

The damn media has to be broken to pieces and rebuilt , all of it from local news to national news because it's not news it's a mass form of brainwashing . All of these abominable useless talking heads and flying graphics .

I would not doubt that soon the anchors will be computer generated like the commericals are without real people , not the the clones they project now are real people in any real sense .

[BeyondGeography]

1. Iowans blocked Edwards

[PresidentObama]

2. Not really. He was in second place, ahead of the national frontrunner at that time.

Iowa gave him an opportunity.

Unfortunately, the next contest was in a state Edwards message didn't play well. So his momentum kind of died off from there.

[BeyondGeography]

4. That too

But, really, with Clinton and Obama in this race, Edwards' only hope was to knock out one of the two. Failing that, it ultimately came down to not having any access to the black vote for him; Clinton and Obama were always going to lock that up. He was boxed into white working class voters and those (comparatively few) educated people who preferred him over the other two frontrunners.

Bad hand for Edwards...the media had next-to-nothing to do with it.

[jackson_dem]

7. Ultimately that became the case after the msm designated Obama as the front runner's sole challenger

Hillary winning New Hampshire marked the effective end for his chances. Iowa was a severe blow but by finishing second he had a chance if it somehow came down to Obama vs. Edwards. When Hillary won New Hampshire it was over, in retrospect. That meant it would be Hillary and Obama the rest of the way.

The black vote did hurt him to a degree nationally. He was competitive with Obama among whites and Latinos but got killed among blacks. If that weren't the case his poll numbers would have been equal to or very close to Obama's and that would have changed the complexion of the race. Where it did fatally damage him was South Carolina. After New Hampshire a win in South Carolina could have resurrected him but anyone who followed polling knew he had no shot there because he never got higher than 5% with blacks. The populist man with a 97% lifetime NAACP rating who won 37% of the black vote in 2004 in South Carolina got only 1% this time while Obama got 78%. His share of the white vote declined too, but only from 53% to 40%. He still won the white vote there but got only 1/37 the black vote he received just four years ago. That was all she wrote, as well as surely humiliating to Edwards since it relegated him to a weak third in his birth state. He had been able to get more black support he could have won South Carolina.

[BeyondGeography]

13. None of which has anything to do with the media

Every time my candidate lost, I blamed it on the media, too.

Eventually, you learn that the media is never the main reason why.

[jackson_dem]

15. You don't believe the msm influences fund raising?

[BeyondGeography]

18. Yes, but results and reality influence donors far more

[readmoreoften]

98. And where do people get their notions "reality" and "results" from? The MSM.

Only 4% of Americans get their information from blogs. 96% of Americans get their information from the MSM. Unless you know a candidate personally, take part in every siege in every battle of every war, and meet with all the prime ministers yourself, your so-called 'reality' is media-managed. Period. End of story. Your books, your magazines, your news broadcasts, your newspapers: all decided by 5 for-profit corporations who are not bound by any law to tell the truth--this has been proved in court. The news is entertainment programming. Period.

A study done by Beverly Hawk showed that politicians based much of their foreign policy decisions from what they read in the MSM. The reporters for mainstream news outlets, unable to speak local languages, tend not to venture far for their stories and often rely on the same information sources as all the other sources--much of the time they read what has already been published (and hence is acceptable for a US audience) and regurgitate what already exists. Worse still, they consult politicians for input. Those politicians then consult the media to make decisions and are pleased to find that they (surprise!) are in total agreement. In other words, the MSM and the "real" political world is not much more than an enormous feedback loop.

Edwards was shut out because the various companies had political and/or financial stakes in other candidates. Because he was shut out of the MSM, he became a "loser" candidate in the eyes of the voters, who used to pick presidents the way they picked brands of toothpaste, but who now pick presidents the way they'd place bets on American Idol contestants at a Vegas casino.

Reality? I don't think so.

[blues90]

16. The media had everything to do with it

Iowa was a farse . here Obama had Oprah cheering him on and this was the Media which Oprah plays a huge part , she is the media .

Every single one of those Tv insane so called debates left out Edwards and Kucinich and placed Hillary and Obama front and center . The media planned this and made the setting .

They hit Hillary with insane questions like diamonds or pearls . What complete and utter crap the media is .

You can't rule out the media's roll in this no matter how you attempt to skew it . They make or break people on a daily basis .

It was the media that made Obama's Reagan statement vanish from sight .

[earth mom]

113. The media picked the candidates & made Edwards invisible. It was DISGUSTING to watch.

How anyone on DU can believe a word out of the mouth of anyone shilling for the corporate media just blows my mind.

Does anyone remember that the 2000 election was STOLEN?

Does anyone remember that the 2004 election was STOLEN TOO?!

Did the media report a god damn thing about it? HELL NO! Shit, the corporate media whores perpetuated the lies about the exit polls in 2004!!!

We've been blatantly LIED TO OUR FACES for years now and people are still buying into the crap that anything Faux or MSNBC or CNN says is worthy!

Remember what CBS did to their own Dan Rather?!!!

C'mon people, stop drinking the Kool Aid and WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!

[liberalla]

120. The media had everything to do with it!

I agree completely with you and the original poster! They didn't decide themselves, but they got their orders from the corporate owners (the PTB) and it was a done deal.

The kind of change we need is for the power to be placed in the hands of the people, not the corporate elite.

[karynnj]

8. He was essentially tied with HRC and 8 points behind Obama

The reason it was a hugh loss was that Edwards had spent far more time there than the other two and had concentrated his resources there. (even though he was greatly overspent) He had to blow out Iowa as he spent so much time there - other than the Carolina's it and WI were the states he did best in in 2004.

The problem was that nationally, if you look at Gallup - he stayed between 10 and 15 percent for 2006 and 2007 and into 2008. The gamble was to win Iowa and have the momentum that came from that help him in the other states. When the calendar was set - it looked very pro JRE with the addition of Nevada (with it's union) and SC, the only state Edwards won in 2004 (other than NC after Kerry had enough delegates for the nomination). Edwards NEVER got the support in the national polls or the number of people donating to him that HRC and Obama did.

The problem was not NH, it was that he had little support in NV and SC. Overall, he did less well than in 2004.

[jackson_dem]

11. At one point he reached the 20's (or at least 19% in aggregate polling)

His strongest point in the polls was also the most critical, the spring of 2007. The story line would be set based on early performance and he was very competitive with Obama in the polls at that time and had raised a healthy $14 million in the first quarter (contrast that to him raising $5 in the final quarter with the celebrities raising something like $30 million). Based on his performance he deserved a place in the story but there was an obvious decision in the msm to designate Obama as the sole challenger to Hillary. They did this as soon as he entered the race. Look at the coverage Obama got when he began running to the blip Edwards got when he announced. Obama was also practically drafted into the race by the msm. Nobody talked about him running in the middle of 2006. After the msm made it Hillary versus Obama it became a self-fullilling prophecy, he slipped to 10-15 in the polls and his fund raising suffered and ultimately his demise came due to a lack of funding, attributable to his poll numbers. He just didn't have the money to compete with a celebrity from a neighboring state who outspent him 6:1 in Iowa. As you noted he did focus his resources on Iowa. If he couldn't win there he had no shot at contending nationally, although I believe he could have won two or three states on Super Tuesday had he stayed in (at least Oklahoma).

[cali]

66. He was in a statistical tie with Clinton- .25% separated them.

He was 7 pts in back of Obama. He needed to win Iowa and he had the opportunity to do so. Iowa did not give him an opportunity. He lost it right there.

[Horse with no Name]

108. The lack of news coverage from his SECOND PLACE WIN

killed him. He needed the publicity because of his limited funds to accelerate his momentum. It wasn't forthcoming.
This entire process was a sham. Start to finish.
What we have had is nothing more than a high dollar dog-and-pony show. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[jackson_dem]

6. The msm blocked him

The reason he was so dependent on Iowa in the first place is the msm, which designated the two celebrities from the beginning even though Edwards was close to Obama in the polls early in 2007. Yet Obama received over six times as much coverage, and much of that Edwards coverage came not for his policies or campaign but for his wife's cancer announcement. The msm also influenced Iowa because the msm influenced the polls which meant all the fund raising went to the two celebrity candidates. Edwards was outspent 6:1 by Obama and lost by only 8 points. Had he had enough money to compete with the neighboring state senator he could have easily won Iowa, which would have led to at least a strong finish in New Hampshire instead of a distant third.

[Hieronymus]

3. It pisses me off, as well. The Corporate Media is running things.

[TheZug]

5. The media are what they are

It's a factor you have to deal with. It's like a football team complaining about it being too hot or too cold. It's football; you don't call off the game due to weather. This is the world we live in. Deal with it.

[blues90]

9. That's one of the most ignorant things I have read

Deal with it yet there is this enormous air of change blowing in the wind .

[TheZug]

65. Well, sorry

I think we would both agree on the many failings of the media, and I'm not unsympathetic toward Edwards. But handling the media is a vital part of a good campaign. "The media buried my guy" is not an excuse. Yeah, he had things going against him this year regarding the media, but he also had greater name recognition than Obama and a head start of several years.

[readmoreoften]

99. The media didn't bury him because he didn't have a good campaign.

The media buried him because he was a threat to their unelected power. All media power is concentrated into 5 mega corporations with a huge stake in who gets elected. If the media isn't serving the interests of the people because moneyed interests with a specific viewpoint own the information networks, then what we live in is no longer a democracy.

The 'media' isn't come abstract concept. It's the shareholders and CEOs of Disney/G.E., TimeWarner/AOL, Bertlesmann, Murdoch's NewsCorp, Viacom. If they are manipulating elections for their interest by shutting out anyone who challenges them, then we have no ability to stop them politically. They gave Edwards air time when he was more conservative. When he started working for the American people and not corporate America, that's when the coverage stopped.

[tbyg52]

112. But a) they did and b) they're *way* too centralized

The media conglomerates *must* be broken up. The country cannot function as the founders intended with this centralized, corporate media.

[casus belli]

10. You have to consider who he was rallying against....

I'm no media apologist, but it wouldn't make sense to expect that a candidate who rails against corporate gluttony would find a friend in a corporate machine like the MSM. I think there were several factors that played into his eventual decrease in viability. One was going up against a historical primary in which two history making candidates were given the lion's share of the limelight. Another factor, was that his rallying cry against corporate influence in Washington is never going to score points with the MSM which is, itself, part of that culture of corruption. I'm not saying he should have lightened up on his message, because I think his message is the reason why continues to enjoy so much support from voters. However, it could be argued that had he scaled back the message just a bit until he was actually in a position to act on his beliefs - or at the least a little closer to the nomination, he might not have had to endure the sort of blacklisting that he did by the MSM.

I think he's a great guy, and his message is right on. I hope he's given a role in the next administration.

[yy4me]

12. This race was not about the best person for the job, it was about

a black man and a white woman.

Both good people and both breaking the mold of white, male domination of presidential races. I am not overjoyed with either of them because of their lack of positive position. Where is the real "how to" talk? Non-existent. My feeling has nothing to do with race or gender.

The word is message. Edwards had it for me. I was very upset when he suspended his campaign. Now I have to vote for either of the Dem's and I'd rather have someone else.

[saracat]

26. I agree. And Edwards wasn't the horse race they wnated to cover.

This isn't about the best person for the job . This is about skin tone and gender. Elizabeth edwards had the guts to say it months ago, and she was right.They can F88ck themselves with their so called historic vote. And now, it is obvious MSM amd the PTB have chosen their candidate. They can screw this country without my vote.

[flyarm]

35. "They can screw this country without my vote."

and without my vote as well..i will not chose betten worse and worse.

no thanks ..i will sit out this dance! its a farse.

fly

[pauldg0]

63. You know, I feel the same way....

....Edwards ought to come back in a new party called the "Original Democratic Party" or the "Real Democratic Party". He could make a statement.

Al Gore likes him. The "New Hampshire for Gore" group endorsed him, so maybe they could go into the upcoming Democratic National Convention and flip the thing upside down. After all, it is a bitch that those other two are doing nothing for their platforms. All they do is bitch at each other....no substance and all. At least Edwards had substance.

[Yukari Yakumo]

103. Oh please...

Edwards was phonier than a $20 Rolex. He went where the polls told him to go. Edwards has absolutely no substance at all.

The people quickly figured that out and dumped him en masse.

[saracat]

110. You are abysmally ignorant.

[cali]

73. Exactly how I felt about Edwards

a lousy Senator with a centrist right record who sponsored an IWR resolution with Lieberman and supported the war for three years. His trial lawyer experience was not relevant and he had no governmental experience for experience beyond his one poor term in the Senate. I would have voted for him very grudgingly had he been the nominee. Never liked him and never trusted him for one second. The best thing he did was to leave the race. And no, I don't think he'd be a good choice for AG.

[saracat]

111. and your opinion is not really worth much. I am so glad to see you

once again attacking Edwards.You really have too much time on your hands! But, hey that is your opinion, misinformed though it may be and you are entitled to it!

[pauldg0]

122. Thanks saracat.....................

Misinformed youngsters, most of them, and the other older ones like to listen to empty rhetoric because they think he is saying something intellegent.

I must say oh poooleeeezzz!!!

[EffieBlack]

93. Edwards lost in 2004 and there were no blacks or women in viable races

What was his excuse for losing then? You certainly can't blame it on the black and female folk.

White men have been losing presidential races for centuries - races in which neither a woman nor a minority were running. So it's bullshit to blame poor John Edwards' failure to make the grade this year on the fact that he's a white man.

Edwards was NOT at a disadvantage because he's a white man. Perhaps this was the first time that being a white male did not give someone an automatic exponential advantage - in other words, he was playing on an almost (but certainly not completely) level playing field and without the ability to play the white man card, it just FELT like he was at a disadvantage - at least to people who have grown comfortable with the white male advantage.

[Bozita]

14. CNN had to rush Suzanne Malveaux to NOLA when Edwards suspended his campaign.

CNN had crews travelling with Clinton and Obama. Not so with Edwards.

I think that says a lot about the MSM.

[anigbrowl]

17. And how many races had he won?

Clinton and Obama were the clear front runners by then. You spend your resources where you'll get the most value from them.

[Bozita]

21. So, corporate profits dictated covering only 2 in a 3 person race?

My teevee screen was filled with video of Huckabee and his fuzzy pal for weeks. Yet, at this same time, Huck was running third.

[theboss]

19. If your only support in a Democratic primary comes from white men, you are in big trouble

He couldn't get women. He couldn't get blacks. He couldn't get Hispanics.

He was always trying to draw to an inside straight to win the thing.

The media had nothing to do with it.

In all honesty, how many times has a former national candidate run for President and been THIRD in name recognition?

[blues90]

36. Got any proof of your statements other than what came out of the media ?

[theboss]

119. You mean besides his vote totals?

Am I supposed to be a fucking independent pollster now?

Iowa Women
Clinton - 30
Obama - 35
Edwards - 23

NH Women
Clinton - 46
Obama - 40
Edwards - 15

SC Women
Clinton - 30
Obama - 54
Edwards - 16

[readmoreoften]

101. That's such a crock of shit media-invented bullshit. He had a large LGBT base.

He had a large female base. His supporters were not angry white men. It's simply not true. It was the only thing stupid people could think of in this race/gender oriented media circus. And mind you, the circus was not interested in real issues of identity politics, it was just interested in created rifts and arguments. It liked the idea of pitting African-American men against white women, not addressing real issues.

Edwards was interested in the poor and the media didn't know what to do with that, because the poor just aren't mediagenic enough. That and he wanted to check their power.

[Yukari Yakumo]

105. And how much of the total voting base did they make up?

Edwards only attracted only two types of people; The radical fringe and the easily fooled. And that includes a lot of overlap.

And maybe his $400 haircut didn't cut it if he wasn't "mediagenic" enough.

[theboss]

118. LGBT voters don't help you in Iowa, NH, and SC

And besides, I've seen nothing that shows that they went for Edwards in any kind of overwhelming numbers.

[anigbrowl]

20. Ego tripping

Think about this: if you see through the media hype so easily, why don't other people? 'The media fucked my candidate' meme is a conspiracy theory which allows its adherents to comfort themselves that they are smarter than the great mass of brainwashed drones who voted for the front runners, and are incapable of forming opinions on their own.

I didn't let the media pick Barack Obama as my preferred candidate. I finally settled on him quite some time ago, when people were piling on him over his remarks about pursuing OBL into Pakistan. Prior to that I was unsure who to support, and trying to make a choice between Edwards and Obama.

I still studied all three ront runners intensely because I'm open to changing my mind. Edwards just didn't get me excited very much. It wasn't like I didn't know who he was or what he stood for etc. He just didn't say or do anything that made me enthusiastic. I could tell you similar stories about why I didn't go for any of the also-ran candidates like Kucinich (who I have actively campaigned for before) and so on.

I am not saying that media outlets are all truth and beauty. The fact is that they're a plurality, with a variety of slants in different directions. But for the most part, they react to the news rather than driving it, and for the most part their reaction is based on whatever consistently keeps people buying/watching/clicking.

[blues90]

33. Man are you way out there in the ether .

[Captain Hilts]

22. As well you should be. They completely ignored him. nt

[blues90]

34. with a title as Mookie you have done me a favor

[golddigger]

23. What I want is for Edwards to write a book about who were the powers that be

that force him to suspend his campaign.:mad:

[susankh4]

31. I'd like to see that book too!

[flyarm]

37. sign me up for that book as well!! eom

[golddigger]

44. And I don't have to quess who they were...I know...

Kennedy, Kerry and Dean.

[SammyWinstonJack]

76. I want to know that too!

:grr: Rat Bastards! :mad:

[MonkeyFunk]

84. They're a secret, little-understood cabal

known as "the voters".

[sjdnb]

24. It's all about the M$M, $$$s and dazzle (celeb/big name endorsements, etc.)

You don't have $100m plus in your coffers, forget it. If you don't cause a 'buzz' or 'sensation', forget it. If you don't boast ratings, forget it.

Without some sort of dramatic campaign reform and cultural changes, this will be what elects our Presidents.

[Beaverhausen]

25. The media has indeed once again chosen our leaders

I am beyond sick of this shit.

[saracat]

27. I am done with all of this. It is revolting.

[x-g.o.p.er]

28. Imagine being a Biden fan...

He got zero coverage, and I think he was by far the best candidate.

[andym]

29. The horse race mentality of the media beat Edwards

Favorite versus challenger. No need for a third horse-- too complicated for the story tellers.

[surfermaw]

30. Wait until the darkness is turned on Obama in the GE...

That is probably be what they will do. Media block Edwards out, then helped to take Hillary out, soon it will be turned on Obama as they did Kerry and Gore, the Internet junk on Gore was started with Wolf Blitzer and CNN...

[susankh4]

32. And it will be bad for him...

if his camp has alienated the very people that could have helped him through the RWM gauntlet: The Clintons.

[flyarm]

39. plus he and his minions have alienated many in the dem base.

personally..i will laugh..i will feel he got what he earned! he was manufactured and those who never asked the questions for vetting him..will have mud all over their faces.

[Ninga]

38. I agree and disagree all at the same time. Edwards did not have to drop out when he

did.

That is the salient point. 400,000 people voted for him on Super Tuesday, after he had suspended.

He had/has tremendous support in NE Ohio.

None of us could say for sure what would have happened, if he stayed in.

[balantz]

40. The corporate (like G.E.) owned media assassinated the Edwards campaign.

I find it hard to believe that anyone cannot see that was very obvious, if you were paying attention at all.

He is hated by the corporations who own this country and profit by selling war lies and other garbage to the American people. The last thing the corporate-elite wanted was an Edwards to rip them a new fucking asshole and give this country back to the citizens with their sacred constitutional rights.

Good fucking luck to us with the plastic pony show they shove down our stupid throats (most of us anyway).

Obviously our government is owned by these bastards as well.

If you are just waking up to this, welcome to the elitist oligarchy and their media masterplan.

[SammyWinstonJack]

77. You are right on!

:thumbsup:

[eridani]

41. Remember, they did it to Kucinich first

As the next most populist candidate, Edwards was the obvious next target.

[onenote]

42. "The damn media has to be broken to pieces and rebuilt"

I'm curious -- how do you propose this be done, and done in a way consistent with the first amendment.

[balantz]

45. Knock back the corporate monopolies,regulate, demand that our

representatives REPRESENT our first amendment, not let the corporations dictate their will over it.

Nominate Edwards. Oh yeah, we blew that one with media help, and their Washington puppets.

[onenote]

69. so you would have the government tell the "media" what to broadcast or print?

No thanks.

[balantz]

74. No, but they should be regulating the corporations that own the media.

That's supposed to be one of their jobs.

Are you happier with corporations like G.E. dictating the news?

[onenote]

83. I'm happier with a press free of government control.

As the Supreme Court, wisely imo, unanimously stated over 30 years ago: "A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and like many other virtues it cannot be legislated."

[blues90]

59. put the airwaves back into the hands of the people

where they belong . The corporations have no right to own the airwaves .

Once they were allowed to own everything like clear channel for example they can control everything we hear .

Freedom of speech and of the press is over ridden when it is controlled by a few .

I doubt now it will ever go back to what it was before .

[onenote]

68. I'm curious -- when was it different?

There is this myth of a once upon a time when "the media" wasn't owned by corporations. Well, tell me when that time was.

Consider CBS. It started out in the pre-television station days as the owner of individual radio stations and a network that provided programming to a growing number of affiliated stations around the country. By the late 30s, CBS had added a record company to its business line-up. With the advent of television, CBS eventually became the dominant provider of television programming both through its owned and operated stations in major markets and through an extensive network of affiliates from coast to coast. In most parts of the country at this time viewers had only two other choices of television than CBS: NBC or ABC. That's it. Starting in the 1960s, CBS (still largely controlled by William Paley), expanded its business diversification even further: at various times its stable of commonly owned properties incuded music companies (eg fender guitars), sports teams (eg NY Yankees), magazines, film studios, home video companies and even toy manufacturers.
The late 60s and early 70s are sometimes said to be a golden era, event though viewers had only three choices of what to watch in almost all cases. This is the era when CBS carried programming that tweaked the powers that be, such as the Smothers Brothers. Of course, its also the era where CBS blinked and cancelled the Smothers Brothers and replaced it with Hee Haw.

Ultimately, Paley sold out to Lawrence Tisch, the billionaire owner of Loew's, which owned all sorts of stuff including a cigarette company, hotels, insurance, oil and gas properties, and even bulova watches) in the 1980s. From there the network and its related non-Loew's properties (at least the ones that hadn't been sold off by then), were sold to Westinghouse Electric -- manufacturer of all sorts of home appliances, among other things. Westinghouse, renamed CBS Corp., eventually sold itself to Viacom, a company that started out as the television syndication division of CBS (but eventually spun off as a separate entity to comply with FCC "finsyn" rules). Viacom also owned television stations and cable systems, although it sold off the latter a while back.

So, exactly when were the good old "pre-corporate media" days?

[blues90]

78. That's true

However it was nowhere close to the powers that be that now own the media . Once Reagan began de-regulation the dam burst . GE made Reagan what he was with the GE theater .

It was three stations that were not all on the same page , now we have hundreds that are .

Consider Disney and how they branched out into everything .

At least you got both sides to every story . The news anchors had integrity .

We saw the soldiers coming home from Vietnam and the president did not have the power given by the corporations to silence this . The war was in the news every day .

[balantz]

81. That's exactly right.

And it wasn't too long ago that National Public Radio was actually what the name says. Now it is just another corporate mouth-piece. Some of you may be too young to remember that N.P.R. didn't used to have commercials by the corporate giants. Federal money got pulled I believe and they couldn't broadcast with just public donation, pledge-drives. Personally, I think it was a buy-out. I'm not sure what went down as I was pretty much a stupid lemming-type at the time.

[blues90]

94. The lady that owned it died and things changed , I can't recall her name right now

But it did become a corporate right wing held captive program .

[onenote]

104. you are rather confused, I think

NPR was never "owned" by any individual. It was created in 1970 as a network supplying programming to member noncommercial and educational stations. Its funding came membership fees and CPB grants. It ran into financial difficulty in the early 1980s, but was bailed out by a loan from the CPB. It now receives about 1/2 of its money from membership station fees (most of which come from the CPB). Just under a quarter of its funding comes from corporate underwriting, which hardly makes it a "corporate right wing held captive program."

I think you probably are thinking about Joan Kroc, the widow of the founder of McDonald's. When she died in 2003, she left NPR over $200 million in her will. So the death of the "lady that owned it" (although she actually didn't own it) to which you refer made NPR less, not more, dependent on corporate underwriting.

[onenote]

82. It was never as good as you think .

Back during Vietnam, a lot of people viewed the media just as biased and over concentrated as they do today: Consider the following:

"In the past half century a communications revolution has seen the introduction of radio and television into our lives, the promise of a global community through the use of communications satellites, and the specter of a "wired" nation by means of an expanding cable television network with two-way capabilities. The printed press, it is said, has not escaped the effects of this revolution. Newspapers have become big business and there are far fewer of them to serve a larger literate population. Chains of newspapers, national newspapers, national wire and news services, and one-newspaper towns, are the dominant features of a press that has become noncompetitive and enormously powerful and influential in its capacity to manipulate popular opinion and change the course of events. Major metropolitan newspapers have collaborated to establish news services national in scope. Such national news organizations provide syndicated "interpretive reporting" as well as syndicated features and commentary, all of which can serve as part of the new school of "advocacy journalism."

The elimination of competing newspapers in most of our large cities, and the concentration of control of media that results from the only newspaper's being owned by the same interests which own a television station and a radio station, are important components of this trend toward concentration of control of outlets to inform the public."


This is from the Supreme COurt's opinion in Miami Herald v. Tornillo -- decided in 1974 (and arising from facts occurring in 1972).

[blm]

43. The corpmedia did it to Gore, Kerry and Dean, too. Edwards was another to ADD to the list

of Dems who stood at some point against the corporate machine that controls the media.

[golddigger]

48. And Obama and Hillary are next.

[blm]

52. Less likely since most people now distrust corpmedia at this point.

.

[AX10]

46. They are doing it to Hillary too.

Join the club.
:argh:

I liked Edwards too!

[PresidentObama]

53. They aren't ignoring Hillary. They just are turning on her.

Claiming it's over, when it's not.

[2rth2pwr]

47. Geezus, I thought the Edwards crybabies had reached the acceptance stage

obviously not.

McCain was declared dead by the MSM, he had no money, no donations coming in, all the talk ,if there was coverage, was of pity and no one gave him a chance. "The old man just doesn't have it".

Where is McCain now?

Get over it, the voters rejected pretty boy Edwards.

[PresidentObama]

50. Pretty boy Edwards? I see assholes are still on the loose.

[golddigger]

57. How did you escape?

[balantz]

54. Well it's pretty obvious that McCain fits into the machine just nicely.

Notice he has bounced back nicely with the annointing by the puppet-masters.

That's all right, we'll all be suffering alongside you "O" supporters when the shit comes down.

[2rth2pwr]

58. And what about Huckabee, he has made a promise that

he has kept. "I'm staying in all the way to the convention." Edwards couldn't keep one basic commitment.

Huckabee was also written off, no money, no coverage, not given a chance and what did he do? Oh. he won Iowa, and Edwards spent 4 yrs speaking about the 2 Americas in Iowaand what happened?

[balantz]

62. Why are you comparing Edwards' campaign to the campaigns of Repugnicans?

I have no idea how and why the neocons run their show. But I'll bet the ultimate selection on both sides is pushed from the party bosses.

[2rth2pwr]

88. Which is it, the party bosses or the corporate media? nt

[balantz]

95. Both are owned by the corporations.

[golddigger]

56. Bullshit it wasn't the voters...it was the powers of the democratic party.

Kennedy, Kerry, and Dean.

[COFoothills]

49. Give me a break...

...you want to know who blocked Edwards...

Iowa
New Hampshire
Nevada
South Carolina

All across the country Edwards proved that he had some very strong support...from 10-15 percent of the voters in just about every place he went.

That doesn't get it done.

He also was in a bit of a tough spot as the 'white guy' in an historic campaign cycle that was all about breaking down the barriers for candidates who were not 'white guys'. Not much he could do about that...wrong place, wrong time.

[pauldg0]

51. Me to brother.......

...........I wonder if John Edwards is quietly sitting aside thinking of legal action. Man, I hope that man has a plan before the Democratic National Convention.

[BigDaddy44]

87. Who would he sue?

And for what? For not getting covered? Maybe he and Mike Gravel can get together and file a class action suit.

[pauldg0]

97. There was talk several weeks ago, I believe a writer journalist from the Times.

..when John Edwards was not getting his deserved glory when beating Clinton. Emphasize was on durogator facts rather than how good he did. That is facts about his hair and that he was nothing but a scumbag attorney. There was talk of digging into sources and going all the way to the top to find out why they were simply directed at John Edwards at his time of glory.

Nobody said anything about sueing anybody, but to me the Edwards folks wanted to expose elements hurting him in his campaign when he should have received top priority press...but it just never materialized. All the air was taken out of his little victories.

As you noticed during the debate where Hillary and Obama were doing nothing but argueing, Edwards shined. However, there were journalists that started pouring on the trash about Edwards right after the debate.

As you probably already could figure out, the whole nation did not see the debate. Yes they showed it a few times afterward, but this was Edwards moment. What happened? The press dwelled only on Hillary and Obama....it was short lived for Edwards. It was calculated that John Edwards received only 1/8 th as much coverage of either Obama or Hillary.

[femrap]

55. Please remember that the MSM is pretty much owned

by 5 rich, ugly white guys. They are the ones telling the MSM what to report. Murdoch...the only uglier guy I have seen is that ex-CEO of Exxon. Then there's Sumner Redstone. The CEO of Disney, and that turd who heads up Time-Warner...and had AOL but those rich, ugly boys fought with each other too much. And there's GE's little Jeffie Immelt. Those 5 guys are the PROBLEM. They should be put under a microscope and focused upon.

I don't know why we Progressives don't just start at the top and focus on these 5 ugly assholes.

Murdoch bought his US citizenship...he's from downunder. I wonder if he and his son are still fighting. Even his son hates him...he has 2 of them I think. I don't know if they are as ugly as he is though.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

60. This happens every time - the media picks the candidate based on PERSONALITY

Whoi they like to "pal" around with. They disliked Gore and Kerry so they basically swiftboated them. They turned on Dean after building him up. They ignored Wesley Clark, John Edwards and Bill Richardson (along with several others in THIS campaign) They apparently have decided that they don't like the Clintons and have turned on them. They were building up Obama and McCain - but now it seems they are starting to tear them down.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

61. Give It Time. You'll Get Over It.

[blues90]

72. I doubt it unless the world blows up , this will once again

Be the issue in another 4 years . It's not just Edwards , the media was the prime source of spreading the fear of terrorism and ramping up the attack on Iraq .

Right after 9/11 the MSM was key in the fear factor with pen guns and remote air planes and all sorts of crap .

I watched it but knew it was crap but alot of people I worked with were sold on it . They wanted the entire ME turned into glass .

[stahbrett]

64. The media was forced to cover Huckabee

The media tried to ignore him at first, then he started winning. Edwards would have also gotten more coverage had he started winning. (No slight against Edwards intended, but the media will cover their favorites, but also cover the ones who are winning).

[blues90]

90. Well Edwards would not stoop that low . That was one of the things I

admired about him .

[rjx]

67. To put it bluntly

Edwards simply was not popular. Had he been popular, CNN and all the other networks would have had countless segments on him. Its not like he was unheard of. People remembered him from 2004. However, the voters liked Obama and Clinton better.

[libbygurl]

70. You do realise that the US media are now all owned by just a handful of conglomerates, and...

...there are interests to be protected. There is, I believe, an invisible hand that pushes things one way or another to please certain powerful interests. Look at all the mainstream media here - does any one source say anything substantially different from anyone else? Meantime, I look at the UK press, and there are a variety of opinions in the major news outlets and magazines on a lot of subjects. Not so here.

By god, even the supposedly liberal salon.com has become very mainstream and lockstep in its content and coverage. The NYTimes has long gone the center route, and even The Nation, which I used to read fifteen or so years ago, has become only slightly leftist in tone. Other than CSPAN, no one else has ever had Noam Chomsky on the air (even Republican William Buckley had Chomsky as a guest on his show a long time ago).

Recall the flag-waving in the days before the Iraq War? The changing of the vote trends in '00 pres. elections? The further idiocy of the '04 'elections'?

I worry about the openness of this republic, really, when the mainstream media prefer to saturate the atmosphere with celebrity gossip, and fail to bring attention to the stories behind the stories. Naomi Wolf's book, 'End of America' lays out one path that this country may be heading down without the vast majority of people noticing - or caring?

Sorry about the rant.

[blues90]

79. absolutely .

[onenote]

106. that's not exactly true

You don't have to travel back too far to the days when there were only three networks, each a rather large corporation (and the dominant of the three -- CBS -- a giant corporate entity).

Newspaper consolidation and the death of newspapers occurred earlier. Complaints about concentration are more than 35 years old. Nothing is new under the sun.

From the opinion in Miami Herald v. Tornillo -- a 1974 Supreme Court case:

The elimination of competing newspapers in most of our large cities, and the concentration of control of media that results from the only newspaper's being owned by the same interests which own a television station and a radio station, are important components of this trend toward concentration of control of outlets to inform the public. The result of these vast changes has been to place in a few hands the power to inform the American people and shape public opinion. Much of the editorial opinion and commentary that is printed is that of syndicated columnists distributed nationwide and, as a result, we are told, on national and world issues there tends to be a homogeneity of editorial opinion, commentary, and interpretive analysis. The abuses of bias and manipulative reportage are, likewise, said to be the result of the vast accumulations of unreviewable power in the modern media empires. In effect, it is claimed, the public has lost any ability to respond or to contribute in a meaningful way to the debate on issues. The monopoly of the means of communication allows for little or no critical analysis of the media except in professional journals of very limited readership.

This concentration of nationwide news organizations -- like other large institutions -- has grown increasingly remote from and unresponsive to the popular constituencies on which they depend and which depend on them.

Report of the Task Force in Twentieth Century Fund Task Force Report for a National News Council, A Free and Responsive Press 4 (1973). Appellee cites the report of the Commission on Freedom of the Press, chaired by Robert M. Hutchins, in which it was stated, as long ago as 1947, that "he right of free public expression has . . . lost its earlier reality." Commission on Freedom of the Press, A Free and Responsible Press 15 (1947).

[libbygurl]

114. I think it's a lot more blatant, though, today, and of course, the press/media...

...are the last to report such changes.

Thanks for the history lesson, though.

[Radical Activist]

71. Obama didn't get much coverage either until he out-raised Hillary one quarter.

Coverage of Edwards and Obama was roughly equal until Obama raised more money than Clinton in one quarter. Then they had no excuse to ignore Obama. Clinton still got twice as much coverage for a while, but at least it opened things up a little bit.

If amount of media coverage determined the election then Dean and Hillary would have both been nominees.

[blues90]

75. Obama got his boost in Iowa by Oprah , she is the media .

[demokatgurrl]

115. Excellent. "Oprah IS the media". She embodies it.

Are we in the middle of a bad movie?

[demokatgurrl]

80. I'm with you

this election especially, the media are selecting our candidates. Why even bother to vote? Just wait until the MSM decides who the "frontrunner" is,and vote accordingly.

Kinda like the old Soviet Union.

I just hope Edwards doesn't cave and endorse anyone.

[BigDaddy44]

85. Interesting discussion

But just complaining. What is a proposed solution? I'd be interested to hear thoughts. I'm really not sure what the alternative is.

[blues90]

89. Well for one thing to at least make a start

Don't allow the debates to be held by a few people like Wolf Blitz , one biased freak .

I really don't know how the candidates decide who will run other than their personal goals especially this time around . What I mean by this is I can't imagine anyone of them think they are going to change much of this enormous mess we are faced with now .

They send out feelers to see how they will fair and probably who might back them or pull in favors . For all I know they could be picked by who they back or rather who owns them . There has to be a prime motive in order to run .

I feel there has to be a way to end the smear tactics through lies that are unfounded and if these are lies by a candidate then toss them out of the race .

All of these handlers and advisor's need to be kept to a minimum , these candidates seem to morph into someone else over a short time which is driven by how they fair during the campaigns . How can anyone see who is really whom or what they stand for .

Scale the entire thing down , if people need a circus wait until one comes to town .

One thing we don't need is 24/7 news either . This only allows hundreds of voices to blather away and voice opinion .

People are now days all caught up in looks and clothing before issue of course this is a lost cause now , it's completely out of control and belongs in the petty farm but it's here to stay which is unfortunate and pretty freaky stuff . This is one thing that seems to boil from the bottom up and the top down like a parasite it never dies before it lays a million eggs .

I don't know , perhaps man kind is a lost cause , this is like a maze that changes form and there is no way out , ever . The human attention span is worth a few seconds before a distraction comes along . Years ago the distraction may have been an on rushing grizzly bear now it's a cell phone ring tone every second or so or the sound of a vending machine food offering being opened and the never ending beep of some device warning of something completely irrelevant . Perhaps we have reached the end of sanity and reality comes from the mind alone .

[Skittles]

86. the corporate media annointed HRC and Obama

and it is disconcerting how many Democrats immediately fell in line

[MoonRiver]

91. It is totally despicable.

They treat us as if we were puppets on strings. We helplessly move in the directions to which "THEY" maneuver us. It happened with Edwards, and it's going on with Clinton. I'm pissed too.
:mad:

[midnight]

92. Every time I see his name and or mention of him I feel the same,

He was the idea this country needed. He was the force that would not be conciliatory. He would let the corporations make the concessions.

[Wednesdays]

96. Computer-generated news anchors?

Shoot, it'll be here sooner than you think. :scared:

For example:
http://i126.photobucket.com/player.swf?file=http://vid126.photobucket.com/albums/p106/wednesdays88/bimbonewscast3.flv">

[kerry-is-my-prez]

100. They did the same thing to Clark the last time around - never mentioned him.

n/t

[Johnny__Motown]

102. Edwards lost badly, he should have quit when Biden, Dodd and Richardson did

The fact that he stayed in to long isn't the media's fault

[asdjrocky]

107. Just sayin'...

Does this really look fair to you guys? If you think average Joe or Jane had any kind of a chance to hear his message, you are fooling yourselves.

And there's no need to be so fucking nasty people, he's out of the race, you should all be very happy with yourselves.

[EffieBlack]

117. This chart is interesting, but not particularly instructive

since it doesn't break down the TYPE of coverage that a candidate gets. Every story about a candidate is not necessarily a favorable one. Clinton got enormous coverage in her campaign, but much of it was scrutiny - not necessarily a good thing - and not coverage of her platforms, positions, etc. Obama's coverage was less harsh, but much of it was fluff that showed little about the substance of his campaign. Edwards, on the other hand, as far as I could tell, got some of the better coverage - albeit less face time - since most of the coverage that he seemed to get focused on his message.

So it would be much more interesting and helpful to see a breakdown, not just of the amount of coverage, but of the type they got since 24-7 of Chris Matthews screaming about how emasculating you are, commentators beating up on your husband, or panels endlessly dissecting whether you are black enough or too black and whether black or white people will actually want to vote for you is not particularly helpful coverage.

[Mezzo]

109. me too!!!!

even the exclamation pts don't help ease my frustration. (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

They spent more time on the novelty of a first (whether it be a black man or a woman) time candidate than on any of his policies. John Edwards was truly a reform candidate. And America is worse off because his voice is not helping to shape our future.

It does give you a lot of freedom to analyze the other camps though.

[RestoreGore]

116. And I'm pissed how people then just flock to the next choice instead of being outraged

Face it, many of us are like robots. The candidate we know in our hearts to be the right one is ousted by the very forces keeping the others in, and we flock to the next as if it is OK. Oh so what, Gore, Edwards, Kucinich, etc etc have been pushed out... So, who is the next one I can support? It sounds so disingenuous to me. When the hell are people going to stand up and simply take on these bastards and fight for what is right? I can't see someone who supported Edwards and his message then just moving on to either of these media darlings. It proves time and time again that party trumps principle. But yes, I know we have to WIN so in order to do that we have to compromise all we believe in...that's one f'cd up system.

[ErnestoG]

124. And where do you put your "outraged" vote?

On the box marked "outraged"?

Outrage is an energy meant to fuel some other action. It is not an action in and of itself.

[PATRICK]

121. All candidates

who are NOT puppets in their pocket get trashed mercilessly. Having to be ignored is almost a tribute. the incessant lies and maniacal nonsense all with a GOP and corporate agenda should be taken off the airwaves
as a violation of equal speech. Corporations that choose to have judgmental gods formulate and REPRESENT what they formulate as universal public opinion is an attack on free speech itself. The Internet offers a free flowing competition for attention and scrutiny. TV sets up a bought pantheon of boobs for the most part who suppress the public mind and get away with lies, slanders and spin unless enormous public pressure only temporarily brings them to heel. Their self-protecting super opinion club of professional entertainers and lightweight thinking is a joke on top of an abomination.

Regulate. Break up monopolies. At least BBC the news structure, but get it more public and protected and professional in journalistic standards. There will be always bias and choice and opinion making, but structurally favored bias must be avoided as much as a state sponsored religion or a monarchy. the structural linkage of powerful entities must never include control and interpretation of the news.

[Seabiscuit]

123. When did all this first dawn on you?