Why Do We Continue To Blame Big Media's Failings On Gore, Kerry, Obama, Etc.?

[Median Democrat]

This is a constant theme I see where DUers like sheep simply repeat the RW talking point of why isn't Obama leading by more or why isn't McCain being attacked more aggressively? Again, we fall into the trap of thinking that it is Democratic campaign strategy that is leading to a loss, and ignoring the elephant in the room: Big Media.

In California, for example, I have not seen any McCain campaign commericals. Yet, due to CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc., I get a steady diet of McCain's meager ad buys being displayed for free. Conversely, when have you see a free display of a pro-Obama ad? The pro-Obama ads are out there, but they simply do not get the free distribution and discussion that McCain's ads get.

Likewise, the MSM has managed to even turn Obama's successes into negatives such as the European trip. He looked too presidential, and was too loved, and he is too presumptuous. This is not McCain ads, rather these are stories in the media. How can the Democracts combat Big Media when they rely on Big Media to get the message out.

I said from the very beginning that the Democrats will be the underdog, because Big Media will heavily support the GOP. Sadly, many DUers are already falling into the trap, and believing that some magical campaign strategy will cause Big Media to change its mind.

Even the Democrats most decisive victory to date, the 1996 election, was achieved with Bill Clinton, an incumbent, getting less than 50% of the popular vote. Think about that. Bill Clinton's presidency was by far more successful than George Bush, yet he got less than 50% of the popular vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996#Results

Big Media is not going to allow a Democrat to win. If its close, expect Big Media to broadcast some fall docudrama ala "Stolen Honor" on the eve of the election.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

1. I agree with you 100%

Here's my thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6555055&mesg_id=6555055

I'm not really blaming Obama, but he hasn't really gone on the offense. However, even if he did, the M$M would spin that to his disadvantage. I'm not sure what the answer is. If no matter what he does--good or bad--the press spins as something negative, I don't know what Obama can do to combat that. Regardless of how much money, organization or support Obama has, if the M$M has a history of helping Republicans such that their take on things has a substantial impact on public opinion that translates into skewed polls, I don't know what can be done to turn that around.

I know that we can write letters and turn off the T.V., but what about the low information voters which are a majority of the American electorate? How do we persuade them when they refuse to even admit that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction? How to we convince them that they've been lied to because the T.V. told them otherwise? Again, I'm not sure how much we or anyone else can do to influence public opinion such that people stop voting against their own best interests.

[Median Democrat]

3. Look At What Big Media Did To Wesley Clark

Who attacked John McCain aggressively. They tore him a new one, and spun Clark's attacks into Clark attacking McCain's service. So, you say that Obama should attack McCain even more aggressively, but there is the Fox News factor, and it takes Obama off-message.

My take is the only way to combat this is on the ground with Democrats reaching out to people on a one to one basis, and getting out the vote. Big Media is the enemy sadly. Big Media led us into war. Big Media refuses to go after John McCain. Most people still do not know about his sordid affairs and his involvment in the Keating scandal.

Big Media will probably win. They probably would have won in 1992 and 1996 if Ross Perot had not run, since Bill Clinton despite his success, never won a majority of the popular vote.

[depakid]

21. The cowardly Dems did that- not the media

Very few people want to be associated with cowards- and by failing to back Clark up on what were very reasonable (if a bit impolitic) statements in context of an interview.

The corporate media barks (or threatens to bark) - and the timid Dems run for cover.

What it resembles MORE THAN ANYTHING is an abusive relationship, where the abused spouse has lost all ability to be assertive. In some circles that's called "learned helplessness," and it's on full display in this thread.

Bottom line is that- like the usual abusers, the corporate media is very shallow- and very predictable. They can be played into acting "against their interests" -but only by someone or some campaign that's finally had enough and is willing to actually take control of the agenda and put the abuser on display. Hell, a LOT of battered women find the courage to do this- so it wouldn't be a lot to ask of the beltway consultants to show some of the same fort of fortitude.

[Median Democrat]

23. Wait, You Did Not Notice Fox News Or NBC? FCC Is The Key

You did not notice the NBC interviewer who very sarcastically responded, "Are you saying Obama is more experienced in FP than McCain?"

You say "the corporate media is very shallow" and make some weird comparison to battered women. Sorry, corporate media is not a simple matter of an abusive spouse. There is no TRO procedure against the corporate media. There is no battered woman's shelter against the influence of Big Media. There are DV where the Democrats can file criminal charges against Big media.

There IS the FCC, and Big Media is fighting to retain control of the FCC. This control is worth billions of dollars. It is this control that allows News Corp to expand and acquire numerous media properties. It is this control that allows Disney to expand without restriction.

The naivete is assuming that Big Media is going to ignore their obvious finanical interest and not slant the coverage in favor of the GOP.

[depakid]

28. I understand CLEARLY what the corporate media is all about

just as I (and many others) understand how to think abstractly about patterns of behavior and recognize how public perceptions are created and reinforced.

Basic communication theory (if anyone in politics would ever bother to read the fundamentals) shows us that there are both content and process (or "relationship") messages sent and received in every statement or set of statements. You cannot "not communicate" either of these things- and the principles apply both to interpersonal and to mass communications.

Here's a concrete example:

When Obama or a surrogate is nagged about admitting that the surge was a "success" and it's expressed or implied that Obama's position on the surge was wrong, the answer could be to go all nuanced like Obama did (Kerry did the same ad nauseum in 2004).

What does that say to people? It says both whatever the substantive comment is (if it's clear and concise- otherwise most people won't hear it) but more importantly, it says something about the nature the speaker- in relation to the question, the questioner and in this case- the other candidate.

In contrast, had Obama prefaced his answer with words to the effect that "Well, since my opponent can't seem to recall the timing of the surge" ... or some similar thing (there so many to choose from) the process message would be entirely different.

That message is likely to be perceived- to use the vernacular, that says: "I'm taking no shit from the likes of you."

Imagine what the response would be to such a forthright truthful statement. The far right sycophants would have reacted emotionally and been beside themselves, resulting in McCain's major gaffe being "replayed" all over every "news" show for all to see- via their efforts to slam Obama for ________ (pick an insult).

That's a win/win situation- Obama gets the media to emphasize McCain's blunder (which implies and reinforces notions that the guy is clueless) AND it makes Obama look STRONG- like the kind of guy who's willing to stand up and trade some blows.

In a nutshell, that's how to play this game to win- which is something Republicans learned a LONG time ago- but that the Democrats and their weasely consultants can never seem to grasp.

[ProSense]

29. "go all nuanced like Obama did (Kerry did the same ad nauseum in 2004)." Wrong!

You keep throwing around that word like MSM spin. Kerry's positioned were detailed, but he offered many hard-hitting statements to counter Bush, here and here.

You seem to want Obama to follow a BS model of dumbing down his positions (as if the media isn't already attacking him for lacking substance) even though his ads and press statements are excellent and to the point.

Lack of Obama sound bites is not the reason the media keeps lying for McCain and giving him free time.




Edited for clarity.

[depakid]

30. "if you knew now what you knew then would you still have voted for...."

That direct challenge from Bush called for a simple forceful "no" -and it also opened the door for a pithy statement calling Bush and Cheney out as liars.

What we got instead was nuance.

IMO, that was the defining moment of the campaign.

You may recall at the time that Cheney was STILL traveling around and going "news" shows claiming that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda and implying that Saddam was connected to 9-11.

It was baffling that the campaign let them get away with that repeatedly.

[Median Democrat]

31. New Media Matters Story Directly Responsive To Your Attacks On The Campaign

Here is a recent media matters story that directly responds to your argument that the Obama campaign should take a more agressive stand. The article does a great job of comparing the double standard applied by the press, and why the Obama campaign cannot simply respond to GOP attacks in kind. The reason, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is that Big Media treats the two differently:

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200807290001?f=h_top

/snip

Headlined, "End of the Affair: Barack Obama and the press break up," the New Republic piece leaned heavily on the notion that reporters were angry with the Democratic candidate and ready to revolt; that Obama's press aides were "alienating" the media by providing "little to no access," being "total tightwads with information," and acting in an arrogant fashion.

And worse, as Nagourney lamented, the campaign treated a reporter like a political opponent.

Oh, brother.

Do I even have to make the obvious point here that Republican politicians, and Republican candidates, have been attacking journalists and treating them like political opponents for years now? (Most notably President Bush, whose contempt for the press has been widely advertised for years.

But over the years, why didn't reporters complain publicly -- why didn't they flip out, as Nagourney called it -- about the naked GOP attacks? I didn't hear many industry-wide cries of consternation then. Instead, it's only considered to be newsworthy, and to be a point of deep media concern, when a Democrat is accused of slighting the press.

Indeed, the double standard on display couldn't be more obvious: When the GOP plays hardball with the press, or what's perceived to be hardball, journalists tough it out and consider it the cost of doing battle in the Beltway.

But when Democrats play hardball, or what's perceived to be hardball, reporters consider the jousting to be some sort of personal attack and rush to complain to colleagues how nasty the Dems are behaving.

/snip

[depakid]

35. The far right and the corporate media sycophants will slam the Dems no matter what they do

That is (or should be) taken as a given. Hell, Clinton not only had no "honeymoon" at all, but no matter how much he pandered to them at the FCC, they STILL went after him at every turn.

So the choice really is a fairly simple one- how does the candidate want to be perceived in the process?

Is he or she the kind of person who'll stand up and go toe to toe with the bullies?

or will they cower and squirm under the cover of "being reasonable."

As to Adam Nagourney- that man is among the very worst of the propagandists who've been allowed to editorialize on the front page. He's transparent to the point where I can recognize a Nagourney piece from its headline.

That said, the dishonest little pissant has no influence outside of those who read the Times -and is likely taken with a grain of salt by mist discerning readers.

[ProSense]

36. "IMO, that was the defining moment of the campaign." Oh, nonsense. You are still doing MSM spin

The U.S. senator from Massachusetts said the congressional resolution gave Bush "the right authority for the president to have."

But he told reporters on a campaign swing through Arizona, "I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has." He challenged Bush to answer four questions.

"My question to President Bush is why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" Kerry asked. "Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?

"Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?

"There are four, not hypothetical questions like the president's, but real questions that matter to Americans," Kerry said. "And I hope you'll get the answers to those questions because the American people deserve them."

link

Why did the media not run with those?

[depakid]

37. "Why did the media not run with those?"

They might have- had Kerry said an emphatically that he'd have voted NO -given what he KNOWS NOW..

That would have been the direction the debate logically would have taken.

Instead- Bush was able to (easily) spin a "gotcha."

[ProSense]

39. "Instead- Bush was able to (easily) spin a "gotcha.'" ??? Where is the media in this?

You're basically saying that the media chose to ignore that Bush lied to start a war that was claiming the lives of hundreds of American troops to allow Bush to say "gotcha." Kerry's response about the right authority for a president to have didn't take away from the emphatic statement about Bush lying to start a war.

Put that together with all the statements he made, including calling for regime change one week into the war, and the media basically fell down on it's responsibility in order to shill for Bush.

After reading your arguments, I can see why they were successful.

[depakid]

2. Because the campaigns either failed or are failing to manage the media

in a way that frames processes and issues favorably to Dems- and they FAIL to even raise issues in public statements that would create controversies that the media would then be forced to talk about.

The McCain campaign (and CBS last week) gets a pass largely because the campaign intentionally gives them one.

So for instance- in responding to the press' naggery about the surge, instead of mentioning that his opponent couldn't even get the timing right, or that CBS had to cover for that- Obama (and the campaign) went Kerry style "nuanced" and put on the defensive.

I cringed when I watched that, because (as anyone who follows this stuff has seen a thousand times) I knew that would be the theme the echo chamber ran with. Obama looked weak- the pack dogs smelled blood and instead of McCain looking like the sorry and confused man that he is- on show after show we ended up with "Obama can't admit that the surge was successful."

This isn't rocket science, people- and if it continues, we're going to see 2004 all over again.

[Doctor_J]

4. No, the problem is that everyone in Big Media is a right-wing Repuke

If Obama were to attack McSame's dozens of flip-flops, he would be bashed for "calling McSame old". To attack this disastrous war would be to get labeled "unpatriotic".

Obama and the Dems are, as they have been for 20 years, battling the GOP and the media. read mediamatters.org for daily exposition of Big Media's McSame campaign.

[depakid]

13. I read media matters- and plenty of others

Along with analysts like George Lakoff and commentators such as Joe Bageant- who understand how people in the rust belt think.

It's FEAR of being called "bashers" and FEAR of "being bashed" that makes Dems look weasely and weak. Republicans, on the other hand- who engage in the worst sorts of dishonest attacks- look strong and WILLING to stand up and fight.

Like it or not- that's what Americans in the places where this election is going to be decided want to see- and mark my words- if this pattern continues, there'll be a lot of disappointed folks around here come November 5th.

[Median Democrat]

5. How Will Fox News Cover Such An Attack?

I promise you, and it will happen, the moment Obama gets slightly negative and points out McCain's numerous flip flops outside of the scope of the debate, you will get a Tsunami of the following headlines:

1. Obama is embittered by close race.
2. Obama displays frustration.
3. Obama loses presidential aura, and nit picks John McCain.
4. Obama makes fun of McCain's age.
5. Obama abandons pledge to run a positive campaign.
6. Obama is just a typical politician.

Remember, Obama at best is only going to get a 1/2 hour interview. The other 23 1/2 hours will be filled with talking heads spinning Obama's public speeches, and it is naive to assume that Obama will not get aggressively attacked like Wesley Clark for going negative on John McCain.

Look at the master, Bill Clinton. Even as a successful incumbent, he won less than 50% of the popular vote. Are you suggesting that he was weak? Big Media is in the tank for the GOP.

[depakid]

9. That's a cowardly assessment- and EXACTLY why Democrats lose

Fox is going to slam the Democratic candidate no matter what they do. Much better to look STRONG, define your opponent and get the corporate media talking about your own framing and criticisms than to sit back and continue to get pummeled.

Why people can't seem to learn this after SO MANY lost elections is beyond me.

[ProSense]

15. No it's not exactly why Democrats lose. That's the BS spin that needs to stop.

Gore lost because of the rigged election in Florida, and 2004 had a host variables.

You continue to talk about framing and assume the media (not talking about Fox only) is interested in presenting a fair picture of Obama. If they are willing to lie for McCain, why do you assume they will begin trumpeting Obama's cause?

Note this: The media's job is to report the facts. When they report McCain's lies as fact along with Obama's super-wonderful rebuttals (he can't be on TV 24/7), the reader is given the impression that both position could be true.

That's not journalism.

It was interesting reading that Andrea Mitchell calling McCain's ad a lie, and then she turned around and referred to Obama as disingenuous.

The media is presenting the public with biased information to allow them to make an informed choice between two disingenuous candidates. That's BS.

[Median Democrat]

16. Okay, Do You Have An Alternative Venue For Such Attacks Besides Big Media?

You keep on saying that the Democrats should define their opponent. I have seen Obama surrogates doing that WHEN they are on TV. However, explain to me how do you get the message accross when its just a room full of pundits shooting the breeze, as is normally the case. Tell me how you propose to get media types to carry out Democratic efforts to define John McCain, particularly with McCain's ads getting free air time while Obama's ads are only showed in the areas where they are paid for?

Your post naively assumes that Big Media will give Obama equal time, and that Big Media will not spin such attacks against Obama, which will take Obama off message. Like I said with Kerry, the whole focus of his campaign was the Swift Boat response and he did attack Bush when I saw him. The question is Big Media coverage again.

Let me ask this question: Why did Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 garnes less than 50% of the popular vote? Are you suggesting that he is also a weak candidate?

[depakid]

20. Ad buys and coordinated, emphatic public statements

Democrats always seem to play checkers- rather than chess. For whatever reason, they only look 1 move ahead- and can't (because of their nature?) recognize that creating a controversy and taking some heat about what's said benefits them immensely because it changes the focus on the "news" shows.

It baits the far right and its surrogates (who will always oblige with faux outrage and stupid statements of their own, keeping the focus on the Democrats' "allegations"). It may also bait McCain, himself- who has a propensity to lose his temper.

I don't know how long you've been observing politics, but if you can't see this pattern after all this time, then I'm not sure anything that I say will register.

The Dems have been handed more ammunition this go round than I can remember EVER -and it's been handed over gratuitously- on a silver platter. Yet they FAIL to use it whenever they're on TV or radio (contrast that with the Republicans who've made hay out of what meager little tidbits that they have.

This campaign could easily be about McCain and the Republicans fitness for office. Instead, it's turning on insecurities and fears about the new guy. Why? Because the Dems bend over backwards to be polite and legitimize even the most egregious things McCain and his surrogates say and do.

The American public deserves a little "straight talk" don't you think? And if the campaign were to start calling a spade a spade- don't you think that would garner a LOT of discussion? Do you think the public would appreciate a no bullshit approach?

Regarding ad buys- well, last I heard, Obama had tons of money- more than McCain. Can't be too hard to get some out there (unless of course, like Kerry, he wants to have 10's of millions left at the end of the campaign). And it's also not hard to create a nasty, provocative (and yet truthful ad) using McCain and his campaign's own statements and asking "is this the kind of "leadership" that you really want?" Can we afford it?

As to the Clinton campaign in 1992- that was a much different dynamic, because not only were the Dems opposing Bush, but Perot was out there SLAMMIING the GOP every day- creating "news."

IMO, Clinton may well have lost that election, had the full bore of the Republican machine come down on him, without having Perot neutralizing the effects.

[Median Democrat]

22. Again, Your Strategy Relies On Big Media and Assumes...

That Obama's campaign is not doing as you said. Whenever I see someone affiliated with the Obama campaign, they do attack McCain when they can, but the problem is you really can't coop Big Media if the only question they are posing is directed at Obama. They try, but Big Media controls who gets the question.

Likewise, you mention ad buys. If you look at the numbers, Obama is spending ad money in certain states. However, Big Media does not give his commercials free air time. Heck, even when McCain simply places an ad on its website, Big Media will then broadcast the commercial free of charge nationally.

Are you suggesting that the Obama go national to compete with the free air time offered McCain's commericials? Well, guess what? Obama is doing just that with an ad buy for the Olympics.

The problem with your analysis is that it assumes an unbiased media. Check out Fox News. Check out Media Matters. The problem is Big Media, and Big media needs to be targetted or worked around, rather than naively assuming that simply framing Obama in a certain way will lead to a closer examination of McCain.

Obama's campaign does distribute very detailed responses and attacks on McCain that systematically tear apart his positions, as well as respond to charges against Obama. We have seen them on this board. However, Big Media is mostly mum.

[ProSense]

24. Olbermann and Maddow discussed McCain's token ad buy and the free media coverage it's getting

Video

They media did the same thing with the Swift Liars, leveraging the $22 million they spent to turn August 2004 into an ambush of Kerry.

[Median Democrat]

25. Exactly - Where's Moveon's Ads? Where's Obama's Ads?

The ads are out there, but unlike the McCain ads, pro-Democrat ads do not get free air time. McCain runs an ad regarding visiting troops that only appears in a few markets, and Big Media then repeatedly plays and replays the ad for free under the guise of discussing the ad. Same thing with the gas price ads.

Is it just an accident that Obama's ads or MoveOn.org's ads do not get similar play?

[ProSense]

27. One advantage Obama has over Kerry:

You Tube.

This has been a huge help, note DU's forum for political videos. Spreading the word got a lot easier. Even if the person isn't tuned in online, as long as they have an e-mail address, friends and family can send them clips.

[Gabi Hayes]

6. right on the head. what IS it with these socalled professional campaigners?

the only thing that makes sense is that they've GIVEN UP on challenging the media, with the Clark/McCain service fiasco as the most recent example

they must think that it's useless to go up against the monolithic, corporately managed news distribution process, that establishes a narrative and refuses to allow any variance....in this case to challenge the myth of McCain the straight shooting hero

why they don't REFUSE to put in the corner and always play defense is beyond me. the pugs have perfected the response of going on the offensive no matter what is not a difficult one to use, but the dems almost NEVER do it

if they don't start playing hardball (yechhh for the phrase) soon, it IS going to be 2004 all over again

[Median Democrat]

7. I Asked This Question Before - The Problem Is Whining

When the GOP raises it, Big Media happily repeats the story because it gives them cover for their attacks. However, if the Democrats raise it, it will be spun as whining and desperation. Look at how Fox News responds. They have been called out by the Democrats on their bias, and Fox News now just calls it whining, and proceeds with a bunch of empty chair stories. Sean Hannity, for example, offering to allow Obama to host his show.

Do you really think that the Democrats should get off message, and start a war with Big Media?

[Gabi Hayes]

26. war won't work against the media, because you're right about the uneven playing field.

dems are always perceived as whiners when they tell the truth about media bias.

what I said was that the surrogates have to take whatever cudgel is being used against them and turn it around against the pugs, not the media, because you can be sure that the facts will almost always be on the progressive side

that's why they republican way is strewn with lies, distortion, exaggeration, strawmen.....you name it.

as someone said here today, paraphrasing Tony Blankely, to explain is to lose (not correct quote, but the pugs ALL know that being on the defensive almost always means being on the LOSING side)

[ProSense]

8. Sorry, but this makes no sense:

The McCain campaign (and CBS last week) gets a pass largely because the campaign intentionally gives them one.

Huh?

The media's bullshit has nothing to do with Obama's framing and everything to do with GOP complicity.

So for instance- in responding to the press' naggery about the surge, instead of mentioning that his opponent couldn't even get the timing right, or that CBS had to cover for that- Obama (and the campaign) went Kerry style "nuanced" and put on the defensive.

Obama did not go "nuanced." When the press is reporting McCain's BS as fact, including the lie about the camera incident, what the hell does that have to do with Obama going nuanced?

Stop trying to make excuses for the medias utter lack of objectivity and reponsible journalism.



edited to correct typo

[depakid]

14. I'm simply recognizing AND accepting the corporate media for what it is

and how it's going to operate.

I'm saying that it's the campaign's responsibility to DEAL WITH IT EFFECTIVELY. Rather than keep on with "strategies" and tactics that have proven time and again to be losers- why not take at least a couple of pages out of the oppositions' playbook?

After all- despite neither having truth nor popular issues on their side, they've managed to eviscerate the Democrats repeatedly over the past 25 years- and they've also manged to emasculate them even once they've gained power.

Could be they're doing something right.

[ProSense]

17. "After all- despite neither having truth nor popular issues on their side..."

Again, the media is defining what is true. The NYT did it with Iraq. The vast majority of Americans still rely on the media for news, and they believe what the media tells them. Ironically, it's the Iraq lies that now have more people paying attention and turning to alternative sources for the news. Still, not enough of them are, and that's the problem.

[klyon]

10. I agree a web site is NOT going to take care of this

Obama must make public statements and repeat over and over again the truth that exposes the lies of the right. He needs to do like Clinton did and sit on a couch with the wife and tell it like it is, with prime time media coverage.

[ProSense]

12. Clinton sat on a couch with his wife and was impeached.

Democrats also lost elections at every level of government. Still, this is a different media climate. Bush and McCain have the media lying for them, something Dole did not have. Also, how would the media cover Obama doing this often (which is what it would take)? He could do another speech similar to the one on race. How long would that keep the media at bay before they found something else?

I still say that too many Democratic officials and pundits are missing in action. Clinton had that to a larger extent. A lot of them are too close to the Clintons and the Republican shill media. They disappear and reappear, as they did in the primary. That continues to be large part of the problem.

[Median Democrat]

18. Agree, Even Clinton Could Not Capture A Majority of Popular Vote Despite Success

Bill Clinton had a relatively peaceful and prosperous presidency, and in 1992, the US was in recession. Your posts assumes that Bill kicked Geroge Bush and Bob Dole's ass. In terms of Electoral votes, yes, but in terms of the popular vote in 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote, which I attribute to the Big Media.

Is someone going to seriously argue that Bill Clinton achieved less than a majority of the popular vote because he was weak politically? Anyone?

Of course not. Bill Clinton is held up as our great success story against Big Media, but Bill won less than 50% of the popular vote, was impeached, due in part to Big Media sucking up to the GOP.

Remember in 2006 when on the eve of the election ABC broadcast the 9/11 docudrama blaming Bill Clinton for the 9/11 attacks, and giving Bush and Co a relative free pass?

It is absolutely naive to assume that some candidate is going to walk on water and come up with some magical campaign strategy that will keep Big Media honest.

[karynnj]

19. I agree with Prosense

Clinton 1992 was mythologized as a fantastic campaign because Clinton won. The fact is that throughout 1992 Bush was at 40 and sinking - hitting 33% before the election. The media was AGAINST him, not Clinton. I can't begin to remember how much attention was given to him vomiting at an Asian meeting. I'm not saying the media was completely friendly, it wasn't - the NYT brought up some of the discrepancies on White Water, However, the media sided with him and sent the signal that the Flowers problem was over after 60 minutes and on the draft. These were not the only little eruptions of his past.

In the last month the media had tons of coverage of his enthusiastic rallies. That alone makes a difference. There are people here who were shocked that Kerry broke Clintons records by large amounts with crowds like 80,000 in Madison, WI. The news never showed those crowds - showing their anchor outside the venue saying where they were and what Kerry said, then shifting to Kerry in as tight a shot as possible for less than a minute.

In 1996, Dole was already disliked for his history as a hatchet man. (That Dole was turned into a genial witty guy by the 2000 plus media tells it all. And that was after his pathetic commercial ogling a teenage Brittany Spears. In contrast, look how the media treated Kerry and Gore after their loses.) He also ran a pathetic campaign. Also, Bill Clinton was lucky that it was a little over a year before anyone ever heard of Monica. I know I thought the Paula Jones case was a right wing frame as did most people I know.

The fact is the turning point was likely 1996. Gore faced a far more hostile media, and it was worse for Kerry. My fear is that 2008 will be worse than 2004 as far as the media goes - because NPR is now less on our side and the LA Times went from leaning left to right. (Look at these major papers - in their reporting (not editorials) the NYT was far nicer to Bush than Kerry and the Washington Post was 100% neo-con since 2001. To exasperate that, they were both seen as liberal and pro-Democrats.)

[klyon]

43. I am talking about before Clinton was elected not the end of his

second term

[YvonneCa]

11. Great post...

...thank you. My answer to this is that WE (online Democrats) must be the alternate media and challenge what they are doing. I posted this a few minutes ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6555267


And posted a success story yesterday:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My homepage (Time Warner Cable) was showing a picture of Obama with the headline "Obama Returns Home to Frosty Welcome" and linked to an AP article about his return...but the only 'frosty' thing in the article was McCain staff giving the usual spin.

Because I was irritated...I logged on to the TWC helpline chat and complained. I said (nicely) that the title was false and did not match the article. I said that the only frosty reception was from McCain, and that most people thought he had done great. They requested my personal info (which I had already given once), and then the guy typed that he agreed with me. Yaaay! He gave me some phone numbers and asked if he could do anything else. I told him I thought my message had been received and said thank you.

Here's the good part...when I went back to my home page, the headline AND the picture were already gone. GONE!

Yes we can...NEVER give up, guys!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

WE must get active! :patriot:

[ecstatic]

32. I can't believe this is happening again

I feel sick.

[YvonneCa]

33. Write a LTTE...

...to CNN, etc. It will make you feel better...I promise. :7

[jmondine]

34. ... and therefore, what do we do?

This is our own biggest failing, IMO. We point out how bad things are, hoping that this alone will inspire action that brings about change.

Unfortunately, for most people, it just deepens their despair, leading to more denial and less action.

We need to follow up with an inspiring vision of how things could be different, along with a path of action to make that vision a reality.

[Median Democrat]

41. Grass Roots and Use of Alternative Media Are Key

I'll give an example. Here is a new DNC ad that attacks JOhn McCain. It is a pretty good ad regarding John McCain's receipt of oil industry money:

http://www.democrats.org/index.html

Now, one thing that you will quickly discover is that it gets absolutely no free play on Big Media. In comparison, John McCain ads get played and re-played hundreds of time in the MSM even when they are completely false, this ad will not get a fraction of the attention paid to John McCain's ads. Big Media is in it to win it.

The issue, therefore, becomes whether Democrats give up? Big Media is doing its best to make you give up, and make you think that its Bill Clinton or Al Gore or John Kerry or Barack Obama's fault that you suddenly don't feel excited. Big Media with its liberal media stories, and "typical polician" is designed to make you think that there is no difference between the GOP candidate and the Democratic candidate on the issues while they continue to play and replay attacks on the candidates character. In the end, you the Democratic voter will find youself saying, "Gee, why do all our candidates suck. Why do their campaign's suck?" That way you are absolved of your responsibility in this charade.

The real question of character is our character as Democrats and voters. Do we respond by fighting Big Media, and focusing on the facts? Or, do we just end up repeating the same talking points fed to us by Big Media. Look at the VP discussion or the question about visiting troops. Even on this board, we have weakminded folks buying into and repeating the latest GOP talking points as gospel. Look at the threads regarding why Obama is not farther ahead. Again, no original thought. Rather, DUers repeat this talking poitn despite the fact that no Democrat has won the popular vote in over 20 years. Yet, we expect a landslide? Even Bill Clinton, an incumbent in 1996, did not capture the popular vote. Yet, DUers post conern threads simply repeating these stories, then we blame the Obama campaign for not doing better.

So, the question is whether Democrats are ready to do their homework and fight Big Media brainwashing, by pointing out and relying on the facts. The facts about John McCain. The facts about Barack Obama. The facts about what the Democrats stand for. Big Media is not going to help you. You're going to have to do it face to face, person to person.

[YvonneCa]

42. Fantastic post...

...and I agree completely.

[Life Long Dem]

38. What are you guys talking about?

It surprises me to hear talk like this about the media and Obama as if it is his first run in with them. The media gave no breaks on Obama during the primary and at times really pounded on him. So I don't know where you guys have been or why you feel this is all new for Obama.

[YvonneCa]

40. Speaking only for ...

...myself, I didn't say this was new for Obama. What I DID say was that the media are playing the same games they did in 2000 and 2004. Games that allowed Bush to win (or appear to). From another post:

I am not buying this media spin this time. Close? Picking the polls to share (over and over and over and over...). Trying to caricature the Dem as 'weak on national security', 'risky', a 'flip-flopper'? Swiftboating tolerated... accepted as okay...and asking 'Why doesn't he fight back' ??? I've heard this before...


This is the same lie as 2004. I'm not buying it. It's crap...and worse (and for me to say that is not normal :7 ).


They must not have anything else they can do... PATHETIC.

[YvonneCa]

44. kick..n/t