AP's Lieberman headline.

[edhopper]

This morning on Yahoo the headline for the AP story on the CT Sen race was:
Lieberman vows to run as independent
Not "Lamont beats Lieberman" or "Ned upsets Joe".
They completely bypass the amazing win by Lamont and make the story about Lieberman.
Just shows the MSN's bias toward the incumbent in power. It's all about poor Joe. Not a great grassroots victory for Lamont

[ananda]

1. Media wants Lieberman.

Every news show on the primary was an ad for Lieberman.

Why should that change now?

Even Dems are supporting him.

The whole thing stinks.

[Atman]

2. Tweety did this last night -- one hour of all Joe, no Ned.

Pretty strange, huh? Ned Lamont wins a historic victory of national significance, and who does Tweety devote his hour to? Joe The Loser. This morning, Joe was all over the news during the prime viewing hours between 6:30 and 8:00 am. Ned was held off until 8:30 and even later, well past the time the morning viewing audience has headed off to work.

Watch for lots more of this. The corporate media wants Joe almost as much as Joe wants Joe.

[Kagemusha]

3. The independent run is the better story and gets more public attn.

I see self-interest here, a lot more than incumbent bias.

[edhopper]

4. Maybe down the line

when they are both campaigning you can make that argument. But the morning after an historic victory with national implication about the voters' feelings toward the Iraq War. To make the story about Joe and not Ned seems like giving deference to the guy in power no matter what.

[existentialist]

10. and, one of the points that we need to make:

The self-interest that the media serves is a shallow, short-term, unexamined self interest.

[Kagemusha]

15. Yeah, I agree with you there.

The other replier may have a good point too but, I wrote as a person not a propagandist there. Were I not I'd have made the same point. Anyway, it beats losing, so good luck to Lamont and all his supporters, including the new ones from the establishment.

[Mist]

5. The oddity of a three-term senator suddenly running for his political

life, and therefore having "underdog" status, IS newsworthy. However, yes, the corpo-media should certainly be covering Ned much more. But then the corpo-media doesn't really like Ned...

[ShortnFiery]

6. Reclaiming our Democratic Republic is figuratively ...

like wading through quicksand without a FREE and FAIR PRESS.

Vapid, Shameless and Authority Loving NEWS MODEL WHORES! :grr:

Damn these bought and paid for Corporate M$M shills ... fully in bed with the USA's Military Industrial "Perpetual War" MACHINE. :puke:

[fasttense]

7. On AOL at 5:30 a.m. (EST) they had Democrat Losses CT.

I guess they thought Lamont was a republic. Boy were they wrong. Soon after it was changed. The corporate media thinks it owns the political dialog. Not any more they don't.

[Demit]

8. Actually it will be interesting to watch the train wreck that will be

Lieberman's campaign, if he indeed stays in. The media will have to cover that too. They might get queasy, ultimately, and turn their faces away from the gruesome sight, but until then we get to watch what happens to a man when he won't admit the world has passed him by.

[paparush]

9. The Establishment is going to 'Dean' Ned Lamont

They will do everything to undermine Lamont and keep the lapdog in power. Its going to be ugly...

[spanone]

11. CNN reports Conn. most anti-war state in US. Bullshit.

[Cha]

13. That might be Vermont!

We have our work cut out for us helping Ned because of our fascist media, but at least we have the DNC behind him now and the Dems who will not support a indie over a Dem. And we have Ned Lamont who wanted someone to run against lie-man in the Dem primary and when no one would ..he did it himself.

[back2basics909]

12. Same with the Chicago tribune.

[Turbineguy]

14. In a backhanded way this could be a good thing.

a sore loser trying to hold onto power. Trying to maintain the disasterous route this congress has allowed the Bush Administration to take this country.

It forces a larger segment of the electorate to consider what they want of their government.

It forces Democratic candidates to have a better message.

And I think it's more than just the war. The news people are trying to limit it to the war but that's the usual trying to simplfy the debate for their 12 year old audience (not to rag on 12 year olds, but...).