Are Media Out to Get John Edwards?

[Sapphire Blue]

Published on Thursday, May 31, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
Are Media Out to Get John Edwards?
by Jeff Cohen

Give me a break about John Edwards’ pricey haircut, mansion, lecture fees and the rest. The focus on these topics tells us two things about corporate media. One we’ve long known - that they elevate personal stuff above issues. The other is now becoming clear - that they have a special animosity toward Edwards.

Is it hypocritical for the former Senator to base a presidential campaign on alleviating poverty while building himself a sprawling mansion? Perhaps. But isn’t that preferable to all the millionaire candidates who neither talk about nor care about the poor? Elite media seem more comfortable with millionaire politicians who identify with their class - and half of all U.S. senators are millionaires.

(snip)

But I’m growing quite suspicious about the media barrage against Edwards, who got his wealth as a trial lawyer suing hospitals and corporations. Among “top-tier” presidential candidates, Edwards is alone in convincingly criticizing corporate-drafted trade treaties and talking about workers’ rights and the poor and higher taxes on the rich. He’s the candidate who set up a university research center on poverty. Of the front-runners in presidential polls, he’s pushing the hardest to withdraw from Iraq, and pushing the hardest on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to follow suit.

(snip)

What’s really behind the media animus toward Edwards is his “all-out courting of the liberal left-wing base” (ABC News) or his “looking for some steam from the left” (CNN).

One of the wise men of mainstream punditry, Stuart Rothenberg, said it clearest in a Roll Call column complaining of Edwards’ “class warfare message” and his “seeming insatiable desire to run to the left”; the column pointed fingers of blame at Edwards’ progressive campaign co-chair David Bonior; consultant Joe Trippi; groups like Democrats.com and Democracy for America; and a bring-our-troops-home message “imitating either Jimmy Stewart or Cindy Sheehan.”

(snip)

Indeed, current media coverage of Edwards bears an eerie resemblance to the scary reporting on the Democratic frontrunner four years ago, Howard Dean. If Edwards is still ahead as the Iowa balloting nears, expect coverage to get far nastier. The media barrage against Dean in the weeks before Iowa - “too far left” and “unelectable” with a high “unfavorable” rating - helped defeat him. (I write those words as someone who was with Kucinich at the time.)

Today, elite media are doing their best to raise Edwards’ unfavorable rating. But the independent media and the Netroots are four years stronger - and have more clout vis-a-vis corporate media — than during Dean’s rise and fall.


Continued @ http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/31/1570/

[LaPera]

1. There is absolutely no doubt about it...There are two Dem candidates the media want us to nominate

and we hear about them day and night and how much money they bring in and how they can beat any republican...the republican owned media is choosing our Dem candidate for us...but the republicans have done that for years.

The republicans absolutely do NOT want to face John Edwards...He's politically seasoned & skilled, charismatic,, progressive, extremely smart, with an excellent platform, including health care and the Iraq occupation.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

14. B- I- NGO B- I- NGO B- I- NGO and bingo was his name-o.

yup. you hit it on the head

[kenny blankenship]

22. I'd suggest alternatively that there are 2 "story worthy" candidates

that the Republican owned MSM wants to see in an all-out mudfight: the white woman and the black man. That match-up would give the Republicans maximum amusement-to see representatives of those two archetypically Democratic constituencies fight each other viciously, tearing at each other's eyes and hair. If they can't defeat us, at least they have the consolation of watching us beat up on each other. If they divide us enough, maybe they will manage to amuse themselves and also win the general election too.

The media, if cornered and forced to explain and apologize for itself would say, "having these two figures fight it out for the nomination looks like the most dramatic conflict that we can see brewing within the 08 candidate pool, and we as narrators are naturally attracted to such stories of conflict, since these stories have the most immediate and broadest appeal to our mass audience. You can't really blame us for this since it is simply the nature of audiences seeking relief from their boredom, and also the nature of paid story tellers who want to please those audiences, to collaborate towards a story maximum interest and entertainment value. Maybe we don't serve the exposition and rational resolution of "issues" well when we do this, but politics is more about personalities these days--who would you rather have a beer with? (or, who would you like to see in a bar fight?) and about how personality and character judgments encapsulate and stand-in for "issues". We're dramatists, not philosophers."

[blm]

2. He's getting lied about now exactly the way he would've in 2003-4 if he had

prevailed then.

See - that's what happens when Democrats prove the media works when they are caught reifying the media's RW talking points against other Dems, too.

The day Dems start saying: Guess what - Gore was right and Kerry was right and Bush was always wrong and look what happened because Bush is still in office thanks to the complicit media who lies for him - That will be the day that my support will go to another candidate.

[davidwparker]

3. yes

[Jackpine Radical]

4. The M$M have their marching orders to take down Edwards.

He's a real threat to the status quo. Just like Dean was in 2004. The "media" don't do this kind of orchestrated attack out of any sort of personal spite, or because it attracts viewers. They do it because the people who pull their strings want it done. Everybody knows a Democrat of some flavor is gonna get elected, so they're gonna run in a tame one. In the interest of avoiding a flame war, I won't name that candidate, but you know who it is.

[grassfed]

5. yes because he's a white male

and the only Democrat capable of reaching misogynist and racist swing voters.

BTW a must read: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

[Crazy Dave]

7. HOLY SHIT!!!

I see and hear the term "undermining efforts" thrown at democrats all the time.

[Virginia Dare]

15. Very sadly, you're probably right...n/t

[Crazy Dave]

6. If they want to get personal...

...why don't they inquire how Elizabeth Edwards is battling breast cancer again and still campaigning for her husband? I know it's not her running but I think it's something that's pretty brave and remarkable. I guess it's just not as newsworthy as candidates haircuts and Paris Hilton.

[waiting for hope]

8. They are even getting paid for it!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1370310&mesg_id=1370310


Makes you sick, they want to keep us dumb and uninformed by not covering the issues.

K&R!

[Sapphire Blue]

16. Thank you for the link about Miklaszewski! I hadn't seen that story before.

:hi:

[waiting for hope]

24. You are very welcome!

:hi:

[DangerDave921]

19. It's Ratings

While the MSM has an agenda, we can't ignore the power of ratings. Look at the numbers on the Sunday morning "serious" political shows. Not many people watch them. Then look at the numbers when the cable news shows do Paris or Britney rehab or Whacko Jacko or some other sensational story. People lap this shit up! And when the higher-ups see the ratings go up on pointless celebrity stories, they have to follow suit.

Truth be told -- Americans prefer to watch light fluff stories than serious analysis of issues. There is a mass of apathetic people out there who simply don't care.

[Mass]

9. No more than Hillary or Obama. The only difference is that the Edwards have decided to use that to

fight and get some airtime, while Obama and Clinton tend to dismiss it.

[hfojvt]

17. it's more of a split with Hillary and Obama

They never write about Hillary without also mentioning that 'she is the front runner with a huge lead'. In other words, 'she's gonna win, so jump on the bandwagon now.' Has Obama been attacked by the M$M? I cannot remember on what basis. I know there have been nasty emails, but actual M$M attacks. Edwards, OTOH, is always touted as a 'millionaire' and now it has become standard press to include a mention of his house and his haircut, every time they write about him. Is that normal? Is that done for any other candidate?

[GreenTea]

10. Republicans want Edwards GONE, This is how the republicans always work it..

In the background, slowly and then keep building (like ROVE did with John Shelley in California, IN THE BACKGROUND)...But most believe what the media tells them...they accept with no questions asked... As other democratic candidates are shoved down our throats day after day after day and many believe they are really thinking for themselves...

ASK ANY WHAT JOHN EDWARDS PLATFORM IS ALL ABOUT AND WHAT HE STANDS FOR AND THEY DON'T KNOW SOME ONLY KNOW & CARE ABOUT A HAIRCUT OR HIS HOUSE.......THEY DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN ARE BEING MANIPULATED.

The republicans want Edwards gone, the republicans, their corporate media and the DLC are feeding us what candidate we should vote for each and every day AND you better take it...and we do believe we are thinking for themselves...fucking Rove & the republicans, always working to serve us up the weakest Dem Candidate...and why not, it makes it easier for the republicans, throw in some electronic voting machines, the weakest candidate, low turnout, find ways to keep people from voting and you have republicans again in total power.

Rove & the republicans are going to do all they can to get Edwards out of the race. The diabolical republican's aren't just sitting on their ass, they are working each and everyday to get the weakest democratic candidate nominated...you doubt this for even a moment the lying republicans aren't doing what serves them best in the background?

Which is why the republicans and their media (and the DLC) will do anything to pick apart and get Edwards out the race as early as possible...They much prefer a Obama or Hillary which they can easily destroy via the huge moderate & swing voter base...Glad to see so many others are starting to get it.

[harun]

25. I agree, they are most afraid of Edwards he can eat in to some

of the only votes they have left.

He speaks southern, is white, rich and male. Their people can swing to that.

[LibDemAlways]

11. The repuke shills have their marching orders to

take down Edwards because of the top three currently in the race he'd be (in my opinion) the most formidable opponent.

[glowing]

12. I think out of the top 3 he represents most people's views.

If tomorrow I won the lottery and became instantly rich, I would not lose my values. I would know how hard it is and I would want to work as hard as I possibly could to make it right for others. And really, if you do make it big...the saying would be "been there, done that, don't want to do it again"... Who would being a slave to a job sucks.

Anyway, he's impressed me a lot... I'm almost ready to say its time for another "John" in the white house.

[LostInAnomie]

13. They've received their memo that Hillary or Obama will be the Dem candidate.

Just like with Dean, their corporate masters have told them to destroy the only electable populist candidate. It's only going to get worse as Iowa approaches. With the whole "rich, pretty boy" angle they've found a narrative that sticks and will continue to exploit. And as a result will be stuck with the same old false choice we're stuck with every fucking election.

It's sickening.

[Wednesdays]

18. Is the bear Catholic? Does the Pope shit in the woods?

:spank:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

20. Just like the deliberately destroyed Dean in 2004. eom

[sallyseven]

21. YES, YES.

[Ron Green]

23. Hell, just last night I heard that PBS woman Gwen Ifill asking some pundit about Edwards'

"hypocrisy" regarding his big house. Shit! They've ALL got their orders, and damned if they won't carry them out.

[starroute]

26. I was suspicious when the Catholic League went after Edwards

Remember when the Catholic League raised a stink that forced Edwards to drop two bloggers from his campaign?

Here's the key: The Catholic League is not just one more culturally conservative religious group. Its board of advisers includes Michael Novak of AEI and PNAC-er George Weigel, who espouse a peculiar quasi-theological doctrine of wealth creation:

http://www.cjd.org/paper/wealth.html

Novak's presentation of the "The Corporation as it Ought to Be" might have been a textbook on economics written by Machiavelli. He goes to great lengths to explain why there should have been no checks and balances on the power of a CEO. Power is what he most needs to do his job and power he must have: "Executives must be allowed to execute…They must be propelled to step forward to create wealth." . . .

The problem with Michael Novak and fellow neoconservatives George Weigel, Fr. John Neuhaus and Fr. Robert Sirico is this: They use Catholicism as window dressing to promote an economic system based solely on self-interest, a system that has nothing to do with the Gospel or Catholic social teaching. . . . In order to popularize this economics, Catholic neoconservatives advocated it in the name of John Paul II, even though their inspiration came instead from Adam Smith. They began to speak of wealth creation as a participation in the work of the Creator, as a participation in the eternal life of God (Michael Novak, Este hemisferio de libertad , p. 61). . . .

Novak seems to believe that we have to abandon Catholicism as we know it. He actually says in The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism (published by the American Enterprise Institute), that "Democratic capitalism calls forth not only a new theology, but a new type of religion" (p. 69). This new religion, as defined by neoconservatives, emphasizes wealth creation, which they say the Catholic Church has neglected for so long. George Weigel seems to try to turn the Gospel upside down in his chapter, "Camels and Needles, Talents and Treasure: American Catholicism and the Capitalist Ethics," in Peter Berger, ed., The Capitalist Spirit: Toward a Religious Ethic of Wealth Creation, (ICS Press, 1990. He demands to know what the leadership of the Church are doing "that could be construed as a moral, theological, and spiritual legitimation of efforts to create wealth."

These people are extreme economic elitists hiding behind the veil of cultural conservatism -- so it's no surprise at all that they would be trying to destroy Edwards' campaign. I believe that many of the other attacks aimed specifically at Edwards come from a similar elitist and anti-populist basis as well.

[PBass]

27. I do think that Edwards is getting additional negative attention whenever possible.

I think the reasons are varied...

Low hanging fruit... when an attack is available against a Liberal, the media will jump on it.

But also, I think Edwards' main campaign theme (about levelling the economic playing field)... 'the Two Americas" scares the hell out of a lot of people who are financially advantaged. Media people are paid very well, so they probably think they have a vested interest in thwarting Edwards.

If people want to discuss the price of Edwards' haircut, then lets discuss what EVERYBODY pays, for hair and makeup and wardrobe. I bet the totals are relatively similar across the board.

[Digit]

28. I said the same thing a few months ago, JE is deemed a threat

I saw it begin on DU and now it has become a sport within the media.

That is...when they are not screaming Terrah, terrah, terrah.

[JacquesMolay]

29. Hell yeah. He scares the hell out of 'em for some reason.

I mean, he voted for the Iraq resolution, and he's been kind of squishy on some constitutional issues (e.g. Patriot Act). But I think he connects to people who are working but struggling to make it, and that scares the hell out of the system. I haven't seen the Math on it, but that might the part of the electorate that could hurt them.