The media and the Presidential Race (merged)
Okay, I know the Dean supporters are going to be with me on this one, and what I really didn't think of as being of a big concern a few weeks ago has really come to my attention in the last few. Has anyone else found that the media seems to really be swaying the elections these days?
I've made it no secret on these forums that I support General Wesley Clark for President, but he is getting destroyed by the media. Not just small time stuff either, but really targetted. Howard Dean, once considered the favorite to win the nomination, has already been destroyed by the media, with the overplaying of the 'I have a scream' speech.
I finally had a chance to see a camcorder version of the event, and it was so loud in the room, you could barely hear Dean at all, it was just that the microphones he was speaking in were going directly to the network feeds and muffled the sound of his supporters. He was trying to be heard, and while it wasn't the best noise to make, it was the media overplaying it and mocking him that made people turn away from him, along with polls showing that he had lost his support and comments that he was essentially out of the race.
Now similar measures are being taken against General Clark. It started with the New Hampshire debate, where the only questions Clark was asked was about his membership in the Democratic party, and the question about Michael Moore calling President Bush a deserter. In the last few days, John Kerry and Terry McAuliffe have made similar accusations, and this time, instead of getting panned, the media is making it out to be a legitimate issue.
Clark is barely mentioned in network and cable news coverage, and when he is mentioned, it is almost always in a negative light. Last night, when he won Oklahoma and 99% of the vote was in, CNN declared that they would not project a winner until all of the votes were counted, and that if the winner was ahead by 1,000 votes, it could be called, otherwise, they would wait a week for the official certifying of the vote. 20 minutes later, when all of the votes were in, and General Clark won by almost 1300 votes, they called the race 'too close to call'. How is it too close to call when all the votes are counted and someone wins by 1300 votes? Edwards even claims he came in 2nd in Oklahoma, why does CNN have to say that it's too close to call?
Also, you have analysts afterward saying, "It's too bad General Clark won Oklahoma, now he thinks he might have a shot at this." What kind of coverage is that? I hate to break it to the analysts who are trying to push John Edwards down everyone's throats, but Edwards did NOTHING outside of the South.
Edwards showed that he was strong in South Carolina of course, winning the state he was born in, he had a strong showing in Oklahoma, and he had a strong showing in Missouri. Meanwhile, he had very poor showings in Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, and there was a major tie up for '2nd' in Delaware where only John Kerry can claim any kind of victory.
You have Edwards with strong showings in: South Carolina (1), Oklahoma (2), Missouri (2), Iowa (2)
You have Clark with strong showings in: Oklahoma (1), North Dakota (2), New Mexico (2), Arizona (2), New Hampshire (3)
Yet the way things are going, you'd barely know that Clark was in the race. The media treats him like an 'also ran' when he is undeserving of such treatment. Yesterday, Wes Clark's son tried to point this out and of course the media has been blasting him for this as well.
Kerry is in a good position for the nomination at the moment, but the race isn't over. Yet the media seems to want this 2 person race, and they want it to be Edwards against Kerry. Why? I don't know, but they are going out of their way to force Howard Dean and Wesley Clark out of the race.
Clark does exactly what analysts say he needs to do. He needed 3rd in NH to stay in, he got 3rd. He needed to win Oklahoma to stay in, he won OK. He needed to come in 2nd in NM, AZ, ND, and he did that too. Why is he getting dumped on so bad?
Try and think back to the last time you heard anyone say something positive about Wesley Clark's campaign, can anyone remember?
I'm sorry for my rant here, but I don't like it how the media is pushing the two Senators named John as the only choices for the Democratic party. It's also funny how they mentioned all night that in polls against President Bush that John Kerry is ahead in polls and that John Edwards is in a statistical dead heat. Did they mention that Wesley Clark is also in a statistical dead heat? Of course not, he might win if he got positive media attention!
Ok, venting over, I'm just a frustrated Clark supporter. He's done what he needs to do to stay in this race and you have the media trying to force him out of the race. You say these things enough times on talk radio, the news, etc. and people are going to believe them. Not sure why they hate him, but the media is really after Clark.
I've made it no secret on these forums that I support General Wesley Clark for President, but he is getting destroyed by the media. Not just small time stuff either, but really targetted. Howard Dean, once considered the favorite to win the nomination, has already been destroyed by the media, with the overplaying of the 'I have a scream' speech.
I finally had a chance to see a camcorder version of the event, and it was so loud in the room, you could barely hear Dean at all, it was just that the microphones he was speaking in were going directly to the network feeds and muffled the sound of his supporters. He was trying to be heard, and while it wasn't the best noise to make, it was the media overplaying it and mocking him that made people turn away from him, along with polls showing that he had lost his support and comments that he was essentially out of the race.
Now similar measures are being taken against General Clark. It started with the New Hampshire debate, where the only questions Clark was asked was about his membership in the Democratic party, and the question about Michael Moore calling President Bush a deserter. In the last few days, John Kerry and Terry McAuliffe have made similar accusations, and this time, instead of getting panned, the media is making it out to be a legitimate issue.
Clark is barely mentioned in network and cable news coverage, and when he is mentioned, it is almost always in a negative light. Last night, when he won Oklahoma and 99% of the vote was in, CNN declared that they would not project a winner until all of the votes were counted, and that if the winner was ahead by 1,000 votes, it could be called, otherwise, they would wait a week for the official certifying of the vote. 20 minutes later, when all of the votes were in, and General Clark won by almost 1300 votes, they called the race 'too close to call'. How is it too close to call when all the votes are counted and someone wins by 1300 votes? Edwards even claims he came in 2nd in Oklahoma, why does CNN have to say that it's too close to call?
Also, you have analysts afterward saying, "It's too bad General Clark won Oklahoma, now he thinks he might have a shot at this." What kind of coverage is that? I hate to break it to the analysts who are trying to push John Edwards down everyone's throats, but Edwards did NOTHING outside of the South.
Edwards showed that he was strong in South Carolina of course, winning the state he was born in, he had a strong showing in Oklahoma, and he had a strong showing in Missouri. Meanwhile, he had very poor showings in Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, and there was a major tie up for '2nd' in Delaware where only John Kerry can claim any kind of victory.
You have Edwards with strong showings in: South Carolina (1), Oklahoma (2), Missouri (2), Iowa (2)
You have Clark with strong showings in: Oklahoma (1), North Dakota (2), New Mexico (2), Arizona (2), New Hampshire (3)
Yet the way things are going, you'd barely know that Clark was in the race. The media treats him like an 'also ran' when he is undeserving of such treatment. Yesterday, Wes Clark's son tried to point this out and of course the media has been blasting him for this as well.
Kerry is in a good position for the nomination at the moment, but the race isn't over. Yet the media seems to want this 2 person race, and they want it to be Edwards against Kerry. Why? I don't know, but they are going out of their way to force Howard Dean and Wesley Clark out of the race.
Clark does exactly what analysts say he needs to do. He needed 3rd in NH to stay in, he got 3rd. He needed to win Oklahoma to stay in, he won OK. He needed to come in 2nd in NM, AZ, ND, and he did that too. Why is he getting dumped on so bad?
Try and think back to the last time you heard anyone say something positive about Wesley Clark's campaign, can anyone remember?
I'm sorry for my rant here, but I don't like it how the media is pushing the two Senators named John as the only choices for the Democratic party. It's also funny how they mentioned all night that in polls against President Bush that John Kerry is ahead in polls and that John Edwards is in a statistical dead heat. Did they mention that Wesley Clark is also in a statistical dead heat? Of course not, he might win if he got positive media attention!
Ok, venting over, I'm just a frustrated Clark supporter. He's done what he needs to do to stay in this race and you have the media trying to force him out of the race. You say these things enough times on talk radio, the news, etc. and people are going to believe them. Not sure why they hate him, but the media is really after Clark.
Comments
For instance, when he did well in the debate in SC . . . NOTHING, absolutley nothing from the mainstream press . . . nothing on PBS . . . nothing
He is getting snubbed, and I think there is an injustice here and I think that it is deliberate . . .
and it probably has to do with his NOT denouncing Michael Moore . . .
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=37815
but what they hey . . . he needs headlines . . .maybe we can give him these
It's an embarassment.
Clark has sort of been relegated to "potential VP" for some weeks now by the media and so they don't say much of him at all based on what I've seen and read. More of an ignoring treatement than any type of smear campaign. Ignoring a candidate has equally bad effects on their chances though because people go to television for their "information" on the candidates.
I think the local media in these cases are probably *more* at fault than the national media, because these are local, state-based campaigns. The people in South Carolina are more likely to turn to their local news to find out what these campaigns are about (should they be unable to make the rallys themselves), and so if a candidate is ignored or given a negative spin, it's almost guaranteed that person will fare poorly in that state.
If someone can dig up an example of where the local media hammered on (or ignored) a candidate during a primary, and then he actually won the state, I'd be interested to see it. From this election year or any other.
I would much rather a Clark/Edwards ticket over Kerry...
but it doesn't look like that will happen....
this is turning into a race for 2nd place...
the media has always had too much "power" in this country...
what can we do about it?
Pathetic that they can't even report clearly enough to mention Oklahoma in their headlines. Quite clearly, the election system / process is broken, and the media plays its part for good and bad (sort of like a modern-day Gollum -- ratings and media-friendly candidates are "the precioussss").
Whores.
[spelling edit]
If you support Clark, why not just email the news . . . Fran, I would suggest that you cut&paste you top post in this thread (with relevant edits) and let the news know thatt you can see their snub
Originally posted by Fran441
Clark is barely mentioned in network and cable news coverage, and when he is mentioned, it is almost always in a negative light. Last night, when he won Oklahoma and 99% of the vote was in, CNN declared that they would not project a winner until all of the votes were counted, and that if the winner was ahead by 1,000 votes, it could be called, otherwise, they would wait a week for the official certifying of the vote. 20 minutes later, when all of the votes were in, and General Clark won by almost 1300 votes, they called the race 'too close to call'. How is it too close to call when all the votes are counted and someone wins by 1300 votes? Edwards even claims he came in 2nd in Oklahoma, why does CNN have to say that it's too close to call?
To this one point. CNN made it clear last night that after the 2000 Florida fiasco it has an official policy of not "calling" an election if the margin between candidates is less then 1%. They are going to wait for the results to be certified early next week before saying who "won" Oklahoma.
To the rest of your points. I didn't hear the Clark campaign complain last year when he entered the race and was on the cover of Newsweek, Time, and a few others. How he was declared the only person that could take on Dean. He made a strategic decision to skip Iowa, Kerry and to a lesser extent Edwards got bounces from Iowa that directly translated into media coverage and "momentum".
But on the whole I completely agree with you that the media is fücked up. Since 1960 the ratio of policy stories to horse race stories has done a 180 to where it is now in the ratio of 15/85%. This is partially because the media is lazy and it is a lot easier to talk about the horse race then it is the nuances of the different candidates' tax programs. It is also because of the sensationalism that is gripping the media. The "juicy" story is Dean's falls and Kerry's rise, not anything else.
But be happy at least your candidate isn't "running for the vp spot" like the media likes to say Edwards is.
Originally posted by Fran441
Definitely. He's just NOT getting the attention he needs and deserves. There are only 3 candidates that have won states so far, and Clark is one of them, yet Edwards is getting 45% of the attention, Kerry is getting 50% of the attention, and everyone else scrambles for the last 5%.
It's an embarassment.
Sounds like Kerry is getting a raw deal. He's won 77% of the contests so far but he's only getting 50% of the attention.
I think I will write the media some letters, because they have just been terrible in covering General Clark.
Democrats Somehow Lose Primaries
SEEMS like y'all are saying that the media's got a Liberal Bias?
Yes, it does seem that the media has annointed Kerry as Gore's heir. And yet (per my thread of the same name) Dean had more delegates (before the 7 state primary on 3Feb04) than Kerry.
Imagine that.
Aries 1B
Originally posted by pfflam
Well, I jsut wrote letters to several news outlets:
I wrote a polite but stern note to the Editor of the Times as well. I think it's high time more people do this. Perhaps it will make no difference, but at least let your voice be heard on the issue of the slanted coverage the media gives to every election (certainly not just this one).
Originally posted by Aries 1B
Ummmm....
SEEMS like y'all are saying that the media's got a Liberal Bias?
Yes, it does seem that the media has annointed Kerry as Gore's heir. And yet (per my thread of the same name) Dean had more delegates (before the 7 state primary on 3Feb04) than Kerry.
Imagine that.
Aries 1B
I don't know how this relates to 'Liberal' Bias
especially as I see that Kerry is the one who is the special-interest old-boy network luvvy?!?!
Originally posted by Aries 1B
Ummmm....
SEEMS like y'all are saying that the media's got a Liberal Bias?
Who said that? They don't like Kerry any more than Clark, IMO, it's just that Kerry has been getting votes. And the way Clark talks, it's not at all clear he's less liberal than Kerry. So how do you get liberal bias?
All three seemed to be buttering up Edwards as a VP choice, while hardly mentioning Dean or Clark at all. The thing is, though I don't watch Charlie Rose a lot, I don't think he ever had such a stacked panel when Dean and Clark were vying for front-runner. In fact, he'd much more likely have pundits pundificating on the origns of the Dean surprise and questioning whether he has what it takes - certainly not a crop of yes-men saying Dean is the best thing since sliced bread.
I don't think you can explain that as Kerry just being the front-runner. Dean and Clark really are outsiders. They're just not part of the game, never have been. Kerry and Bush are.
This is weird because his story is still pretty amazing so far. He's the #2 candidate right now, and the fact that he was still #1 after New Hampshire should have been huge news. Instead, they're burying the evidence that he has any chance to win.
I can't see any way it's not deliberate, and I can't see any way that it's not coordinated. At least ONE major news source should be pusing this wacky story. I mean, he lost 'big' in their minds, but he's still got a comfortable #2 position. If nothing else the papers could be educating the public on how things are working.
Instead every source that I've seen is hiding evidence of Dean. Strange.
I mean, Clark wins the South Carolina debate and the media acts like he wasn't there. Clark wins Oklahoma, and they make *sure* that people don't know that he won, even going out of their way to say 'he claims he won'.
At least Clark is trying to get himself on the news now, directly going after Kerry and Edwards. The gloves are *finally* off. Clark had been going out of his way to not bash either candidate, but today in TN, he went after them on their voting records and stance on the issues.
Clark could be a major candidate, but who wants to vote for him when the mainstream media portrays him as someone who can't win?