Study finds media is out to get Howard Dean
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...012EST0795.DTL
Coverage of Dean is significantly more negative than any of the other Democratic candidates. It's clear the establishment is out to get Dean and the media's treatment is one manifestation of this.
Confer The Media versus Howard Dean
There goes the "liberal" media again.
Coverage of Dean is significantly more negative than any of the other Democratic candidates. It's clear the establishment is out to get Dean and the media's treatment is one manifestation of this.
Confer The Media versus Howard Dean
There goes the "liberal" media again.
Comments
Make up their own minds about stories be they negative or positive about any given person or topic.
Fellowship
The press is more interested in a sexy story... the horse race...
the rise and fall of candidates... gotchas and the behind the scenes
insider info.
All of it basically irrelevant to what the candidates message is
and how one's competitors differ.
George Bush was a disaster as the Governor of Texas... was that covered much? nope. It was more fun to talk about Al Gore wearing casual clothes or the RNC's claim that he said he invented the internet. All Bullshit and unimportant. The big story? Gore is a bore and Bush is "likeable".
It's sad that you watch cnn or any other major politcal talk show... and you have to spend a day of research to find out what the Truth is.
It's lazy and pathetic reporting. CNN is getting it's scoops from Drudge?
ABC getting it's scoops from Ken Starr?(Back in the day).
Adopt a reporter today... and see just how lazy they are.
http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/
Originally posted by alcimedes
maybe because Dean is a loudmouth blowhard that makes stupid comments which makes it really easy to take potshots at him?
Please provide some examples and then show why they are "stupid" and what merits the media from choosing to report only Dean's "stupid" comments and not of the other candidates (eg. Clark).
The fact is that the media gives more positive coverage to a candidate like Al Sharpton than does to Dean.
Originally posted by alcimedes
maybe because Dean is a loudmouth blowhard that makes stupid comments which makes it really easy to take potshots at him?
Probably not.
Sure there's polls. But that's it.
And since when is it fair game to just make-up shit about a candidate.
I can understand why Trumpt does it... or SDW... they do it all the time.
But reporters?
Originally posted by Existence
Please provide some examples and then show why they are "stupid" and what merits the media from choosing to report only Dean's "stupid" comments and not of the other candidates (eg. Clark).
The fact is that the media gives more positive coverage to a candidate like Al Sharpton than does to Dean.
I personally found it a bit stupid when Dean berated that 65 yr. old pro-Bush guy at one of his press conferences recently.
Try an argument that doesn't require the sad violin music....
He didn't even ask a question. It's called a heckler.
Read below... a washington journalist with some class.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jan13.html
Required Reading On Dean
By David S. Broder
Wednesday, January 14, 2004; Page A19
America likes to elect governors and ex-governors to the presidency and, by and large, that is a healthy habit. Of the past five presidents, all but the elder George Bush prepped for the job in statehouses in Georgia, California, Arkansas and Texas. State executives learn valuable lessons about budgeting and about working with legislators. By and large, they are closer to the problems of everyday life -- and more accountable for dealing with them -- than senators or representatives, federal bureaucrats or generals.
One lesson I have learned -- from ignoring it too often in the past -- is the importance of listening to the journalists who have covered these candidates in their state capitols. It is particularly important to heed the critics and to take note of the shortcomings the state executives have displayed at home. Those problems are likely to recur if and when they reach the White House...
(edit)
Even more intriguing than the analysis of his record in vital policy areas are the insights into his governing style. Davis's take begins with the observation: "Say this about Howard Dean; he is his own man.
"He tends to think through problems himself, rather than work them out in consultation with others. Dean often spoke on an issue before receiving advice from his staff. . . . Dean would listen politely to opposing points of view when the conversation involved people he cared about, but he could be testy and confrontational when challenged on policy by people he didn't know. He had a reputation for being impulsive and occasionally arrogant.
"His staff and his small cadre of friends, however, saw him differently. They liked him enormously, and they were extremely loyal to him."
Similar contradictions and complexities emerge in almost every chapter, and it helps that editor Dirk Van Susteren has not tried to smooth everything into a single broad perspective. Some of the lessons I draw from it are cautionary, but it does not diminish Dean's stature or make his quest of the presidency seem absurd.
The country has much it needs to learn about this man, and this book is a great place to start.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
It's called a heckler.
One man's heckler is another man's hero.
If this study "finds" that the media is "out to get Dean" they'd better watch what happens should he become President. I cannot foresee a future where the person occupying that office exists without an organized and vocal opposition.
The only thing that would change on this messageboard would be the direction of the arguments.
Camelot was a fairy tale.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/16/po...ns/16LEHA.html
One friend, who suspects Mr. Lehane in the recent stories about Dr. Dean, said: "Like criminals, most good political operatives have certain M.O.'s. Chris's is fairly recognizable. He's very aggressive and he's very thorough and very good at getting reporters what they need to do a hatchet job on your opponent."
This week, tensions over Mr. Lehane burst into prime time, when Steve McMahon, a consultant for Dr. Dean's campaign, erupted in frustration at Mr. Lehane on the MSNBC program "Hardball." Mr. Lehane casually mentioned a four-year-old videotape that surfaced last week, showing Dr. Dean criticizing the Iowa caucuses as "dominated by special interests" ? a definite no-no for a candidate courting Iowa voters. Clearly irritated, Mr. McMahon interrupted him.
"You know about it," Mr. McMahon said. "It came from you."
"That tape did not come from me," Mr. Lehane shot back.
Mr. McMahon, insisting he was bound by a confidential source, said later that he could not "provide proof." But he did say he wanted to put Mr. Lehane on notice. "I'm reacting to a lot of evidence that comes over the transom," he said, "and I wanted to sort of fire a shot at him and let him know that when he's doing this stuff, we hear about it."
Originally posted by drewprops
Ummmm, like, Dean is the acknowledged front-runner in most every poll that I'VE seen....you really can't deny that. Am I hearing cries of Dean-bashing? Please.
Try an argument that doesn't require the sad violin music....
That reads: "don't argue that Dean is being treated unfairly in the media."
No.
Fellows
Originally posted by chu_bakka
The guy went off for 3 minutes browbeating Dean about critizing Bush.
He didn't even ask a question. It's called a heckler.
I'm quite aware of how it went down. My point was that Dean needs to be above that. He needs to be much more collected. It was quite stupid for him to get worked up over this one guy. It gives the impression that he loses his cool too easily.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
well... DUH!
Adopt a reporter today... and see just how lazy they are.
http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/
Yeah come on over dick head. My dad will work your ass until it falls off. All I hear today is "blah blah bitch bitch" about how the media is terrible, reporters are lazy. Shut the hell up. My dad's roomate is a reporter for the Washingtonpost, Karl Vick. He's been shot at, and watched a fellow reporter die in a car bomb at a check point in Iraq. He was knocked flat on his ass. Yeah but you're right they're ALL lazy and all they do is go report on fake news, they waste their time, and all they're out to do is to mislead you. Give me a ****ing break. 75% of these guys are out there working their ass off because it's their job and like anybody who has one they want to do it the best that they possibly can. Almost every one I have met has integrity, and works pretty damn hard. Go out and talk to a few of them before you start spreading your stupid worthless bullshit about them.
Originally posted by rageous
I'm quite aware of how it went down. My point was that Dean needs to be above that. He needs to be much more collected. It was quite stupid for him to get worked up over this one guy. It gives the impression that he loses his cool too easily.
The quotes I read didn't seem at all like Dean got worked up. The headlines said that, but the quotes were realistic. Do you have links to something more accurate?