Shouldn't people who cover our campaigns know at least as much as I do?

[dsc]

I am no expert. I am not paid to watch these people's speeches. Yet I am watching the Hardball panel reacting to Dean's speech. He used a part that he has used several times. The thing about wanting the country we had when he was 21 and about the sacrifices for civil rights. I know I have seen this at least a half dozen times. They all said they had never seen it. Just so you know this isn't sour grapes they were actually praising Dean, but this is scary to know that the people who drive our dialogue evidently don't watch the speeches of candidates.

It would be like if kids in my math class knew more math than I did. I would be fired if that were the case.

[SadEagle]

1. Well, to be fair, they have to watch many candidates...

... so they probably don't watch as many Dean speaches as you did. But yes, he certainly repeated bits and pieces of his stump. Still, the spin is positive? That's what counts here.

[dsc]

2. kick

Journalism is important

[creativelcro]

3. Yes, I realize more and more that it is a bunch of lazy bastards...

Or just plain retards...

[RobinA]

4. You'd Think

But you'd be wrong. I don't know a lot either, but I follow the news. I'm amazed at the number of times they know less than I do. And their knowledge of history..... I can't count on both hands how many times I've read a reporter misunderstanding the 1st Amendment. Duh, it's like, Con Law 101.

[dsc]

5. kick

[mzmolly]

6. Maybe we should send them the text of Dean's speeches to enlighten their

closed minded asses. They were too busy calling Dean angry and cherry picking antiwar quotes to listen to the substance.

[dsc]

7. no kidding

[Armstead]

8. I noticed that too

It was Dean's standard stump speech. I've seen it numerous times on CSpan.

One of those idiots said something like "well if Dean would show more of this side of himself, he'd have a good chance."

Well, duh. These are the same morons who have ben saying all along that Dean has no message beyond being anti-war. Or that he is just an angry screame.....And then they are impressed by a speech he has probably given 1,000 times.

Jeeze.

[Cassandra]

17. Agreed

They are too busy looking at themselves in the mirror instead of doing something useful like watching C-Span. I guess we should be grateful that they watched at all. Apparently, Dean's speech was the only one shown on other channels in its entirety. They were looking for superficial drama and saw passion instead.

[AP]

9. they're trying to help him. They know he's said it before, but they're...

...acting like he's changed his campaign and it's "new and improved". They're trying to draw a line under the past losses and they'll act like there's a good reason to take a second look.

[dsc]

14. They could show doctored pictures of him raping nuns

and you would claim the media was helping him. It really does get tiresome.

[Armstead]

10. Kick

This is an important subject, regardless of who you support.

We're letting the media shape the perceptions of candidates too much.

[Desertrose]

11. I totally agree Armistead

they report what they want to support the "spin of the day".

As for fair and balanced?? ...not in this media....

All has to be ok'd by the WH before its aired anyhow....

:grr:

DR

[Anwen]

12. Yeah I noticed that too...

I've seen him give that speech twice now. But I'm glad he got the opportunity to say it to a national audience with free air time, so that more people can see the REAL Howard Dean.

[LizW]

13. You would think

But then Tucker Carlson last night didn't understand (or pretended to not understand) the significance of the Dean signs that say "Hope not Fear." :eyes:

[SeattleRob]

15. Agree...

Let's be honest here. The media in this country is a disgrace. The problem is that the news media is controlled by large corporations. Now if we were to poll the Board of Directors of say, the top 100 corporations, what percentage of them would be liberal Democrat? I would say a very low percentage. Our news media is controlled by large corporations who have a strong financial stake in the status quo. For example, do you think General Electric (NBC) or Westinghouse (CBS) would financially benefit if there were stricter enforcement of environmental laws? Of course not. It would cost them a lot of money.

The entire argument by the right, that most reporters are liberal is meaningless. It doesn't matter if they are socialists or communists, their bosses, those who own the media (the gatekeepers) are generally conservative Republicans and they are the ones who control the message. (PBS is no different because they are reliant on corporate underwriting - and the Republican congress controls their purse strings.

Beyond the corporate structure of media, there are a lot more troubling aspects. There is the question of outright lying and manipulation. Does anybody watching the coverage of the election, recall seeing any detailed reports on the candidates plan for healthcare or the environment? I am talking about a detailed analysis. Not a fleeting description. What about environmental policy? Has Kerry or Dean's plan for the environment been discussed in any detail - A compare and contrast say between the Democrat's ideas versus Bush? Of course not. We are treated to a horse race mentality - How much money is someone raising, what kind of sweaters are they wearing. It's a discrace.


The key to getting a grasp of this is not only looking at the stories that are covered - but what is not covered. For example, do you know that in England, a government official is on trial for revealing that the US government wire tapped UN Delegates during the lead up to the Security council vote on the Iraq war resolution? It's huge news in London.

Let's look at the "taboo" issues that the media never raises? 9/11 is an example. There are a lot of things about that event that just don't make sense. Any reasonable person would be asking questions or seeking clarification. But the media is silent. What about our history with Saddam - Rummy shaking Saddam's hand in the 80's (after he used chemical weapons) while trying to procure a Bechtel pipeline agreement. Fast forward to the present time - Bechtel is one of the big winners in the Iraqi reconstruction contract sweepstakes. Is it not reasonable to ask questions about this? There are so many things that have been going on that need to be addressed - the media remains silent.

I would argue that we are being manipulated by propaganda and sadly, most of the American public falls for it. In the old Soviet Union, we had PRAVDA. At least the Russian people were smart enough to be skeptical of what was reported. Here so many of us are easily led astray - who is electable. The entire bullshit that happened with Dean - the constant attacks culminating with the Iowa speech - should be a warning to everyone - no matter who you support.

The bottom line is that nothing will change unless we stand up to the media and hold them to task for their misinformation and for things they are not reporting. In my opinion, Independent media is our only hope - Thank God for the internet.

[KoKo]

19. Notice how they totally focus on the "Horse Race" and "Game" leaving

the real issues facing the country off the table. Then they say the Democrats aren't focused and don't have a message. :eyes:

They did this with Gore and will do it with Kerry or Dean. Turn off the average American while Bush dismantles our hard earned freedoms. That's why our Candidate must hit back every day with talking points. We must attack Bush to get attention. I don't think that will happen. So, people will tune out not show up to vote and Bush wins. (that's my fear)

[JaneQPublic]

16. Tom Brokaw, summarizing Kerry's resume, said he was a congressman

...before becoming a senator. I'm not even a Kerry supporter but I knew he ran for congress but never won a seat.

This was just one of several factual errors I heard from so-called political experts in the past few days.

[Abigail147]

18. Excellent points raised by all.

We have to call them on it and not give in to inertia.