Here's why we are losing the media game

[jpgray]

They will keep coming up with objections to CBS's TANG memo evidence until the story is killed. Note that their first slew of objections was mostly false and easily debunked--no superscript, times roman or proportional type were available? All horseshit. But it took time for all those threads to be chased down, didn't it? They will never be at a want for more threads to dangle in front of the media, and just so long as they throw them out in volume they can include as many baseless or fraudulent allegations as they like, and no one will pay attention to the deceit. The result of this is that so much time and energy is expended on these objections that the story dies before its actual implications are even aired.

Conversely, the debunking information vis-a-vis the Swift Boat folks was extant in the record for anyone to see, and several witnesses disputed the SBV accounts, one even noting that his name was added without his knowledge to their accusations.

Yet what was the coverage? Simply a recitation of the SBV attacks, and a sort of throwing up of hands as if the truth lay in between the lies and the verified record. No focus into the TRUTH of these allegations, only focus on the FACT of them--what the allegations were and who made them. The result? All people heard about was what nasty things Kerry did in Vietnam, and these accusations are placed on an even ground with the established record.

But with the TANG memos, the media have focused on the debunking evidence exclusively. The implications of the memos are not covered at all, the entire coverage is devoted to objections to their validity. Why this approach here and not with the SBV? So by focusing entirely on the TRUTH here, the media can raise doubt. If all you hear about these memos is an examination of how false they are and whether or not they were forged as 'experts say', guess what your impression will be? That they are forged, or at least very suspicious.

There is a reason the media are doggedly following along at the leash these people are pulling them around with.

[bushwakker]

1. the TANG story is now about "posiible forgeries"

not AWOL being AWOL. Amazing.

[patricia92243]

4. Nuclear weapons threat was turned into "thirteen little words". n/t

[skooooo]

2. The media is the loser...

...because people are learning not to trust them.

[secular_warrior]

3. the reason we are losing the media game

is that the right has spent the last 30 years building a ruthless and effective media attack machine and our party fails to counter with it's own attack apparatus. Apparently, we are 'New Democrats', and as such, we are supposed to be 'above the fray' and take our losses with the comfort knowing that we have not offended the suburban soccer moms.

[Poiuyt]

10. Exactly right...and welcome to DU!

The right has been pounding into the heads of every American that the media is "liberal," so the media has been going out ofits way to prove them wrong. The left doesn't like to get its hands dirty by fighting. We're trying too hard to stay positive. As you said, the right has led a campaign by writing to the media to complain about the liberal bias. Now it's our turn to do some writing.

[roseBudd]

12. We must use guerilla marketing to win

Go here:
http://somnamblst.tripod.com/index.html

to download the 300 DPI TIF file for printing and distributing.



Copyright free, print, photocopy, distribute and disseminate.

rosebud

[actinide92]

13. Memo is brilliant, marvelous attack.

Does not matter if it is the whole unfettered truth or poppycock. The memo and debunking are all negatives for Bush. The more conservative talking heads spend time debunking it, attacking it, what do they gain, only acknowledgment Bush sat out the war in Texas. Sympathy vote for a veteran of the Texas National guard?

Compare this to Swift Boat Campaign - media focus on Kerry's time in Vietnam conflict. One of his acknowledged strengths.

[Cogito ergo doleo]

19. and the president Park Avenue invented

[takebackourjobs]

5. added to that

is the reluctance of Dems to call a thing by its real name. Bush is a liar, but you wouldn't know it from the rhetoric of the opposition. Bush was A.W.O.L. but not as far as the Kerry campaign knows. The media laps up sensationalism but the Democrats won't feed the dog. The time to take off the kid gloves is now, not after another recount is needed.

If Kerry gives the media a reason to believe they can increase circulation they will follow like puppies nipping at his heels.

[jpgray]

6. Bullshit

Did you watch Sharpton's speech? According to your theory, the press would lap that up. Did you watch how it was treated? I see people all the time saying 'Dems aren't saying X', but most of the time Dems ARE saying X, and it simply isn't being reported. With Republicans, fire-eating attacks are treated well, wheareas with Democrats they are negatively received. Remember all the flak primary candidates took for being all about 'Bush bashing'? The media played up the angle that the Democratic Convention had to avoid overt Bush-bashing. Now how often did you see the Republican Convention criticized for Kerry bashing? Were the media who were so concerned about Bush-bashing feeling the same way about the Republican counterpart? There are simply two different standards.

Our leadership isn't the greatest, but we have superlative people in the party that are fighting out there.

[takebackourjobs]

8. So you're relying on Sharpton

to be the mouthpiece for the Dems? As if the media has ever taken him seriously.

[jpgray]

9. No, I gave you an example to disprove your theory

So I see you are rather free with your interpretations. Take Dean--Dean kept up a steady fire of attacks on Bush, and he was eviscerated by the media. Take Byrd--he gave impassioned orations to oppose the IWR, and nobody paid any attention. According to your theory, these attacks should have been picked up and trumpeted by the media, yet they were not.

[secular_warrior]

18. you assume that 'being tough' means

screaming like a nut. It does not. Being tough means delivering a tough message, it means directly challenging your opponent's core beliefs, instead of simply delivering empty poll tested slogans. Tom Harkin was tough when he called out the chickenhawks when they were hiding behind the swifties. That got covered. Democrats like Harkin, and even Gephardt (who people may not like but that's not the point) are tough without the need to rant and rave. They are tough, old school Dem pols who aren't afraid to get some dirt on their uniform.

[jpgray]

22. Howard Dean and Robert Byrd are screaming nuts?

Gephardt is your example of the toughness media people admire? I think the simplest explanation is the most true in this case--there is a difference in the way the media cover Republican and Democratic statements and attacks. Doubtless there are leadership issues as well, but the major part of the problem remains the media, in my estimation.

[21winner]

23. You know it.

Those that speak up are never heard or punished. In January of 2002 Tom Daschle gave a speech that criticized the fact that Bush had abandoned the hunt for bin laden. (there was no coverage) Within days,TV ads were run showing Tom with bin laden,terrorist buddies.

For the most part the media is not our friend and to expect otherwise is to be foolish and frankly very tiresome.

[JI7]

7. what i don't understand is why people are surprised

that the big media is doing this.

[Kierkegaard]

11. This is just another typical example,

but it doesn't explain why it is happening, only that it is happening.

Is corporate greed really at the heart of this matter? Would they really risk the destruction of our nation/environment/world for a few lousy bucks?

It sounds ludicrous as I read back what I just wrote, but when Ford motor company crunched potential lawsuit numbers against the cost of a recall(Pinto anyone?), they decided they were more comfortable with letting people die than fixing their mistake. It made more financial sense. An omen of things to come.

I remember being totally taken by surprise when the EPA realized the dangers of aerosols and began regulating their use and manufacture. The industry went ballistic! How are we supposed to make a living? What about US? We don't care if we destroy the atmosphere, we want MONEY! I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

These are the two events from my formative years that ingrained in me a cynical attitude toward corporate America and subsequently molded me as a Liberal.

Ultimately, there need be no leash. The instrument of domestication for the media is money. As long as the moguls are the beneficiary of profits reaped from the Liars' policies, they will do what they have to in order to keep the checks rolling in.

[roseBudd]

14. That is why WE THE PEOPLE must use guerilla marketing

Go here:
http://somnamblst.tripod.com/index.html

to download the 300 DPI TIF file for printing and distributing.

[emulatorloo]

20. These are great - Thanks for the link, and thanks for making them at

print resolution. . .I will be dropping off a few of these here or there.

[roseBudd]

24. Use spray adhesive to glue them to:

Bus shelters
Newspaper racks

Insert them in newspapers
Tack them to bulletin boards
Put them on car windshields

Guerilla marketing uses nonconventional means of distribution

[21winner]

25. The why is profit.

The corps have to satisfy the Wall Street handicappers. Back in the 90's Chrysler had its best quarter in its history,the stock fell $3 per share because it wasn't good enough. Bad mouth whispers can destroy well run corps.(there are some) Greed is the cruelest master, there is never enough.

[mtnester]

15. THE reason we cannot win the media game is that we

cannot LIE THROUGH OUR TEETH

we are not serial or pathological liars.

THAT is the only reason...

[DeepModem Mom]

16. And we simply have not the power -- nt

[Kierkegaard]

17. Our ability to lie has nothing to do with it.

The media uses a convenient double standard that benefits the *Liar. They lie, the lie gets reported. We lie, that we LIED becomes the report, not the lie itself.

We can't win the media war with lies. The only thing they understand is their bottom line. Money talks, truth walks.

[jonnyblitz]

21. I don't understand why people would find it surprising that

a son of privilege would use his family connections to get out of going to Vietnam. Why do they find that story so fucking unbelievable. It's one thing to be against the war and try to get out of it but that ASSHOLE was FOR the war for everybody else but not himself...

I guess the obvious is that they know deep down this is all true but will never admit to it in public. THose freepers can't be THAT fucking stupid.

this is a bit off topic from the discussion of the media's role in this thread but it just got me thinking about it all...