Why aren't ALL of you indignant about MSM's impact on this election?

[OneGrassRoot]

Obviously, supporters of everyone other than Hillary and Barak are indignant about the LACK of coverage.

But the media has been complicit in creating very damaging coverage for both Hillary and Barak. They have manipulated what they want the viewers to "see" and "hear" every step of the way, willfully taking things out of context, setting their own storyline for this contest.

One of the common criticisms about John Edwards is with regard to his electability, specifically because it's anticipated he won't be able to defend himself with TV ads due to the matching funds issue (please see Tennessee Gal's post about this issue @
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4073220&mesg_id=4073687).

Similar to the voting concerns (i.e., election fraud), the manipulation of MSM should be a concern for ALL OF US, regardless of who you are supporting at this juncture.

Whether or not our votes are being counted correctly is an issue which affects ALL OF US.

How the media is incorrectly reporting on our candidates and influencing the process is an issue which affects ALL OF US.

If Ron Paul can develop such a huge grassroots campaign - with donations to show for it - why can't we? Why are we even giving any energy to trying to compete with the repubs in MSM in the traditional way, rather than getting away from business as usual? Symbolman is doing his part to be part of a grassroots media effort. Why aren't we focusing more in this direction rather than giving in to the way "it's always been done"? If we keep playing they're game, they're gonna keep winning. We need to change the rules.




:shrug:

[SteppingRazor]

1. I think most people aren't indignant because this is hardly anything new.

Media has had an effect on every election in America since John Adams squeaked by Thomas Jefferson in 1796.

[Essene]

17. Exactly. Find 1 person not indignant at the MSM on here... good luck

[Lucinda]

2. I'm also outraged about the lack of honest coverage of both Obama and Hillary

It's all spin all the time.

All in all...our media sucks.

[Rock_Garden]

3. I know, I know. Stupid free speech.

[HeraldSquare212]

4. I don't know, isn't indignation sort of condescending?

It seems to rest on the premise that people won't seek out information on their own if they want it, which I don't believe is true.

[Bread and Circus]

5. Yes, I have a huge problem with how they covered New Hampshire....

1st off, Edwards beat Hillary in Iowa. He should have got A LOT more credit for it.
2nd off, Hillary was always way ahead in NH and only squeeked by with a couple % points (a mere 7500 votes). She lost ground in NH, not made up for it. Rather, it was painted as this huge comeback instead of the true loss of ground that it was. The artificial "bump" that Barak got was not real as the polls obviously were extremely flawed.
I also hated how they piled on Clinton with the crying thing and all that, like sharks in the water smelling blood. They sounded like a bunch of goddam idiots before NH, and now they sound like a bunch of goddam idiots who swung too far the other way, all the while wearing egg on their face.

If they just reported the facts rather than trying to manufacture opinion, they and we would be much better off.

[MGKrebs]

6. No one is stopping any candidate (or anyone else) from using

alternative media. Howard Dean (and yes, Joe Trippi) brought us a big step away from the MSM with internet campaigning. There are countless other ways to campaign and advertise. Candidates who run an anti-corporate campaign and haven't developed an anti-corporate way to disseminate their messaging are probably going to struggle.

[Captain Hilts]

7. They're ignoring Edwards and distorting/truncating what HRC and BO say. nt

[Perry Logan]

8. Avoid the media altogether. It exists to confuse and demoralize Democrats.

[OneGrassRoot]

9. Okay, let me clarify further...

We all criticize MSM for a million and one reasons on a daily basis here, and rightfully so.

Why then are so many content to continue to try to play this game on their terms?

It's the repeated comment/criticism about Edwards' lack of funds to buy TV ads that brings me to this point. Should that even be an issue? Why aren't we being more creative in order to sidestep MSM and get the word out about our candidates rather than relying so heavily on the very institutions we don't trust?

Like I said, lots of people with no interest in politics know who Ron Paul is; his grassroots campaign has been very, very effective. However, without a message that appeals to the masses, even exposure can only get you so far.

I think we should take his grassroots efforts seriously and learn what we can so we don't have to put our fate in the hands of the very people who are NOT working in our best interests (Corporate Media).

[Barack_America]

10. Because that would require critical thought.

And I've been told that's dangerous and better left to the "professionals".

[fenriswolf]

11. and what about the blatent media blackout on kucinich?

His is a case of outright blackballing.

[OneGrassRoot]

12. He was included in the "everyone except Hillary and Barack"

is upset because of the LACK of coverage. Their supporters have other reasons to be upset with MSM. DK has certainly been treated unfairly, no doubt.

[damntexdem]

13. What makes you think we're not?

Many of us have long been indignant about the MSM's control over American elections.

[OneGrassRoot]

14. Yes, I realize that...

and it's because of this longstanding, informed, rightful indignation that I wonder why so much attention and energy is given to "buying ads on MSM" once we get to the general election. Many here seem to feel we don't have a chance of winning in the general election unless our candidate has the funds to equal the republicans' advertising budget on MSM.

I'm just asking why we don't put more faith in grassroots efforts. That's all...

[MGKrebs]

15. If we're not getting what we want, we should try something different.

But I don't buy that "MSM is ignoring Edwards because he is anti-corporate" mantra. I believe the MSM is all about entertainment, and they are not finding Edwards (or Kucinich) entertaining. Those juys haven't figured out how to create sustainable drama for their campaigns. This is a particularly tough year for white men though, as we have two very viable other candidates with automatic drama.

But ultimately, I see it as a "chicken and egg" problem. The media will give us what we want as long as the ratings are good and therefore the advertisers will pay. And they think they are giving us what we want. But "we" progressives aren't everybody, and not even mainstream apparently. So, we have to convince enough other regular people to become progressive, and then the media will cater to our interests. Otherwise, we have to FORCE the media to be more progressive and hope that that convinces additional people to become progressive.

It's all about the grassroots.
We have ALL the power.
We have ALL the money.
We have ALL the clout.

We just choose not to use it very often.
We're not very organized.
We're not very motivated until we get very pissed off.

I'm not sure how many people (if any) I have convinced to be more progressive and be more active in their community, but that is the task at hand. For me anyway.

[OneGrassRoot]

16. Good points...very good points.

I'm with you in the "it's all about the grassroots." I'm doing what I can each day and always trying to think of better ways to do it. ;)

:hi: