I'm a bit baffled.

[helderheid]

One of the challenges Edward's had in Iowa and one of the reasons he may not have done better was the media blackout.

CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!!!!!!!!!






How sure are we about the results in the NH Primary?


CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=electronic+voting+machine+irregularities&btnG=Google+Search

:shrug:

What do people have against facts that are measurable? You can count how many times the press mentions any of the candidates and since the introduction of the evoting machines, we have countless reports of irregularities. Why is concern "sour grapes"?

[havocmom]

1. Thank you for some sane mention of the

FACTS!
:applause:

[Double T]

2. Mandatory equal time by the MSM must be legislated so what has happened to John Edwards and others

can NEVER happen again. The MSM needs this kind of regulation or THEY will dictate who is elected.

[smoogatz]

14. Terrible idea.

Mandatory equal time? For who? Should Mike Gravel get as much air time as John Edwards, say? I'm pretty sure that if you split the pie evenly among all candidates, Edwards gets *less* time, not more. And what about inter-party fairness? Should Olbermann be required to talk about Romney as much as he talks about Edwards? If he praises Edwards, would he then be forced to praise McCain, or Giuliani?

Funny how the 1st amendment goes out the window for some people as sone as their candidates lose a primary.

Anyway, seems to me that the "MSM" has so far done a highly ineffectual job job of dictating the winners. In Iowa they said Hillary would win; in NH they said Obama would win. They're 0-for-2, and shaking their heads over the way those wacky voters have confounded them.

[texastoast]

23. Answers below

Mandatory equal time? Yes

For who? All candidates, all parties

Should Mike Gravel get as much air time as John Edwards, say? Yes

And what about inter-party fairness? It's about the issues (or should be)

Should Olbermann be required to talk about Romney as much as he talks about Edwards? Yes

If he praises Edwards, would he then be forced to praise McCain, or Giuliani? The pundits can have their opinions--they are mere pundits and all should be eyed and listened to with skepticism.

In other words, what we need is good journalism, something long missing.

[smoogatz]

27. So

according to the texastoast plan, any mention in any medium (TV, radio, print, internet) of any candidate for any office would have to be followed by discussions of exactly equal length of every other candidate for said office, no matter how far out of the running they may be, and including every fringe third, fourth and fifth party candidate AND some guy named Roy with a "Vote for Roy" website. Call it a lack of imagination on my part, but it seems kind of unworkable to me. Not to mention punitive and incredibly tedious for the audience. And then there's that 1st amendment thing about the government not getting to tell the press what to say. But I guess we've gotten rid of that pesky establishment clause already, and pretty much all of the 4th amendment, too—so what's another clause here or there?

[texastoast]

32. I guess your candidate is getting plenty of press

And I guess I'm not understanding the 1st amendment is going to be affected.

The fact is, once we aren't so primitive, we will understand that bringing all ideas to the table and hashing them over will eventually, if slowly, the best idea for all will come up.

Call me Miss Imagination.

[smoogatz]

36. So far so good.

But even if he wasn't, I wouldn't advocate regulation of the type you've proposed. You ought to think that 1st amendment thing over. Here's the starter question: to what extent is a regulated press still a free press?

[texastoast]

42. When they can't lie

Think libel and slander.

[smoogatz]

47. They can lie all they want to.

They're not supposed to lie maliciously, in a way that damages people, but they do that, too. Remember Joe Klein and the "Al Gore claimed he invented the itnernet" story? And then you've got the media catapulting the swift-boat propaganda, etc. They lie all the time. They could be sued, of course, but only after you've lost the election (you have to show damages), and then the story becomes "he's a sore loser." If you can't keep them from making shit up, how are you going to tell them how to allocate time on the 6:00 news? Are you going to have government agents watching 24/7, to make sure nobody gets more air tiume than anybody else? Does that sound like a "free press" to you?

[texastoast]

49. Welcome to Amerika

I have my own ideas and you obviously have yours. I do think that with regard to the political process, media should act responsibly and if they do not, then I think that is a violation of their "right" to a "free" press and thus requires legislation.

It's a constitutional question. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that you can abuse them.

You can't shout "Fire" in a theatre as a joke. That's a restriction on free speech.

You can't shoot people just because you have the right to bear arms (well, maybe in Pasadena, Texas, but that one is still out at the moment). That's a restriction on the right to bear arms.

And, in a just world, the press should not be able to dick with the PROCESS of selecting a candidate. The PROCESS is far more important than any one candidate. And if restricting the press means keeping integrity in the PROCESS (because the stupid press can't control itself), then that protection for all Americans is more important than the protection for corporate media punditry.

And judges interpret the Amendments with a view to balance everyone's rights, conflicts and all.

http://www.freepress.net/

[smoogatz]

51. The fact that your refer to it as a "right," in quotes, speaks volumes.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say we have the right to an unbiased media, or a press that treats all candidates fairly. What it does say is that except for a couple of obvious exceptions (kiddie porn, etc.) the government is not allowed to dictate what the press will print. It's inconvenient sometimes, sure, but I think the protection of free political expression by individuals and in the media is something we should probably be willing to fight for, not advocate against.

[texastoast]

52. I guess the Founding Fathers

forgot to include "equal access to television time to secure the democratic process" when they wrote the Bill of Rights, which, given today's culture and environment, I bet they might have, especially Ben.

The democratic process is imperiled as long as people are limited from access to the exchange of ideas.

But I have great hope. In the heart of chickenhawk shrub country in West Texas on a recent trip, I had several old friends tell me that they don't think they get the news they need from MSM anymore anyway. They aren't counting on the nightly news to keep them informed. Maybe MSM will become moot.

So, good luck to your candidate.

[marions ghost]

70. thank you

for a reality check on the idea that the corporate media should always be allowed free reign in the name of free speech. The big media in America have seriously abused the privilege and are using their power to control thought and limit freedom. Big difference. You stated it well.

[moodforaday]

65. Don't reduce the argument ad absurdum

Mandate an equal timeslice for each candidate during whatever hours. Not necessarily top viewership hours, but the time slices must be consecutive, i.e. you don't show 1 candiate at 8pm and another at 2am. Each candidate gets the same timeslice, maybe 10 minutes (ed: or even 5 or 3 minutes, every night or so), during which the TV station airs whatever material the candidate's supplied them with. Could be live as well.

Works in other countries.

[smoogatz]

28. dupe

woops.

[EFerrari]

34. Nicely done. n/t

[helderheid]

45. Well said.

[Double T]

30. Equal time for ALL unless YOU are partial to the Obamarama Show.

The corporate media isn't going to pick my President!

[smoogatz]

33. I don't think you can enforce an equal time rule and still have a free press.

By definition. Sorry. My choice of candidate's got nothing to do with it. I actually do think Edwards is getting screwed by the media, in much the same way that Howard Dean got screwed by the media, in much the same way that Ron Paul is getting screwed by the media. Insurgent candidates get screwed by the media—it's a fact, and it sucks. But regulating the media beyond reinstating the fairness doctrine is a terrible idea.

[Double T]

46. fairness doctrine should be equal time, equal exposure for each candidate.

We can't continue to let GREAT candidates like John Edwards and Howard Dean to be screwed.

[Laurab]

74. I guess that would be me

"partial to the Obamarama Show", since I like Obama - although HRC is a large part of the "show", too. Oddly enough, I like Edwards, too, and agree 100% with the OP. Edwards has been minimized by the media, and I don't like it at all, just as I don't like the idea of someone being "coronated" for me by the media.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I like Edwards, too. I don't think you should paint Obama supporters with such a broad brush. I also don't like the fact that JE's numbers didn't change ONCE in the NH primary - there's something funny going on there IMO.

[LynzM]

3. THANK YOU!!!

Thank you, thank you, Helderheid!! This is the thread I was looking for!


It's very clear that Edwards is not getting equal media time, even after his "surprise" second-place finish in Iowa, using 1/6th the funds of the other two candidates. The media loves an underdog? Bullshit. The media is scared shitless of an anti-corporate candidate.

[helderheid]

53. :)

Thanks! :hi:

[robinlynne]

4. Helder, I was on the phone with a friend in Brazil last night after the Nh polls closed.

Their tv news headlines last night were: Obama wins NH by 17 points. I had just watched the HIllary win here...

[helderheid]

50. Woah. That had to have been a tad surreal!

[robinlynne]

56. yes....

[annabanana]

5. Most of the people crying "sour grapes" are not thinking further

than, oh say 7:30 tomorrow morning...

Anyone who has been paying attention knows that it's the process that needs attention, moreso than the candidates, or any piddly little primary. .

[havocmom]

6. BINGO

[helderheid]

15. You got it.

[DEMorthem]

7. I guess this means

the media machine would be happy with Obama or Hillery, Edwards - not so much!! the media MUST know what /who`s best for america!! I mean they have all the answers, right?

[donheld]

10. Welcome to Du DEMorthem

:hi:

[2rth2pwr]

8. Why did you leave out Kucinich? nt

[helderheid]

20. You're right. Absolutely right. The reason I didn't mention him was that it is even more blatantly

obvious our press has an agenda when it leaves out someone who came in 2nd in Iowa after being outspent 6 to 1.

[SoCalDem]

9. sadly, third place is not "newsworthy", unless the front-runner ends up in 3rd.

:(

[MissDeeds]

18. But they failed to mention Edwards

even when he came in second in Iowa. I know it was a very close for second place, but second nonetheless.

[stillcool]

11. I'm beginning to think...

this country is not ready for democracy. Young people are too stupid, too impressionable..and should not vote. Candidates are unsuitable due to their cosmetic appearance, their race, or their gender. All presidential candidates need serious backing to even consider entering the race, yet as soon as they do, they are vilified for accepting the very money they needed to enter the contest in the first place. Politicians behaving as politicians is unacceptable, unless it's the politician you favor. Votes cast do not need to be counted accurately. The only reliable explanation for any and all events that take place in our political process is the one that comes from the media. Anyone who dares question another possible scenario is a stark raving mad conspiracy theorist. They are not winning..they have already won.

[truedelphi]

22. The problem being that once a country has become an oligarchy

There is only the sad sham of democracy going on.

At least in Russia, people knew that Pravda (the name of Russia's largest news outlet) meant Truth and was nothing but lies

Here people still think that the "news" organizations are unrelated to propaganda.

[EFerrari]

39. Why do you hate the Clintons?

:sarcasm:

I'm about to start rewriting "Evita" for Hillary.

[truedelphi]

54. I think I know that musical

Is it the one where the poor peasant girl marries the rich dictator and then starts spontaneously singing
"Don't cry for me Corporate Lobbyists.
The truth is I never left you
All through my wild days
My mad existence
I kept my promise
Don't keep campaign contributions distant.

I'll keep my promise!"

Or some such. With an occasional "I love you and hope you love me"

[helderheid]

58. DUZY DUZY DUZY

:P

I will vote for her if she's our nominee but that was SOOOOO Duzy worthy!!

[truedelphi]

59. Only it wasn't that funny. But but but

The time in October of 2006 when someone wanted to know what other folks thought of the new, faster
voting machinery, I quipped:

Those machines count votes so fast that they will announce the results of the November election tomorrow at noon.

I thought that was DUZZY funny!

[helderheid]

60. !

:rofl:

[truedelphi]

55. Self Deleted. Of no interest to anyone here.

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. This makes me sick. Yeah...I wonder why people have concerns about our elections. I'm perplexed

about it.:eyes:

[Dhalgren]

13. Edwards is being "Kuciniched". Once the media has cast you out

it is hard to be let back in...

[redqueen]

16. It's blatant... there's no missing it.

On MSNBC last night, their big results charts for republicans showed six candidates on two screens, three on one screen & three on the other, with vote totals and percentages.

The charts for dems? Clinton and Obama.


And if you check CNN's election central page, again - six republican candidates' delegates are shown... but only the top three dems.


Also the M$M seems to just LOVE printing bad news stories about Edwards... but doesn't seem to find positive stories about his candidacy so worthy of reporting.


It's blatant and systematic... I don't know how anyone manages to miss it.

[mzmolly]

17. Indeed, our media "knew" this race was going to be about Hillary and Obama

for months it seems?

[AlertLurker]

19. These silly charts prove absolutely nothing, actually.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama have waaaaaaaaay higher media profiles than John Edwards. They are controversial, different, and instant targets for the RW media attack machine. Edwards is BOOOOOOORING by way of comparison, especially given the fact that the media (and general public) has the attention span of a gnat with ADD. Even if they mentioned Edwards every time Edwards and Obama were in the same room, Edwards' numbers would still be way lower than Obama's just for the fact that Obama will be mentioned more in correlation to OTHER candidates, due mainly to his media profile and controversial nature.

Edwards, apart from the Hedge Fund/Sub-Prime lender stuff, has not been as involved with the media as Obama has - he's just not as juicy a target...Remember the Obama/Osama stuff? The fact that his middle name is Hussein? His daddy's a Muslim? The fact that he is Afro-American?

Edwards is just another white dude. His platform is watered down Kucinich-lite, and he is not different or genuine enough to get noticed more. He simply cannot command the media profile that Clinton (a woman, hardliner, cryer, fake laugher, former first lady, many scandals, etc) or Obama (Hope, Vision, Youth, Black, black enough? Muslim or Xian? RW target?) does, period.

All the whining for Johnny-Boy (the Invisible Man!!! Bwahahahahaha!!!!) is getting really tedious. He didn't even deserve THIRD in NH, as far as I am concerned.

[helderheid]

21. Tripe.

I might agree with you but when you look at the mention in the press AFTER coming in 2nd in Iowa, there is no excuse.

[balantz]

25. EXACTLY!

That second placing should have been ringing pretty loud over the airwaves. Instead we got even less mention of his name, "Oh, never mind him" as they shuffle him under the stack.

[AlertLurker]

26. None except the valid points I made above, of course.

The fact that he got 2nd in Iowa is pretty meaningless, as well. He was fully expected to finish in the top 3, so why he would command more media attention by affirming expectations is beyond me. even if he finishes 1rst in SC, he will not get as much media attention, as he is expected to do well. He unfortunately just cannot command the media attention that Obama and Clinton can. It's not a fault, but he is just not as controversial as the other two.

White, male, Southern, Xian...no story here, in comparison (as far as the M$M is concerned).

[balantz]

29. Also the one who wants to fight corporate power in Washington.

The one who will surely cut into their profits if elected. That kind of threat against big money will surely get little mention by the press owned by that very same big money.

[AlertLurker]

31. You ARE joking, right?

Johnny-boy is nothing but a big old empty bag of wind.

Check his record. Pro-War, Pro-Corporation, Pro-Police State.

He can spout his Kucinich-plagiarized, faux-populist bullshit until Doomsday, it can never erase his dismal Senate voting record.

His employment record may need a little expunging, too. Fortress Investments ring any alarm bells? I suspect when people start to figure out how much he actually SKINNED ($4 million? $5 million?) off the backs of the poor (especially the Katrina victims evicted in NOLA), it will be GAME OVER for Little Johnnie.

The Republicans will pass him around like a drunken cheerleader at a frat party if he gets the nomination...

[balantz]

37. You're funny

edit for spelling

[EFerrari]

35. Another low rent circular argument. n/t

[moodforaday]

69. So you are really saying

Both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama have waaaaaaaaay higher media profiles than John Edwards.

So you are really saying that some candidates get less news coverage because... they've always been getting less news coverage. Because they're not the ones the media have picked.

[helderheid]

72. ding!

[JNelson6563]

24. Check this video out

Found it in DU Political Video forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x81575

Rather chilling.

Julie

[EFerrari]

38. I'm not baffled. I'm tired and sore from being manipulated for the

last decade or more.

I want to know who wins and how they won beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't want to be told to trust exit polls as a measure of how clean my elections are.

I don't want the corporate media to decide for me who is worth air time or not. I want to hear Gravel just as much or more than I want to hear the most popular candidates. I sure as hell want to hear him more than I want to hear the cross seeking Huckster.

I'm tired of being called a loony or a conspiracy theorist by people who blindly believe in vote totals they can't prove. THEY are the theorists, the ones trusting right wing owned coroporations to tell THEM who their candidate should be. I'd settle for a transparent count. Math. Stuff like that where you show your work.

Millions of dollars are going into ad buys while our election reform groups make stone soup. Kewl. Let's keep feeding the beast while they use OUR money to RIP off OUR votes. I wish I could be that stoopid.

It's disgusting. It's ignorant as hell. It's not democracy.

/rant off

[balantz]

41. I agree.

Because we have been so fucking lied to, because corporate greed and power own this country, and because the M$M, including the exit pollsters CNN are owned by them, I won't believe a goddamned bit of it. I mean, what the fuck?! Are we just supposed to assume we're being told the truth?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

40. Thing is,...democracy is dismantled by a profit rather than principle-driven media.

I am grateful that I can state, I will be satisfied no matter what the outcome of the primary because ALL the candidates are exceptional. I still stand with Edwards because he hits the heart of what is destroying democracy in this nation: corporatocracy.

However, what is most concerning about the "measurable facts" you have presented is how the profit-driven, corporateering media is essentially DESTROYING DEMOCRACY in our nation. I accept that many of their employees are unwilling to accept the degree of influence and control they are exerting over this nation. Some of that denial is due to ignorance, some to ego, some to 'don't give a shit' attitude, some to a sincere belief in earnestness.

Unless the ivory whites are pulled out of their clouds, nothing will change in the corporate media.

[helderheid]

43. Really well said!

[mnhtnbb]

44. This same thing happened to Gore--only in his case all the favorable, uncritical

media went to Bush. I'll see if I can find the analysis done by an institute for journalism.

Here's one review, but not the one I'm thinking of

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/121802a.html

and a couple of sample paragraphs:

For one, the national news media now can safely tuck away its responsibility for grossly mis-reporting that pivotal campaign. If not for the media's fabrication of quotes and distortion of Gore's personal history, George W. Bush never would have gotten close enough to win by having five Republican Supreme Court justices stop the counting of votes in Florida.

snip

Our view for years has been that Americans concerned about the growing right-wing dominance of the national news media must invest in a “counter-media” that will not treat the Bush family like royalty and will give American voters important information on other topics.

Like his father, George W. Bush has gotten the kid-gloves treatment. In part, that’s because the Bushes are protected by two powerful elements within the news media: the red-meat conservatives and the blue-blood establishment. This double layer of protection makes the Bushes almost unique in American politics, shielded both by aggressive right-wing activists and by the Georgetown social set.

The “counter-media” must challenge that, by taking a hard look at Bush’s mistakes while giving the American people the context for understanding the risks of his domestic and foreign policies. The “counter-media” also must counteract the kinds of media fabrications and distortions that were directed against Gore in Campaign 2000, effectively deciding the election.

Still not the article I'm thinking of, but an excellent analysis

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/mediacrisisdemocracy.pdf

In this study, I demonstrate how the triumph of neo-liberal ism and media deregulation
helped produce a crisis of democracy in the United States. I argue that the tremendous concentration
of power in the hands of business groups who control powerful media conglomerates has intensified
corporate control of vital news and information and surrendered the lively and critical
media necessary to ensure a vital democracy. If corporate media promote their own interests and agendas,
they do not serve their democratic purposes of informing the people, allowing the public to engage
in informed civic debate and thus to participate in democratic dialogue and decision-making.
Moreover, if the media corporations utilize their powerful instruments of communication and
information to advance their own corporate interests and those of politicians and policies that they
favor, then the media have lost their democratic functions of serving to debate issues of socio-
political importance and providing a critical watchdog against excessive corporate and government
power and corruption and questionable policies. Further, democracy is undermined if the
mainstream media do not address significant social problems when these issues threaten corporate
power or dominant economic interests. Moreover, by undermining democracy and not engaging the
significant social problems of the era, the corporate media themselves become a social problem,
requiring alternatives and intensification of a democratic media politics.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

76. The latter gets to the meat of the problem: concentration of power and wealth.

History proves such concentration destroys not only a democratic nation but also ANY NATION.

Common human sense acknowledges the destructive potential of such power.

Yet, there are way too many who still buy "BUY" (I repeat) the notion of human benevolence as if there is or has ever been such a thing.

[LanternWaste]

48. Concern with evidence is valid.

Concern with evidence is valid; otherwise, the concern is indeed "sour grapes".

Do we have specific, compelling and relevant evidence that voter fraud happened? If not, then the current cries of fraud will do nothing other than dilute the real and actual issues of voter fraud.

It could dilute to the point in which when we do raise the legitimate issue of voter fraud, it will be difficult to separate the chaff from the wheat and make it that much more difficult to rectify.

For example, there was a thread some time back in which many, many people were accused of being authoritarian. The accusations came so fast and so furious and over such pettiness that now, every time a few particular posters cry "Authoritarian! Authoritarian!" I don't even bother to see whether it's a legitimate sobriquet or not-- I simply assume that he/she are bandying that label about like so much loose change in their pocket.

Now... I'm not making any judgments at all about the NH primary vote. The concern may or may not be valid. But it's a serious issue that I for one do not want to see watered down by mere speculation.

[helderheid]

57. The problem is this argument will happen again and again so long as Diebold (ES&S Seqouia) are

counting.

[vickitulsa]

66. Why do you keep calling it "voter fraud"??

We're not talking about VOTER fraud possibilities, here -- that's the RW talking points BS that they've gotten the corpmedia to go along with them in publicizing. Remember?

What we who are concerned with the primary results last night believe we must consider here is ELECTION fraud. The outright stealing of votes through use of machines, whose software alone counts the votes and -- due supposedly to "proprietary" reasons -- must be counted IN SECRET.

No one is auditing these vote count totals. No one is observing the process, checking it, making sure the outcome is the correct one indicated by the VOTERS.

I'm not afraid of machines; but I do know that when you have secret tallying going on and no one is allowed to oversee or check that process, it's not VOTER fraud we have to worry about -- it's ELECTION fraud and election THEFT.


And I firmly believe that if we could get these NH primary results audited, or go even further and have the entire 80% of votes that were software-tallied done over by hand count of the (optical) paper ballots, then IF the results we were given last night are confirmed as accurate we would ALL feel better.

And OTOH, if these measures revealed that the Diebold software (or whoever handles it) gave us INcorrect results last night, we can investigate further and then, maybe, FINALLY, we will have the evidence to demand that this extremely serious problem be corrected -- immediately.

In order to get this EVIDENCE we need, we need ACCESS to the system here!

I personally think HRC herself ought to demand a recount. Just think how far such a move would go to allay all the worries and concerns, even the fears, of fellow Dems, not to mention everyone else. I never have heard that the candidate who demands a recount MUST be one who LOSES an election, does anyone know?

I am very bothered by what happened last night, and there can be no question of "sour grapes" in my case. To have fellow Dems hurling epithets like that at me and so many others here to whom it simply does not apply just shows me that we as a group are willing to let ourselves be further divided before we'll do the sensible, right thing and demand TOGETHER that we all have access to an equal and fair system of campaigning and voting.

[EFerrari]

73. The problem with telling people not to raise the question w/o evidence is

our elections are shrouded in secrecy. The secrecy IS the bigger problem, not any one result. From the raw data of the exit polls to unaudited electronic voting, the lack of transparency already disenfranchises voters.

And, as far as I can tell, there is little chance that we can "dilute" interest in election reform because there is very little to dilute.

[helderheid]

61. and this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2646314

[OneGrassRoot]

62. Kicked, recommended and bookmarked!

:applause:

Thanks! :hi:

[helderheid]

63. thank you!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2642431&mesg_id=2642431

[OneGrassRoot]

64. Those interested in this thread, may also be interested in...

this thread by asdjrocky: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4017273

I recommended including the info you so graciously provided as part of the email in this media blitz!

:kick:

[HEyHEY]

67. Shit THEN wipe

Does that help?

[kitty44]

68. Beautiful! n/t

[chimpymustgo]

71. Another great post from helderheid! Thank you for all you do!!

We have to take the issues of corporate media coverage and corporate voting machines seriously IF WE CARE ABOUT OUR "DEMOCRACY"!!!

[Uncle Joe]

75. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, helderheid.