CNN's Crowley reports on Obama's Media Support drowning out other Dem

[KoKo]

Candidates! I thought I'd seen it all with Media Whoring but this report was the most assinine thing Candy Crowley has ever put out with Blitzer playing along.

She starts off her report with a long segment on Obama speaking about Iraq (actually showing Obama speaking) then she talks about the "love affair with Obama" that has overshadowed the other two candidates who announced last week they were setting up committees to explore running: Vilsack and Bayh. CNN shows short clips of Vilsack and Bayh walking around shaking hands and speaking without any audio. She says: " It's tough to run against a guy who is getting all the Media Attention and is taking the oxygen away from Hillary." She says there's "speculation" of a Hillary/Obama ticket and says: ".. as you know Wolf it's early and these front runners that we in the Media think will make it to the end are often like Governor Howard Dean finished off early as he was after the Dean scream."

Media reporting on it's own "hyped" reporting that they concocted in the first place. :rofl: A new low.

Plus she referred to Vilsack, Bayh and Obama as "Guys." (What's with this calling "Men," "Guys" that all these Media bubble heads seem to be doing lately?)

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. Two more years of this stuff? Spare me.

[FrenchieCat]

2. You've reported exactly what is going on.....

They choose, they report, they decide, they critique themselves, and then they continue to do what they have critiqued themselves for.

Guess we could all leave the United States, and they would just continue regardless as to whether there is an audience or not.....as this stuff is all pre-programmed.

Scary stuff actually though, because we have so little power to do much to change this.

And the problem is much worse....as where their end game is going to lead us, i.e., who they want us to end up with...which may not be the ones that they are pushing now.

Real game of Psych Op being played on Americans and I hate this shit!

[KoKo]

6. You said it better than I did....thanks! n/t

[Sherman A1]

3. This is the post election

We are really bored part of the reporting. Instead of doing some real investigating of some important issues. We spend time on worrying about which potential candidate for an election 2 years hence might be getting more play in the media.

[KoKo]

7. What gets me Crazy is that there's SO MUCH to Report and they are Brain

Dead focusing on '98...same tired old media thinking what worked for them in the past works now. DON'T THEY EVER LEARN? A "New Day has Dawned" and they are in Gingrich Restoration Mode!

How CLUELESS can they BE? Sheesh.

[Bitwit1234]

4. Mis-direction

Since they know, that Obama has absolutely no chance of becoming president they are pushing him toward to file. He would make a very good candidate. but there is no way he would win. Maybe that's there way of trying to screw up the democratic nomination. Playing to Obama's ego and get him to run. Besides....they're all republicans what in the hell do they know about democrats.

[KoKo]

8. What you say is probably the truth and how sad for politicians getting ego

"stroked" that they would buy into this. But, young folks like Obama don't have that "history" of watching stuff since JFK downward that many of us have and when you are "TOLD" you are "God's Gift to Humanity"...it's hard to turn it down. And, given Whore Media it's what they face..until the reality crashes them down by the SAME MEDIA that PUMPED THEM UP!

It's DREADFUL and NEEDS TO STOP!

[KoKo]

10. Quote from you: "They're all Republicans what in the Hell do they know about Democrats"

they're all republicans what in the hell do they know about democrats.

WELL SAID! Never thought about that before...What the Hell do they know? I am "Old School" thinking they should at least TRY to REPORT from both sides....

[loyalsister]

5. Let's be honest......

What have they done, or what do they do that is newsworthy?
People are not attracted to them in the same way that they are attracted to Obama and there is nothing particularly remarkable about the fact of their presence in the primary field.
Meanwhile, Obama has recently written a book and both he and Hillary been requested to give speeches in order to help raise money for other candidates like crazy.
Not only the fact that they are both "firsts" raising money the way they do gets the attention of the press.
How can we seriously deny that the activities of the other candidates might not legitimately be worthy of media priority?

[FrenchieCat]

9. Because you are basically determining that the media gets to decide who and

what is newsworthy (writing a book doesn't have and is usually not as newsworthy as the type of press Obama is generating)--Have you read Obama's book...and if so, what in it is as Newsworthy that he would be reported and speculated on 24/7 for the last couple of months?

Our most serious offense in showing our gullibility is to utilize the media as we want to, when we want to; by attempting to justify and rationalize our own position regardless of the obvious.

[loyalsister]

11. ugh!Book tours garner media attention

The fact that he is a very unlikely candidate is ganering a tremendous amount of attention. Most people yawn over the idea of most of the others who have talked seriously about running because there is nothing new about them.

The assumption people make is that is what should be "is" on some higher plane and that the media just doesn't follow those directions. The facts are really not there to support that conclusion. The media is profit driven and has since it's inception printed what sells papers.

Cynical as it is, the fact is some that candidates have to better ability of how to use current system as it is.
What I find far more dangerous and worthy of complaint is the fact that the media avoids the truth and ugliness in order to to maintain profits.
That is why the lead up to the war didn't get a serious public hearing and they have spent the Bush administration avoiding stories that were unfavorable to him.
Honestly what is the more serious problem?

[FrenchieCat]

12. I will say in reference to your statement,

"the fact is some that candidates have to better ability of how to use current system as it is", may be the seen as a question that could be turned on its head...because in my mind, it is very possible that the opposite is true; and that it is the current system that may be "using" the candidate".

[loyalsister]

13. Interpret it however you want

but, be sure and ask what has the candidate actually done?
Why would they and their activities interest the press and the public?

An unremarkable gov who was expected to run is running
An unremarkable senator exploring the idea
Previous candidates thinking about running

Is there anything really new or unexpected here?

A bunch of white guys thinking of running for president rehashing the same old stuff possibilities about troop withdrawal draw down, redeployment, etc with occasional minor variations among them.
Can you really point to anything that is universally exciting, remarkable, or history making that they are doing?

The first serious woman candidate.
Going around the country giving speeches collecting chits. As much as I dislike the idea of her candidacy it would be a history making venture and admittedly worthy of press coverage.


Possibly the first serious African American candidate - unexpected

Both are history making possibilities in the first place.
Both are making calculated decisions to get the attention of the press.
Do you really think the press was using Obama when he went to California to give that speech? He knew exactly what he was doing.
He knows that the press has a natural interest in him and he is actually trying to use that to do something worthwhile by making an effort to bridge some gaps.
He also knows that it would contribute to a presidential run if he decides to do it.

If they both run especially we are going to want extensive documentation in the future.