Campaign Compulsion: How the Media Picks the Candidates

[redqueen]

As the first primaries of this year’s US election cycle approach, one may be tempted to believe that the time has once again come for members of America’s Democratic Party to select their candidate to run against George Bush in November.

But whatever information the American public receives about the Democratic presidential contenders will be filtered through the mainstream media—a process that focuses attention on the campaigns of the media’s choosing, to the exclusion of other candidates they deem not viable long before voters reach the polling booths.

Already, mainstream media outlets in the US, the owners of which will profit handsomely from the money spent by presidential candidates and their supporters on campaign advertisements, have shown a clear bias in their coverage of the 2004 Democratic primary race. Some campaigns have been given more attention while others have been virtually ignored. And some contenders have had their views distorted to appear more popular.

link

[Hep]

1. And look at what's left out as usual

Any mention of the droves of PEOPLE driving Dean's campaign to the top. All about the media.

Is there a single candidate in the race whose supporters are willing to recognize that Dean's campaign has done amazing things?

All this time whining about the biases of the media, and the front running campaign is where it is at because We've succeeded at making the media irrelevant. As long as people miss that, their campaigns will continue to suffer.

[redqueen]

2. Why comment if you're not going to read it? n/t

[Hep]

3. You think I didn't read it?

Media media media. Bias, lies, media.

No credit where credit is due. Just more disrespect from people who don't understand. It's OK, We're used to it by now.

[redqueen]

6. It's a long article

I guess you're a speed reader. mea culpa.

You know, you miss out on detail when you speed read. You might read it again, more slowly, so you don't miss the nuance.

But your response did sound a lot like what my republican relatives say when I complain that bush is being propped up by the media.

[Racenut20]

4. Makes you really want to see,

your nominee "elected" by 80,000 Iowa voters, 125,000 New Hampshire voters, and the News Media, doesn't it. We need a national primary.

[Karmadillo]

5. Excellent article. Thanks for posting.

n/t

[CWebster]

7. Maybe being ignored is an advantage

when it comes to blanketing negative talking points and questions of eligibility or gaffes or too liberal or flip-flops and portraying Bush as masterful and beneficent leader. C'mon.

Notice the color cover photo on the front of the NYTimes today, with t chimpy confidently striding with Condoleeeza at his side...Hmmm..they should be under investigation if this media was doing it's job.

[John_H]

8. This is an accurate and fair article, generally.

Of course the Dean camp has already started to diss it, since it dares to state facts about the media's general annointing of Dean.

Sure, the piece loves Kucinich and treats Clark pretty harshly--but it's an accurate description of how the media works.

What Dean folks need to keep in mind is that these same folks who love Dean today are going to tun on him win a Harball second if he wins the nomination.

[poskonig]

9. Media complaints = already lost.

While I endorse regulation and oligopoly break-ups, working the media is a critical component of any political campaign.

A paradox exists. If the media is preventing our candidates from winning, then we can never win. While if we win, then the media is not preventing our candidates from winning.

[cryofan]

10. great article!

Some more quotes:


Dr. Jacqueline Bacon, a San Diego-based independent scholar and writer, addressed the media’s role in attempting to select who should and shouldn’t run for president in the September/October 2003 edition of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting’s (FAIR) magazine Extra! Bacon asserts, “For all intents and purposes, the media have divided the nine candidates into three groups. The lowest tier of candidates—according to reporters and pundits such as the New York Times’ Adam Nagourney (3/29/03), the Washington Post’s Dan Balz (5/5/03) and George F. Will (5/6/03), and US News’ Michael Barone (5/6/03)—consists of Rep. Dennis Kucinich, former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, and the Rev. Al Sharpton. When this group is given any attention at all, the media tend to dismiss them out of hand, emphasizing their presumed inability to win and their marginal status in the race.”

An early choice of the press was Sen. John Kerry, who, as Bacon points out, was branded as far back as last February by no less prestigious outlets than Time and the Washington Post as the horse to beat. In the February 3 issue of Time, Karen Tumulty wrote, “John Kerry is starting to look like a front runner.” Less than three weeks later, on February 23, Post reporter Paul Waldman declared of Kerry, “Chances are, he’s already won the 2004 Democratic nomination.”


Ha ha! Famous last words.....