Why bother?

[Ninga]

To vote in the New Hampshire primary.

After listening to Tim Russert on MSNBC this morning, the media manipulation is like a run away train with the over the top language and words.

Tim's use of the words "blowout" and "stunning"

when speaking of Obama made me think, why would Hillary or Edwards supporters bother to take the time and go vote after listening to that?


What little patsies we are.....we sit helpless.....sucking on our thumbs.....while the media dances rings around our political process.

The pendulim will continue to swing upward for the media. They are not finished with us yet, and their hyperbole is yet to reach epic proportions.

I will not be on this earth to witness the revolution, but mark my words some where, there will be a revolution.

O holy cow....as I finish writing this I hear Chris Matthews overwrought and positivily orgasmic making his "historic" Obama speech.

[Rockholm]

1. Maybe it would invigorate other candidate supporters..

to go out and vote.
You're right. I believe the media is orchestrating the primaries for ratings and dollars (maybe euros)

[Ninga]

During national elections, there is some rule that prevents the media from

declaring the winner before 10PM EST and before the polls close on the West Coast.

The reason for that rule is that people are still voting, and would not, if a winner was declared.

Same difference this morning with the spewing and the blustering and the over the top excitement for Obama.

What they are doing is NOT reporting, but editorializing and opinion making.....not reporting.

[Ninga]

4. During national elections, there is some rule that prevents the media from

declaring the winner before 10PM EST and before the polls close on the West Coast.

The reason for that rule is that people are still voting, and would not, if a winner was declared.

Same difference this morning with the spewing and the blustering and the over the top excitement for Obama.

What they are doing is NOT reporting, but editorializing and opinion making.....not reporting.

[rocktivity]

21. DING DING DING! Rockholm, you're our grand prize winner!

I believe the media is orchestrating the primaries for ratings and dollars...
More specifically, the dollars that the candidates will be spending to run national campaign advertising. The more popular a candidate, the more donations they receive, the more they'll have for spending on advertising, the more attractive they are to the media. So of course they're going to skew their coverage accordingly. That's the real reason they were "over the top" about Hillary having it all locked up even before Iowa, and why they're going over the top about Obama now--they're just following the money.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Rockholm]

26. To a fellow Rock. Thanks!

I was just watching MSNBC. Scarborough (R) Church Todd (R) and Mika (?) were just on, fawning all over Ted Olsen and how Ghouliani would pick RW justices for the Supreme Court.
This just after they were blasting Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Obama is up, up, up, up in the polls. Big lead. John Edwards is invisible.
The MSNBC pundicators believe it will be like a "field goal" for the pukes in their primary. Gotta keep the sheeple tuned in at least for them.

[babylonsister]

2. Excuse me, but did you listen to Matthews? Not exactly fawning

over Obama, he's downplaying his odds of winning against the status quo machine.

And FWIW, the 'media manipulation' is not what is making people come out in droves to support their respective candidates. Nobody is being forced to do anything. Just sayin'...

[Ninga]

6. Been at this for over 50 years, and the media has shaped and formed opinions more so

now, than ever.

Once Ronald Regan lobbied and won for the Fairness Doctorne to not be renewed.....all bets were off for the media.....and the gloves came off. Later, soon after that vote, Rush Limbaugh was installed on the free airwaves for 15 hours a week without rebuttal.

Typically, only 3 to 5 percent of the voting public follow politics and policy. The rest of the voting public rely on TV, seldom read, and are influenced by negative ads and the pundits.

You can chose to believe it or not but that is the case.

Regarding Matthews he is in a constant state of give and take....he has been horrible to Hillary Clinton for many many long years......and when she physically confronted him and reached out to his face it was the first time I ever saw him speechless.

He knows who he is and what he has said about her over the years.....that is why for the last 24 hrs he has said that "in person, Hillary is warm and engaging" but the damage he has done to Hillary can not be undone with one phrase.

So be it.

[babylonsister]

9. So the candidates' performance has absolutely nothing to

do with how people view them? You can chose to believe that but I'm not buying it. Clinton has had tons of face time on the m$m, she was the early darling, and people just don't seem to like her much. At this point anyway.

[Ninga]

12. I am not saying that a candidate does not have to do their part....however the

media does not report. They editorialize.

For instance when the media said George Bush had a very good showing against Kerry in the debates.....did you agree?

For instance when the media stood by and editorialized instead of reporting about the Swift Boaters....did you agree?

For instance when the media made fun of Gore's "earth tone" clothing choices and talked over and over and over again about it......did you agree?


Given me an f"ing break

For the average joe on the street....they don't know who their congressman is, who their senators are....but they sure can parrot the lines the media spins out.

[babylonsister]

18. I never said the media didn't have influence, I just stated that

some people can make up their own minds despite the way the media leans.

And you're right; Kerry won those debates by a landslide, and I was pissed off at the spin.

[Ninga]

23. Well, as Edwards says...."you can't expect them to give up the money and their power"

so how far will "nice" go???????????

[Echo In Light]

25. Despite media instruction, yes. Yet many will fall prey to its influence

Of course it isn't absolute w/black/white results. But it does work to a significant extent.

[Naturyl]

3. Why pay the media so much attention?

If you already know the media manipulates everything, why not turn off the TV and do something more productive?

[Ninga]

7. Please read my #6.

[Echo In Light]

5. I think what Ninga is implying is the power of coercion the media has in mass society

To nefarious ends.

[Ninga]

8. Well said, with many fewer words I must say!

[Echo In Light]

10. Believe me, I could {and have} rant at length about media/thought control in democratic society

Orwell really understood that essential subversion of language required to establish a parallel reality in order to control "hearts and minds." Nothing is officially true until it's officially denied. A built in defense mechanism of that media induced system of control is that denial of its efficacy comes quite naturally to groups of people who prefer to perceive their views/choices as being free from external influence, making it much easier to overlook what would be obvious to an outsider looking in.

[Ninga]

15. Thank you for your eloquent "clinic'. In other words, we are dicked.

[Echo In Light]

20. Step by step, that's how it's always done

It's very difficult given that people are raised within such a densely propagandized social climate. It's so pervasive, woven into the fabric of corporate culture, that many don't see it, don't want to. From there one has to contend with the enormous, all encompassing reach and affect the mainline media has. Dissidents can't begin to have even a sliver of such a comprehensive platform to reach others by. That doesn't mean one caves in though.

[rocktivity]

11. Once upon a time, long long ago

the media was insisting that it was HILLARY who had the nomination locked up. So why bother to vote in ANY primary at all?

:eyes:
rocknation

[Ninga]

16. The national polls reflected her lead and it was name recognition. And you are correct, the media

played her lead to the hilt, but without data and substance.

They also did not speak or write about Edwards, and there is plenty of hard data to show that.

They also gave no respect to Dodd, Biden, or Kucinich.

Very early on the media determined it was a 2 way race.....the media did not let the process play out on the merits....by not giving equal time in print and electronic to all the candidates.

[kurth]

13. Yep HUGE juggernaut gigantic historic tremendous stunning revolutionary earth-shattering INEVITABLE!

[Sparkly]

14. Sometimes it seems we might as well just let a fraction of the people in Iowa decide.

It tends to be what we do.

What I don't understand is, why do the Republicans seem more "independent-minded" than the people who vote Democratic?

[Echo In Light]

17. Noam Chomsky has sort of maintained that for a long time, due to experience

What passes for the left here is very ideologically controlled.

[Sparkly]

19. Interesting

Could you refer me to some of his writing on that?

[Echo In Light]

22. I'm referring to material found here:

I've heard him talk about it many times, but specifically can be found in this doc where he talks about the ideological framing he has to routinely endure when he is invited or allowed to speak on American lefty programming:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730&q=manufacturing+consent&total=131&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[Sparkly]

24. Thanks very much, Echo!

:hi: