The problem is that you can’t get from your statements of the obvious - holy shit, the press has microphones! - to your conclusion, which is that the media colluded to destroy Dean’s candidacy. The microphones did filter the sound so the audience could hear Dean more clearly. That’s one of the things microphones are for.
The eventual nominee is going to spend a fortune on campaign ads, and so will the PACs supporting him or her. That’s going to happen no matter who is nominated.
Dean used the internet more than previous candidates, but saying he rejected traditional media is nonsense. He didn’t even use the internet very well, because his campaign couldn’t convert its internet support into votes in Iowa even before the scream. And by the way - there are news sites on the internet. That’s not a new development, and it wasn’t one in 2004 either.
But they didn’t show the video and play the sound so frequently so people could hear Dean more clearly, they did it to make him look like a fool. Just as they do to every candidate who makes any kind of slip. The spent the day laughing at Perry for saying the American Revolution was in the 16th century (I think, it’s been a busy day, I haven’t had time to get the specifics on that), which could well be a meaningless slipup. There are plenty of ways to make Perry look stupid, they don’t need to use inconsequential mistakes. It’s a clear pattern of behavior.
The total amount of money spent will be maximized with a competitive campaign. The media knows what side their bread is buttered on, and it ain’t the Pizza guy. They want the most media connected guy, who will bring in the most money for both sides, and give them the need to spend the money.
I’m not saying Dean was the better candidate (I think he was a better candidate than the John the Hypocrite, but he would have lost in the end), I’m saying it’s not the media’s job to make that choice for everybody else through selected editing and coverage. I don’t even like the primary system, but at least the decisions are being made by a larger set of fools.
Oh please, as I pointed out it is the lack of looking for previous research what should had raised red flags, and if you have not noticed I know the journals that one has to be wary when used by global warming deniers, thank you very much.
Incidentally, one can look at the first journal they missed:
And, yes it is peer reviewed. The point stands, one of the first steps on doing research if to check the previous literature. And you just also undermined your favored research there, as economists they are not the experts one should look at regarding media bias. That is a lesson that climate change deniers never learn, they seem to think that experts are interchangeable, like if one has a skin problem one could go see any doctor, it does not work that way, one goes to a dermatologist.
And I’m saying that if all you have to support the argument is false accusations about the media’s behavior, motives, and forgetfulness about campaign history, then you can’t substantiate the accusation that that’s what is happening. I know the repeated coverage of the scream was stupid and that it made Dean look stupid. It was a waste of time. His campaign was already dead, but it was not something that needed that kind of extensive coverage. They replayed it because they knew people would watch. I have a lot of complaints about how campaigns are covered, too. Your theory about what happened and why - and how it relates to 2012 - is nonsense at every level.
I didn’t write the OP to start a conspiracy theory. It was a hyperbolic means of describing the problem, which you acknowledge exists. And there may be no media cabal planning this, but they’re not stopping their behavior. And the fact that they profit from it doesn’t make it likely that it’s an innocent mistake.
Ok, I’ve got to get some sleep. Indignancy is tiring. Thank you for the discussion and your point of view. I’d like to hear your complaints about how campaigns are covered.
No, you also wrote several other posts of conspiracy theories.
You can’t say “this isn’t a conspiracy theory” and then reiterate that there’s some kind of conspiracy. Nobody said there were any “innocent mistakes.” If you wanted to make a point about the flaws in campaign coverage, you should have just said that. Instead, you wrote in very plain English that the press decided to destroy Dean’s campaign because he was using the internet as a campaign tool, and that they’re trying to push Romney over Cain because Romney will spend more money on campaign ads. By the way:
I’ve never seen anybody “report” that Romney is the most electable Republican (that’s a matter of opinion). The fact that Cain is polling about even with Romney nationally right now doesn’t mean much because the nomination will not be determined by a nationwide vote. It’s determined state by state by a series of primaries and caucuses, and that’s more likely to benefit Romney. When Rick Perry started polling even with Romney, the press certainly viewed him as a credible challenger. In fact they were all over Perry even before he got to that point. He’s flopping pretty badly right now.
Straw polls don’t mean much and it would be better if the press ignored them or only gave them a couple of minutes instead of inflating them into a huge deal. Ron Paul is good at getting his supporters to vote in straw polls because a lot of his supporters love him to death, but he’s not very good at getting other people to vote for him when the field is more wide open. I think you actually have to pay to vote in the Ames straw poll. It has no value in representing voters’ opinions and its track record in predicting the eventual nominee is terrible.
Marley is correct. Dean was finished before that speech, and “the media”, if it did anything, used it as a way of framing the story around a single act instead of the more complicated truth. The OP is going to have bring a LOT more evidence than he has so far if he’s going to prove that “the media” colluded to sink Dean in favor of Kerry.
I don’t think the media rigged the audio. Dean was being drowned out by a cheering crowd and could hardly make himself heard above the noise and his yell was lost in it. It was picked up perfectly by the microphone which was what the media was recording their audio from. It did make him llok bad, the media didn’t want him to win and his campaign was on the skids anyway. The media just got a chance to show the clip so they showed it.
I do think that the media that matter are creatures of the Washington village and they all know who the establishment candidates are and which ones they’d prefer to see running/elected etc. I’m guessing Cain isn’t on the list. It’ll be interesting to see how they handle coverage of him now he’s apparently the front runner according to a couple of polls. I do think any little flub or mistake he makes ( and he will make at least one ) will be magnified ad infinitum while Romney apparently can flip flop all day long and the media never mention it. The Obama people are trying to tag Romney with the flip flopper label right now. They’d love to knock him out and run against one of the other candidates.
How about you point out where I said the media ‘colluded’ to do anything? I described the behavior of the media, and you and Marley have been confirming it, and making up your own claims that I’m a CT. I sense some projection here. You guys must believe that there actually is an active, deliberate conspiracy going on.
Do I need to go through the whole thread? You’ve said over and over again that “the media” did this and “the media” did that. You’re saying very clearly that “the media” acts as one and with one goal and one agenda, and you’ve said clearly that they are choosing candidates. This is why when we have discussions of the press and political coverage, I try not to say “the media.” Anybody who thinks the press acts like that doesn’t understand it at all. I admit there are some common interests for news organizations (ad money, access to newsmakers, keeping people’s attention), but ABC and NBC are competitors, and Rupert Murdoch and the Sulzbergers do not choose candidates together.
If you were saying that the news media has a bias toward drama, you would be absolutely right. It’s inherent in news. A noncompetitive race is boring, and I won’t say that the Republican race is noncompetitive, but from the beginning there’s been one guy who knows how to campaign and raise shitloads of money (but who excites virtually nobody) and a bunch of other candidates who can sometimes excite people but have trouble appealing to large-enough groups and staying on message or raising money or experience. So it’s more interesting to talk about, say, Donald Trump, who was never serious about running and was plainly never going to run - not when it would have required him to give up his TV show and open his books to the public (he’s rich, but likes to let people believe he’s far richer than he is). I don’t think this rises to the level of a conspiracy, but the press was very credulous consider his candidacy and didn’t push very hard to find out about contract negotiations for his show.
+1. The Ames Straw poll is an Iowa GOP fundraiser and nothing else. The candidates pay to be there, they pay to buy the tickets for their supporters, they pay to buy tickets for non-supporters who might be willing to show up for them, they will drive you there and take you home, they will buy you lunch. I know many people, including DEMOCRATIC PARTY supporters (not ‘people who are registered and might vote Democratic’, I mean people who work for the party) and Obama Campaign workers who were ‘hired’ by the Bachmann and Paul campaigns to show up and vote for their candidates. The poll is all about getting bodies there no matter how they will vote in real life. The entire thing should be ignored by the media.
So basically you admit that that I didn’t claim collusion, and you agree with my assessment of the media’s actions. You have a funny way of saying that though.
No, I don’t admit that. You said very clearly in almost every post you made that media outlets that are supposed to be in competition worked together secretively to advance a common agenda. That’s what collusion is. I’m wondering what the problem is here. Do you not know that “media” is a plural noun, maybe? Do you not what collusion is? I’m stumped.
I agree with some of your criticisms of press coverage of the campaigns. I think the motivations you’ve come up with to explain those criticisms are total nonsense and in some cases they’re wrong on very basic facts.
You are still out in left field. I didn’t say they should be in competition, or colluded, which require agreement between the parties. I said from the beginning that the media has an undue influence in the selection of presidential candidates.
I’m perfectly willing to drop the hyperbole if you’d concentrate on the facts yourself. The motivations are irrelevant. I pointed out the conflicts of interest and potential motivations that do exist. Neither of us can demonstrate what actually motivates the media, but their actual actions are apparent.
Do you deny that the media exerts an undue influence on the choice of presidential candidates?
No, the first time you said that was in post #11, which was your fourth in the thread. By then you’d made a bunch of other ridiculous statements and you’re still semi-arguing for them while saying you’ve disavowed them or that they were hyperbolic statements in support of stuff that isn’t really related.
Hyperbole is exaggeration. False accusations and errors are not hyperbole, they’re, well, false accusations and errors.
Then you shouldn’t have made a bunch of statements about the motivations of the press, like ‘they screwed Dean because he used non-traditional media’ and ‘they want Romney because he’ll spend a bunch of money on ads.’
I agree that you can’t. I already made some pretty plain statements about the motivations of the press, and they were much more accurate than what you said.
I’m having trouble getting behind it as worded because it’s a very broad, vague statement and it also treats “the media” as something separate from the voters and the political culture, which it is not. I think the press focuses on stupid issues like how well someone’s arguments are playing instead of whether or not thye are true, and that it wastes time on flashy personalities instead of the actual candidates, and that behavior like that can influence the whole process.
I thought the Republican party wanted Romney because he was the most appealing? Nearly every conservative I see interviewed seems to greatly favor Romney. Isn’t it because they believe he has a better chance to win? Not because he appeals to the far-right, but because he’s more acceptable to centrists.
I mean if you look at the candidates:
Perry appeals to the far right and evangelicals, but is worse than Bush Jr at public speaking.
Paul has been the most consistent on his policies and has Tea Party support, but he scares corporate America and most sane people.
Cain is… well lets just say… I think some conservatives will abstain for voting entirely if he gets the nomination (draw your own conclusions).
Bachmann is daft and her husband is involved in questionable practices (does not appeal to the center/independent vote).
Huntsman is Mormon, but not only is he Mormon he believes in evolution AND global warming. I think he needs to switch parties.
Then there is Romney who is very much for big business and is the only one besides Huntsman who doesn’t talk like a complete moron. Though what he says might be less intelligent than Huntsman, but he’s Mormon and has flip-flopped. Overall he seems to appeal to broadest base, though honestly I think Huntsman would have a better chance.
Huntsman openly acknowledges evolution which I think could win many independent, libertarian, and even liberal votes. And it’s not like Republicans are going to vote for Obama just because their candidate actually paid attention in high school.
I don’t think the media has to help to get Romney the nomination. IMO, he is clearly the only choice Republicans have if they want to realistically win. Obama WILL get out the vote from minorities, so I am almost positive he will get reelected.
Well the term ‘media’ is highly recognizable. Actually I find the networks to be the problem. I didn’t mind the old days where every town had competing newspapers with highly biased views. I suppose in some cases they were able to achieve the same effect in a locality that the networks do nationwide, but at the local level people have a chance to interact more often directly with the candidates. The swing states get a lot of attention from presidential candidates, but in the rest of the country, everybody has to rely on the network coverage. Even the local papers simply pick up stories from the wire (we call the Providence Journal the ‘pamphlet’ now).
The stupid issues and how the arguments play are a big part of it. That’s the route to ignoring substance. And now the networks feature flash polls, and the self-selective process of reporting tweets from their viewers. The experts they bring in to make predictions (probably averaging less than 50% accuracy from what I’ve noticed) are often represented in the national print, radio, and internet media as well, and are often hyping those other vehicles to attract the fixed mindsets. What they don’t do is analyze. Even when they evaluate the truth of statements they do a lousy job. A candidate who makes a factual statement where they get an insubstantial part definably wrong will get smashed as a liar, while someone whose statements are littered with unsupportable claims gets a pass.
The undue part comes from their ogliarchal status. Both in broadcast and cable the news networks are not subject to open competition. They use political operatives as ‘experts’, and in many cases pretend to present balanced coverage by countering their obvious preference with weak opposition (and that’s not just Faux News either, they are just overly obvious in the way they do it). Their influence also extends into those infomercials called debates now-a-days. These are increasingly structured to satisfy the network news’ desire to have all issues expressed in sound bytes without analysis or depth.
Now I see you don’t find anything interesting about connecting dots, but I’d like to get your take on public funding for elections, and why the network news pushes this as a solution to the very problems they create. I see it as a means of using tax dollars to pay for campaign advertising.
The political culture part is a sticky issue. Politics is a messy and often ruthless activity. Voters often judge the abilities of candidates to do their jobs based on their ability to conduct and win political campaigns, which for individual voters is their right to do. But networks aren’t objective (and don’t necessarily need to be), but I think when it comes to working the system, they should stay out. The media shouldn’t be equating campaigning with the politics, but they do it frequently. You’ve fallen into that by claiming Dean’s demise based on campaign organization instead of concentrating on the politics.
You (or someone) also mentioned the primary schedule (as an unrelated point). This is a major problem also, as is the electoral college (I rank it beneath the Clown and Barber Colleges). But it leads to more of the media meta-analysis centering around the concept of electability. IMHO, people have a right to vote for someone they believe will do the job best, not just the person who seems most electable based on someone’s arbitrary standard.
The Republican establishment, if you want to call it that, largely prefers Romney for the reasons you mentioned, and I’d say most of the rest of it favors Perry. But a party establishment can’t win elections alone and it needs to get the support of the enthusiastic elements of the base. Those people have always had trouble swallowing Romney because he’s really not very conservative - or at least that’s what his record says. And they seem to have cooled on Perry after some initial enthusiasm because of his position on the HPV vaccine and illegal immigration, for example. The base feels the establishment has sold them a bill of goods over and over again, which is sort of true, and the establishment feels that the base wants candidates who won’t be palatable to swing voters, which is also sort of true.
What leads you to the conclusion that “the media” didn’t want Dean to win?
Yes, by the time of the infamous Dean Scream sound bite, most people in the media had concluded that Dean wouldn’t win. That was because, despite having lots of media buzz and internet hype and an excited fan base, when it came to primary elections he wasn’t getting any votes.
Dean was hyped by the media, his candidacy got all sorts of positive coverage, and then people didn’t vote for him and he became a non-story.
Yes, there is a self-fulfilling feedback loop going on here. The media only covers credible candidates, and without media coverage you’re not a credible candidate, supporters will only work for you if you’re credible, and you’re only credible if you have lots of supporters. Except, this is how elections work.
Yes, Herman Cain is winning a few polls nowadays. Except, I can guarantee that he ain’t gonna be the Republican nominee in 2012. You know it, I know it, the American People know it, and The Media knows it. He’s a fringe candidate and the only reason he’s winning polls right now is that there are lots of Republicans who aren’t happy about Romney but don’t want to support Perry either, and they hear that there’s the Cain guy that other Republicans are interested in, so they mention him. These sorts of polls are wildly innaccurate in predicting who voters will actually vote for in the primary elections.