Kerry talks environment; reporters talk turnover

Good thing these guys went to journalism school and all.

LITCHFIELD, Nov. 12 -- Sen. John Kerry finished his nature walk Wednesday, laid out his plan to protect the environment, took some shots at President Bush and opened it up for questions.

He got one question, the first, with a follow-up, about his plans for the environment. He spent the rest of the press conference telling reporters that his campaign isn’t in crisis, firing Jim Jordan wasn’t a sign of panic and they should all stay tuned as his campaign turns a corner.

“What the people want to know is what we‘re going to do to provide health care,” Kerry said. “It’s all inside baseball. Nobody in America’s reading this except you.”

Mark Kornblau, a Kerry spokesman, said Kerry isn't concerned about the media’s obsession with matters of political process because he doesn’t think voters are either.

“If the media want to talk about staff changes and other process stuff, that’s their prerogative,” Kornblau said. “(Voters) don’t ask him about campaign staff changes.”

http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2003/November/11_12talk.shtml

<>

This seems directly in line with Joe Klein's contention that Dean's campaign is focused mostly on campaign process rather than bold policy initiatives. The media love "process" - like "analysis" - because it doesn't require alot of homework, and they don't feel so bad that they drank their way throught their Communications major.

The real journalists are few and far between. It's all about who signs their paychecks and orders from the top.

Anyone think there WASN'T a coordinated effort against Gore when the percentage of negative articles against him was upwards of 70% in 2000 cycle?

that's pretty m uch how it's always been when it comes to kerry and some others. they can't do real reporting. kerry has no problem talking about the issues which are important but it means nothing to them. this is how bush is able to get away with things.

And in my classes, the lack of intelligence about anything in general and politics in specific is scary. Thanks for highlighting the lack of intelligence/courage in the press. Hopefully I can help change that, but not for a while.

you will have a hard time getting a job with most of the media whores with that attitude, but good reporting seen or read by few people does way more good than bad reporting seen by many. hopefully things begin to change when you get out (though it's mostly unlikely).

We need at least one or two good ones out there!!!

http://www.salon.com/media/media2961022.html

Stossel's humiliating counter-sting occurred too late to make it into tonight's show. But if it had, we might have pointed to the $11,000 speaking fee that he received two years ago from the American Industrial Health Council — a group that includes such companies as Du Pont, Pfizer, Proctor & Gamble and Squibb, all of which have a vested interest in many of Stossel's assaults on government regulation.

And Stossel is not alone. Many of the most famous members of the D.C. press corps -- the true power elite of American journalism -- accept high-paying corporate speaking engagements and have direct personal ties to the political candidates. The top echelon of Washington political reporters — Cokie Roberts, Sam Donaldson, George Will, Andrea Mitchell and many others whose heads appear daily on the screen — receive from $10-$30,000 (in Cokie's case) per appearance from industry groups like the National Association of Realtors, the American Hospital Association, the Public Relations Society of America and the Mortgage Bankers Association. The sensitivity of this issue was demonstrated last November, when ABC's Cokie Roberts, informed that her paid appearance in front of the Public Relations Society of America might include audience questions about her speaking fee, withdrew at the last minute (she was replaced by NBC's Andrea Mitchell).

Over the last 18 months, all three networks, in an effort to combat what ABC News Vice President Richard Wald termed "the appearance of conflict of interest," have imposed guidelines that prohibit their correspondents from taking speaking fees from profit-making enterprises or groups representing those they may report on.

But the real compromises lie deeper -- in corporate sponsorship that defines the very parameters of what is considered acceptable discourse. Take the pundit talk shows, where a parade of center-to-right-wing talking heads appear each week to engage in what passes as political debate. From "This Week with David Brinkley" to "The McLaughlin Group," two corporate sponsors predominate: General Electric and Archer Daniels Midland, two of the biggest corporate recipients of subsidies, tax breaks and government contracts in the country.

Is it really a surprise, given this fact, that these shows are more like political circuses than political debates? That histrionic posturing, featuring heat-filled disputations of political minutiae, fills the vacuum where genuine ideological discussion might otherwise exist? That television rarely challenges the abuses of corporate power? And that such progressive populists as Jim Hightower and Ralph Nader have routinely failed in their efforts to obtain backing for a political television show with a truly left-wing perspective?

more...

it really is bad. i always tell people if they want real, good reporting they need to check foreign sources.

I like this guys. I was teasing with my thread headline. Good for him.

well, coming from you it makes some sense since you actually support a guy who voted against iwr and organized against it and attended protests and continues to call for handing control to un. but i guess that isn't good enough for some since he "yells". hehe

Second choice after Congressman Kucinich. Good man. I was being a wiseass, thank you for getting a good laugh.

Thanks Kleeb, I needed a good laugh just about now!

Kerry's a good guy. I was pleased to see Chris Heinz defending his father today. BTW I am sure you all saw David Zephyr's letter to Kerry, I think it was good and I was pleased to see you all be fair with the guy. I think I will explain here why I have Kerry as my second choice, see I support DK because he opposed the war, patriot act, and he has an all around good platform, Kerry also has the same thing, that is a unique amount of strengths. No problem sandshea and J17 both, you guys deal with that on a daily basis, and I know that Kerry many good views. Before I was a Kucinich supporter, I was divided between Kerry and Dean lol, and thougth that would be an ideal ticket heh, seems these two are like Patton and Montegomery.

mainly because Kerry is fighting back against them and won't take their BS. They know he can win and it angers them. It interferes with their plan.

I find it ironic that the same people who were screaming about the media rooting for Bush have no problem with them doing it for Dean, and more importantly seem so emotionally caught up that they can't realize the media is still rooting for Bush -- by selecting a weak candidate for him to face.

For some reason people just don't want to wake up and face the facts: Democrats have suffered some serious landslide defeats over the past 30 years, and the corporate media is probably most to blame for it. They pump up and protect candidates during the nomination process who have little chance of winning (but not such long shots that it's unbelievable), then unleash the real criticisms/trashing during the general election.