Why can't the dems make stories stick?

It's a serious question - why has no GOP scandal for the last few years found legs and kept them? If Limbaugh, Hannity, FOX and the Washington Times was interested any one of these items, it would have dominated the headlines for months, and this is just off the top of my head:

- the bribe offered Nick Smith
- lying about filibusters of judicial nominees and all around dishonesty and underhandedness in this area
- the outing of Valerie Plame
- mischaracterizing the NIE on Iraq
- stonewalling 9-11 investigation
- Energy Task Force stonewalling
- the prez' cozy relationship with Enron and lay (his campaign ject was the Enron jet!)
- creating the lie that the WH was trashed

I mean, sure there's books a plenty and you see this stuff in blogs and in glossy east coast monthlies ... most even fleet through mainstream news ... but how come it doesn't feel like anyone but a small minority of Americans are fired up about this stuff? All my friends are, most of my family is, most of the people I come in contact with through work are fired up ...

onedit: let an all-caps "all" make in in there

that repetition bores us? While Republicans need to believe in easy absolutes?

As an example:

If W screwed a horse in public, the media would say:

"He's an animal lover and a great outdoorsman."

And the classic line about Al Gore:

"If Al could walk on water, the media would report he can't swim."


Any more questions?

arendt

All these things have indeed been reported in and on main-stream media ... it's just that they fizzle out. The GOP seems like they're teflon ... is it because they're good at deflecting such things, or is it Dems are good at framing these things so they stick ... or is it because Democrats have no equivalent of Limbaugh, the Was Times, etc? Why don't we? Heck, I'd relocate to work for such an enterprise ...

regarding journalistic ethics ("what journalistic ethics") and how a story gets covered (generating buzz) but most importantly, the existance of a co-ordinated conservative megaphone that is disciplined and biased in a fashion the supposed "Liberal Media" never could even imagine at the height of it's supposed power in the 60s and 70s.

Due to shifting technology, the media collectively, as an institution undergoes sea changes in how it does business.

The creation of a Party-Loyal Right-Wing Sub-Media relentlessly covering political stories in a biased fashion is the ONLY way a story gets captured for weeks and months, either that or an investigation which grabs the media...although I don't know if that even would apply anymore, which we can't find out because the Democrats are so far out of power.

But there is no analogous co-ordinated Party-Loyal Left-Wing Sub-Media, no matter how the Dittoheads, Freepers, and Brownshirts (but I repeat myself) might yowl that the Mainsteram Media serves this function.

THAT is the issue. Given the way modern media works, only a huge publicity arm blaring a handful of talking points can keep a story going.

"Nick Smith claimed he was offered a bribe if he changed his 'no' vote on the recent medicare bill, but then later backed away from his statement."

It is a fact! And a damn scandalous and interesting one as well! Today I can only find one mention of it in a paper I have heard of. Had Americans been interested in buying a paper or waiting through a commercial break, it would have been reported.

Anyway, I am going to contact both papers here in town and tell them I look forward to reading more about it ...

The Republicans

For example, Arnold S's friends bought up the tabloids before Arnold ran for governor.

If Arnold's friends had not owned the papers, we would have seen tons of stories about his sexual misadventures. Instead the tabloids had a story about an alien endorsing Arnold.

The last time I was at the grocery store, there was a glossy magazine all about Arnold in the rack where everyone stands to check out their groceries.

made me stop and go 'what the hell...Arnold has his own magazine?' It seemed incredibly lame, but at least it made me laugh.

when we find ourselves in position of authority once again, that we expose all the horrors of this most corrupt regime. How it happens that lies, greed, slander, and selfishness do not dominate our collective interest, is unknowable.

there should be a constant drumbeat on all of these things, like there was during Clinton.

I hear all kinds of stuff the dems say in Congress, on C-span, that never makes it to the news. Strong stuff, but ignored.

The media wants soundbytes and controversy- Not one DEM has called Bush a "liar", used the word "liar", and then give 10 examples of important issues that he has lied about.

It's silly, I know, but if DEMS want the media to cover them, then they need to be provacative- in my example, all they would be doing is telling the truth anyway...

It sounds stupid, but if any prominent DEM called Bush a "liar" and used that actual word and brought up examples-every paper and station would reprt it- I gurantee it...

Kerry got all that press for saying "fuck"- at least more people heard what he was talking about as a result...

I wish the DEMS could figure out how to be either creative or provacative when it comes to criticising W- it's the only way they'll get any coverage...

At least one or two of the Prez.candidates have figured this out...

Who was it, Friedman that suggested those against the Bush tax cuts refer to them as "service cuts" to counter it being framed as "tax relief"? How about "fucking service cuts"?

Being provocative can work both ways ... for instance, my Dad liked Franken's book gut it "used the F word too much" ... and I would tend to agree, he uses it when it really doesn't add anything other than the F word itself.

Yes, we have a scandal from the Shrub administration almost every day.

Yet nothing sticks, at least in the media.

My hope is that it's at least sticking in the minds of the American public.

I know it is here, in California.

We lost the media at some point in the 1990's. The "free press" died a quiet death and most haven't noticed yet.

Quit wondering about this. It's old news. What we need is a liberal version of "Fox". We need money. We need our own moguls.

for the Al Gore channel.

…
Gore has shared their frustration. In an interview last December with the New York Observer, he described the conservative outlets as a “fifth column” within the media ranks that injects “daily Republican talking points into the definition of what's objective.”

“The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party,” Gore said. “Fox News Network, The Washington Times , Rush Limbaugh — there’s a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media.”
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,459345,00.html
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=6665

The Internet might soon be the last place where open dialogue occurs. One of the most dangerous things that has happened in the past few years is the deregulation of media ownership rules that began in 1996. Michael Powell and the Bush FCC are continuing that assault today (see the June 2nd ruling).

The danger of relaxing media ownership rules became clear to me when I saw what happened with the Dixie Chicks. But there’s an even bigger danger in the future, on the Internet. The FCC recently ruled that cable and phone based broadband providers be classified as information rather than telecommunications services. This is the first step in a process that could allow Internet providers to arbitrarily limit the content that users can access. The phone and cable industries could have the power to discriminate against content that they don’t control or-- even worse-- simply don’t like.

The media conglomerates now dominate almost half of the markets around the country, meaning Americans get less independent and frequently less dependable news, views and information. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson spoke of the fear that economic power would one day try to seize political power. No consolidated economic power has more opportunity to do this than the consolidated power of media

Posted by Howard Dean at 06:31 PM
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000683.html

Amanpour: CNN practiced self-censorship
CNN's top war correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, says that the press muzzled itself during the Iraq war. And, she says CNN "was intimidated" by the Bush administration and Fox News, which "put a climate of fear and self-censorship."

As criticism of the war and its aftermath intensifies, Amanpour joins a chorus of journalists and pundits who charge that the media largely toed the Bush administrationline in covering the war and, by doing so, failed to aggressively question the motives behind the invasion.

On last week's Topic A With Tina Brown on CNBC, Brown, the former Talk magazine editor, asked comedian Al Franken, former Pentagon spokeswoman Torie Clarke and Amanpour if "we in the media, as much as in the administration, drank the Kool-Aid when it came to the war."

Said Amanpour: "I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did."

Brown then asked Amanpour if there was any story during the war that she couldn't report.

"It's not a question of couldn't do it, it's a question of tone," Amanpour said. "It's a question of being rigorous. It's really a question of really asking the questions. All of the entire body politic in my view, whether it's the administration, the intelligence, the journalists, whoever, did not ask enough questions, for instance, about weapons of mass destruction. I mean, it looks like this was disinformation at the highest levels."

Clarke called the disinformation charge "categorically untrue" and added, "In my experience, a little over two years at the Pentagon, I never saw them (the media) holding back. I saw them reporting the good, the bad and the in between."

Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."

CNN had no comment.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2003-09-14-media-mix_x.htm

Why Isn't Randi Rhodes Syndicated? The Dilemma of a Liberal Talk Show Host.

RHODES: Oh, I am so glad you asked. I am a ratings and revenue queen. Number 1 or 2 in the ratings usually. So what are the “mainstream” talking about? Well, they say Liberals don't make money because no one wants to hear them. Okay, let's think.

First, remember that more Americans are registered or identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans. So here's the dirty little secret of news talk. There are advertisers making huge “buys” on really low rated shows that air nationally. If advertisers only go where the listeners are why do they buy cable news, Oliver North, or Rush Limbaugh who has horrible ratings?

They are buying CONTROL of CONTENT. It's leverage, whether it's radio, cable or network. They control millions of dollars of any company's revenue source. So that if something is said or done to disrupt their global business, they take their advertising elsewhere, or threaten to and then shut down the message.

And, think about this . . . how many products are on TV that you can't even buy? Plastics, computer chips, prescription drugs, soybeans. I mean honestly. This is the story that NEVER gets told. People just think, “Well, if your good enough, you'll have a big audience and that's what advertisers want.” “Whose being naïve now Kaye?” I am always number one or two in the market. Rush is somewhere around 21st. I replaced G. Gordon Liddy!

I hope this gets told over and over because it is how they control our news, our Information Awareness. Get it?

BUZZFLASH: Explain the allegations that Rush Limbaugh has stated, that if Clear Channel syndicated your show, he would take his program to another company. Could there be a Democratic or Progressive Rush Limbaugh type personality on the airwaves?

RHODES: Not at Clear Channel.

First, let me tell you where the story came from. I had two meetings with middle managers who both liked me and what I had done for our 'pod'. (At Clear Channel the territories are split up into 'pods'.) In two separate meetings I was told “The Rush story.” Additionally, I should never expect to be syndicated by Clear Channel because Rush had said he'd just do what advertisers do. He'd go somewhere else. I was an unknown, he was a known.

I begged for and got (6 months later) a meeting with a senior manager. He told me the “Rush story.” So that's where it comes from. Now, when Oliver North was on the air, he stated that Rush was syndicated because Rush was a better talent and got better ratings. (This is insulting because of the fatness of the lie) . . . I then told him that Rush had threatened to take his show elsewhere if I were to be syndicated by Clear Channel. He said “I've heard that but I can't comment.” So everyone does seem to know “The Rush Story.” (North and Rush are friends).

Control the Content . . . we have business that cannot be disturbed by a questioning public.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/01/03_Rhodes.html

Meanwhile, the Web site www.allyourtv.com posted a commentary on Wednesday by Rick Ellis saying that he had been leaked an internal NBC study that described Donahue as “a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace.”

The report allegedly said Donahue presented a difficult face for NBC at a time of war, saying a nightmare scenario would be one in which his show becomes “a home for the liberal anti-war agenda at the same time our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.”
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/entertainment/5263274.htm

While “Donahue” does badly trail both O'Reilly and CNN's Connie Chung in the ratings, those numbers have improved in recent weeks. So much so that the program is the top-rated show on MSNBC, beating even the highly promoted “Hardball With Chris Matthews.”

Although Donahue didn't know it at the time, his fate was sealed a number of weeks ago after NBC News executives received the results of a study commissioned to provide guidance on the future of the news channel.

That report--shared with me by an NBC news insider--gives an excruciatingly painful assessment of the channel and its programming. Some of recommendations, such as dropping the “America's News Channel,” have already been implemented. But the harshest criticism was leveled at Donahue, whom the authors of the study described as “a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace.”
http://www.allyourtv.com/0203season/news/02252003donahue.html

NOW In Depth - Massive Media PBS
Solid Ratings Don't Protect Progressive Radio Voices
What's Wrong With This Picture?
Podvin on the Media 1-31-02
Harper's editor laments rise of corporate news purveyors
Commentary: The Surrender Of MSNBC
The Wayward Media

HUSTLER: What has happened to the the news media in this country?

PALAST: I vomit every time I see Tom Brokaw.

HUSTLER: And Dan Rather-

PALAST: I feel sick at heart when I see Rather, because he's actually a journalist. He came on my program, Newsnight and said, “I can't report the news. I'm not allowed to ask questions. We're gonna send our children and our husbands into the desert now, and I can't ask a question, because I will be lynched.” This is what Rather said in London. He looked defeated and awful, and I was thinking, Why am I feeling sorry for this guy who is worth millions? He should turn to the camera and say, “Well, now for the truth. Over to you, Greg, in London.” The problem is that he can't report the story of the intelligence agents who are told not to look at the Bin Laden family, not to look at Saudi funding of terror.

HUSTLER: What makes Rather afraid to do his job?

PALAST: It's not just that there are brutal shepherds like Rupert Murdoch out there to beat the dickens out of any reporter that asks the wrong questions; it's all about making news on the cheap. You know, for some of these editors, cheap and easy is a philosophy of life. To do a heavy-duty story on Bush, and his oil and Bush and his gold-mining company is beyond them. A little bit of the Harken stock scandal came out, but that story was already seven years old. To some extent they know that there are certain things you cannot say. Rather says he would be necklaced for telling the truth.

HUSTLER: He said that? What did he mean?

PALAST: In South Africa, under apartheid, if someone didn't like you, they put a burning tire around your neck. That was called “necklacing.” On my show, Rather said, “If I ask any questions, I'll be necklaced.” And I'm thinking, Oh, that's a good image. It's sad, but if Dan Rather doesn't have the cajones to ask a question, then you name a reporter who's gonna step out and ask about what's going on. It's not that the corporate guys say, “Don't run that story,” although that has happened to me many times in North American media, but also the shepherds pick the lambs who won't ask the questions. For example, there was a reporter, some poor producer, who wanted to run a story about how Jack Welch had lied about polluting the Hudson River. The story didn't run. Shockeroo. That was for Dateline NBC, owned by General Electric, of which Jack Welch was the chairman of the board. Or as in the case of Venezuela, I was stunned to come back from Caracas to find a picture on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle of 100,000 people marching against the president of Venezuela. Sounds like he's a terrible guy and people hate him. What they didn't say was that half a million people were marching for him. At least the Soviet Russians knew that the stuff in Pravda was coming out the wrong end of a toilet, whereas, we live under the pretense that The New York Times prints all the news that's fit to print.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=181&row=1

…
Robins was talking serious politics on a morning chat show - and clearly hackles went up. By 8:24 Robins was explaining “We're fighting for freedom for the Iraqi people right now so that they can have freedom of speech, yet we're telling our own citizens they have to be quiet”

Lauer could have called it quits there -but he went on “When you see pictures of Iraqi's dancing and celebrating -does it change your mind?” “No” Said Robbins - “I'm ecstatic that they feel this freedom, I hope we have the resolve to get in there and make it work.”

It was at this point that something happened that has perhaps never happened before in the history of morning television.

The music swelled under Robbins... Mid-sentence answering a question that had been asked just 10 seconds earlier... “We have a terrible track record” said Robbins, clearly not able to hear that music was coming up to literally 'play him off the stage'.

The camera cut to a wide shot. Lauer was leaning in and very much in conversation. Either Lauer was ignoring what must have been the deluge of invectives in his earpiece, or he just determined that he wasn't finished with this line of questioning.

But the music ended. The bumper music ended and the studio was in the two shot as Robbins said...“It's for some reason not in our best interest to keep it going and pursue it to the next level.” Lauer nodded, and the camera faded to black as Robbins - mid sentence - had his microphone turned down.

A conversation about free speech. An anchor asking reasonable questions. A guest responding in equally reasonable tones. No attempt to close out the discussion - to say “Well thank you Tim”. This was not a filibuster. Robbins was not hogging the spotlight.

Someone in the control room simply decided that it was time to pull the plug. And without grace or ceremony, or even the face saving of letting Lauer say “We're out of time” as morning shows do on so many occasions.

A conversation about free speech and free expression was cut off mid sentence as the network went to black.

Television history was made, as million of Americans got to watch in real time just how powerful and inescapable censorship can be. Robbins wasn't revealing troop locations, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Remember the war has been won - by all accounts. He was discussing freedom, free speech, and why his appearance has been canceled at the Baseball Hall of Fame. NBC should invite him back and let him finish his thought - or admit at least who was on the phone to master control demanding that they pull the plug.
http://www.rense.com/general37/dark.htm

Tampa cable won't air ad criticizing Bush tax cut

TAMPA - (AP) -- A TV commercial critical of President Bush's tax plan won't air in Tampa after the city's major cable provider expressed concerns about the script.

The commercial was produced for MoveOn.org, an online political activist group, and was slated to air about 10 times a day this week on cable systems in 23 cities, said Lanicia Shaw, executive assistant for Zimmerman and Markman, a Santa Monica, Calif., advertising agency handling the commercial.

The ad is a reenactment of an event in Eugene, Ore., a month ago in which 50 parents lined up outside a clinic to sell their blood plasma to help pay a teacher's salary.

''George Bush's tax cuts for the rich have meant less money for education,'' the commercial contends.
…
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/5862591.htm

3. How important is “truth” in mass media reporting compared to ratings?
The media doesn't care about outing the real stories - nor about ratings. The truth GETS ratings - but it doesn't win friends in high places. We got more information about the war in Vietnam through “MASH” and “Star Trek” allegories than on CBS news.
The corporate owners of the networks will make a killing on their stealing the digital spectrum, given away for nothing by the Telecommunications Act. (For details, see my website www.GregPalast.com) They are willing to give up ratings points by serving up snooze-news with Tom Brokaw rather than gain audience share but lose their tickets to White House dinners.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=145&row=1

Wall Street Journal:
War Produces Rift in Media Between U.S., Other Nations
… British television reporter Geoff Meade asked the officer what he would say to Iraqis and other Muslims who might welcome such images. Some U.S. reporters looked stunned at the aggressiveness of the question. A hush fell on the room. The general eyed him coldly and parried the query. Afterward, says Mr. Meade, a veteran correspondent with Sky News, a service of British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC, “Somebody joked to me that I'd find myself at the back of the room along with the French and the Germans.”
…
“We believe people need to see the truth, and there's no need to make the truth cosmetic because it's not pretty,” says Nawal Assad, a producer at al-Jazeera's London office.

… callers on Italian talk shows criticized as censorship the U.S. government's request to U.S. networks to refrain from showing the images. In Germany, the press has engaged in lengthy dissections of U.S. news organizations, often concluding that the U.S. media has gone through “Gleichschaltung,” an ominous word used to describe how the Nazis took over key public institutions, including the media (rough translation: “bringing into line”).
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB104854123024458400-email,00.html

they just keep spacin' :eyes:

Whatupwithat?

The right owns the media. Stories are briefly reported so they can claim they report them but they aren't given any followup. The right-media chooses to let stories fizzle out when they aren't compatible with their agenda, it's so simple.

There is very little that the left can do to gain the serious media attention that all of the stories you listed deserve. As for people not buying newspapers as a reason we're not seeing stories like the scandals you listed, that's bunk. In the past, we've gotten news of scandals without buying them. The bottom line is we hear and see what they want us to hear and see. If we want more then we have to research the truth.

The Medicare bill is a prime example. A few networks reported the real winners were the lobbyists but they reported it in July and August and they did it once each maybe. So now it's December and Bush passes the bill and the only thing the networks do is laud him and broadcast images of his "victory" as he signs amid clapping backers. Balance is gone in the right wing media.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

geez .....

n/t

and the right-wing does own the media. So, their stories "stick" even if no one's interested.

That's the reason.

The right turns fictions into scandals by boomeranging stories from FAUX to Newsmax to the Wall St. Journal's editorial pages to the Washington Times to Rupert Murdoch's outlets in London, NY, and other places. These are assisted by a palette of pundits who are trained and deployed to boot the stories up. On top of that, the RNC cranks out talking points EVERY DAY to thousands of talk radio hosts, and Drudge and Limbaugh ping-pong the same daily crap-feed.

It's a machine. It works. We don't have it. That stinks.