Media coverage, Dean vs. Kucinich

Is it just me or is this reason enough to see mass media as attempting to control the 2004 election ballot?

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?id=N00025663&cycle=2004

Above is Dean's list of contributors and below, Kucinich's. Kind of a funny coincidence that Dean gets so much coverage all over while Kucinich is marginalized.

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?id=N00003572&cycle=2004

**Note to Dean supporters this is not a slam of Dean, but rather a bashing of the media itself, and particularly AOL Time Warner. I want to know how ANY of them can call their coverage of any of the candidates unbiased if they contribute to their campaigns.

the industry categories for donations- Look how much funding Dean recieved from both Tv/movies/music and Printing/publishing as compared with Kucinich.

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/indus.asp?id=N00025663&cycle=2004

again Dean above, Kucinich below

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/indus.asp?id=N00003572&cycle=2004

The corporate media is perfectly happy with Dean's platform and message - if Dean were to be president, it would have no effect on their power. Kucinich, on the other hand, offers something very different than most of the other candidates - a government that would reign in corporate power, and keep them firmly under the control of our democratically elected government.

There is no way in hell Kucinich will get fair coverage in the media. They might even refuse to sell him airtime, as they have done with other progressive people and causes. This is one of the ways we know that Kucinich is the real deal - aside from his long voting history of course :)

that these may well have been employees of those places. AOL and Microsoft are quite large firms and have a large presence in industries whose workers have been on the record for Dean. I gave to Dean as well but I doubt my school district has even heard of him much less is giving thought of endorsement.

I'm not slamming Dean over it. I posted it because I find it a little too eery to see the numbers correlate so clearly with what the media is doing.

I blame the media, not Howard Dean. You have a point about the method of categorizing contributions, however where media is concerned thje employees do have a lot of impact in what goes out. You could argue that if the majority of the AOL Time Warner contributors were from the secretarial pool or something, but somehow I doubt that.

Everyone go back and read or watch "All the President's Men." The plan didn't just involve a break-in. The major part of Nixon's plan was to choose his opponent. Bush has chosen his opponent. I don't intend to give him what he wants. If you want to figure out who Bush's guy is, check out which candiate the Bush media is covering.

A lot of us were smart enough to see throughthe garbage that went on with the stealing of the election in 2000. Those of us who don't want it to happen again, will support someone whom the people can trust next year.

I don't seem to get your point.

Are you saying that because AOL Time Warner is the largest employer of Dean contributors that the media is pushing Dean? If so, my problem with that logic is that AOL Time Warner is a huge company. They own cable services, magazines, TV stations and many other such things. Because of this, they have thousands of employees and if any of them donate, they have to list their employer as AOL Time Warner. So these contributions could just as easily come from your local cable guy (who has very little control of media content) as Lou Dobbs.

I think what we need to find out is who did owners/upper management and newsroom directors give money to and see if that caused a conflict of interest.

Just my thoughts

just that the reports made me very uneasy.

Most likely partially brought on by a discussion with Kucinich and others at Lessig's Blog about media coverage and federal campaigns. It's obvious that the media is not the public servant it started out as and when it comes to the country's leadership, I find that extremely troublesome.

There's a HUGE disparity of coverage between Dean and most of the others, but it's most notable with Kucinich, Sharpton and Braun. I don't understand why, and wondered if this might have something to do with it.

Thanks for pointing out the size and scope of the company, though. I posted pretty quickly after reading it so I have to confess a bit of a knee-jerk thought process.

Thanks for clearing it up.

I think one of the big reasons Dean has got so much attention is his $7.6 million from quarter 2. It is a shame that news follows dollars, but that seems to be the case.

That being stated, I did read more about Kucinich after he reported $1 million from quarter 2, but it was normally mention as a "how might this hurt Dean or Kerry?"

The lack of Sharpton on the news is a little odd (even with his lackluster donation report) since he is known across the nation and polling well in most of the South (around 8-10% in each state).

The thing that I hate most is I don't think the press following the money is going to change anytime soon. Until public funding of elections happens (and I really doubt that will ever happen nationally), this is the way things will be.

Sorry if that sounds pessimistic.

Reading the rplies at Lessig's I was struck by the memory of elections from when I was a child. It's so funny to realize I can remember when there were only three channels, and as Jeff Foxworthy put it "If the President was on you were screwed", or something like that.

The Presidential debates were the same way, and the pre-primary races too. I mean us kids hated it but now that I'm grown I long for it. Three hours of uninterrupted debate, live, honest and in your face on all three networks.

I'm sitting here watching this race unfold and thinking "DAMN do I wish we could go back!".

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/methodology.asp?ID=N00025663&Cycle=2002

Read the big fat disclaimer on the right:

HOW TO READ THIS CHART: This chart lists the top donors to this candidate during the 2004 election cycle.The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Now, if you look at the summary for Dean you'll see that he has not taken 15.5k in PAC money, which rounds down to less than 1%... So these totals are from individual contributions.

The real test will be if Dean can continue the media blitz. August is generally a slow time for news, not too many people are paying attention right now. Perhaps the media is trying to prematurely "peak" Dean, overwhelm his campaign in hopes that he will fall :)

I posted the thread, feeling troubled in the first place. I knew there was something I wasn't catching there, and I do believe you've explained it.

I did read the disclaimer but I don't think it fully registered before I looked at the breakdown of the donations.

:D

Honestly I'm warming up to Dean to some degree. Not a lot, but gradually he's putting out statements I can back him on. I'm not going to give him my full support unless Kucinich loses the primary, though. The simple fact is I think Kucinich is the best candidate in the race and I refuse to "settle" for less than the best.

As I said on the Kucinich Blog, I refuse to be indifferent any longer, and I refuse to be forced into the "lesser of two evils" vote again.

and I agree...
:)

Dare to Dream...

if we don't try to reach a little higher than where we are...we will never get out of the muck!

Dennis is my first & only choice....

Peace
DR

I'm convinced the media and GOP want Dean to be Bush*'s opponent. (Control your opposition and you control the election.) I've also learned enough about Dean's past as governor of Vermont to convince me that my conscience wouldn't permit voting for him.

"Won't be Fooled Again"

Dean is at least LEGIONS better than Holy Joe! I think for that reason I could vote for him. He's better than a few alternatives in the race.