An honest question about Dems and the media

Why is it that we see so many statements by this Dem or that posted here on DU, but nowhere else? Sure, they also get posted on various blogs and obscure websites, but they never get coverage on teevee.

I'd honestly like to know if that's the fault of the Dems themselves or the media. I know the knee-jerk reaction is to say the media controls the flow and they work for the right. If I were asked this question, instead of being the asker, that would be my response, too.

But is it really true?

Could it be the fault of the Dems themselves?

Or ....... could it be that they're out there and we just don't hear them? Speaking for myself, I tend to have MSNBC on during the day and then watch both local and netwrok (CBS) newsz at 6.00 to 7.30. Maybe the Dems get drowned out by the teevee personalities? For example, watching Tweety overhwelm his guests with his self-imprtance, maybe I'm just missing our guys.

What do you think?

If you are talking about actual politicians getting air time, then that is easy: The president gets air time because he is the president and repubs get more air time because there are more of them than dems.

As far as talking heads - to keep the answer short - I think conservatives tend to say the more outrageous things and that's what sells. Also, conservatives watch more news oriented TV and listen to more talk radio than liberals so there are logically more conservative outlets.

I guess I'm asking about anyone on the left side of the dial ... politician or pundit.

Why does the Democratic Party not have either a television network or at least their own programs. A network might be ambitious, but why do they not have their own programs. The government subsidizes PBS and there is no way they could not have an outlet if they wanted one.

http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/006542.html says that the DNC started democrats.org on June 27th of this year. That is a big event because we are getting to where if it gets on the Internet in a file that can be downloaded, it can be put on a DVD and seen on a regular television. At least it is an official outlet with video capabilities- http://www.democrats.org/

Maybe in the future we will see more of democrats.org here on DU.

You ask it much nicer than me.

I think that a lot of them are afraid to go on- they are afraid they cant match talking points with some loud mouth, or afraid the media might run with something they say- mabye even something critical of Bush.

For instance, if they were to have gone on TV and talked about the DSM, they would actually have to really jump in the ring and fight the repubs- which they are either not up to or would rather not do.

Having said that, they have gotten a point or two better since the hurricane- especially Dean's Friday CNN spot on Wolf and Pelosi's Thursday spot with Rush's beard.

Kerry's Op Ed in the Chicago Defender was good- op-eds are good too- people do still read the papers...

I think Al Gore's footage that ended up on most stations speaks for itself...

Your point & mine is there are even more opportunities for top DEMs to get on TV and talk about things the base cares about...

plays a role.

Our side doesn't get a turn to speak unless it is in oppposition to something specific. "Senator, what do you think of the President's handling of his genitalia last week?" "Mr. Chairman, last week your counterpart said ...... " These are the speaking roles that I see all the time.

I think that our side needs more opportunity to get a say on issues that matter to us. In the current scheme of things, we get to speak only when spoken to. And only in response to the RW agenda. Or if we do have such opportunities, I'm missing them.

While we (I) tend to rail at the personalities in the media, the real issue may well be the unseen producers and various gatekeepers. We need to get past them.

I have long been saying - and even posted a poll thread about this - that the media is the biggest single issue we face as a party. Where many others see BBV as the biggest issue, it seems to me that if we were able to speak about the irrefutable **facts** of the 2000, 2002, and 2004 cycles, we would have 60% or more of the country in the street with torches and pitchforks, screaming for change.

Look at everything John Conyers has been putting out there. Tons of stuff. Good stuff. Factual stuff. Enraging stuff. And yet when does he get face time? When does/has any Dem (pundit or politico) get any face time specifically about those issues? In a word, rarely to never.

Our side is just used as props and foils for the larger message controlled by the RW.

The best attempt I've seen at countering this is Clark signing with FOX to be an 'analyst'. Admittedly I've not seen much of him as I don't/won't watch FOX for anybody, but the few clips I've seen tell me he's not afraid to debate not only the issues, but the talking heads, too. The two clips that impressed me most where both him against the yakkers - one with O'Reilly and one with Hannity. In both cases, he would not let them get away with their spin. Of course, he's still being used as a prop/foil for their spew, but at least he's out there where the knuckle draggers are, spoeaking strongly for our side. At least that's something. And he's going where none of our side dares to go. Anyway, its a good try. Not sure how effective. But a good, commendable try.

controlled by the RW."

That's just it, but the Dem machinery needs to do something about his--it's no secret that the RW is exploiting that.

Brock and/or Lakoff mentioned that the RW think tanks actually fund booking agencies for RW experts from every field one can imagine. The Heritage Foundation boldly lists them on their site, even:



As long as we only play defense, we'll NEVER score.

I'm not excusing the Democrats for not addressing this issue, either; it's hardly a big secret anymore. :shrug:

It seems to me that Dean understands the issues. Is there anything afoot to change the media strategy or is all that's been done is acknowledgment?

I'm feeling like we're a fourth cast member in The Wizard of Oz .... "If I only had a voice ..... "

You know .... Paul Hackett should be used an object lesson. He **made** the (local) mdia cover him by refusing to be pushed from his positions. His strong rhetoric **was** newsworthy, in and of itself. Pelosi was doing a bit of that last week.

What I'd love to see is someone coordinating the message. Not controlling it or setting out talking points, but just establishing who speaks to what. If its about Katrina, for example, get Pelosi and a CBC member out there. If its about voting issues, get someone strong like Stephanie Stubbs Jones out there. If its about terrorism or war, get Wesley Clark out there. If its about DSM, get Conyers out there. Substitute anyone for any of these examples. The point is, have designated go-to people for each and every issue and tell the rest of them to back off. Think 'shadow government'. Think shadow Secretary of State to counter any foreign policy issues. Think shadow Secretary of the Interior to counter any pollution issues. Think shadow Secretary of Homeland Security for any of that type issue. And so forth.

In the above, I am NOT advocating for control of the message. I AM advoctaing for controlling the messengers. Get our most credible people for each and every issue and reserve the platform for them. Get two or three or ten for each area. It doesn't matter. Just get our best out there, no matter the issue.

I give Americans credit to be able to tell the difference between a different point of view and just outright "bashing" as the Rs call it.

We want to give them that credit; it's the Republicans that can't take the chance that Americans have the intellect to make up their own minds.

I don't even think we need think tanks like the neocons have used to pervert the Republican party.

We just need intelligent, marketable ways to present the progressive thought on various issues.

If not **exactly** this, something close.

n/t