Who got the bigger screw-job from the media in the 2004 election?

You know, the old "Joan Collins special," as Moe Szyslak would say.

cost John Kerry the election and in doing so, they screwed us all.

case of fraud this country has ever seen: ELECTION FRAUD.

they still don't bother with it. american's votes were stolen by freaks in the republican party and the media and "investigative" journalism shrugged and flushed itself down the toilet!

and every day it gets a little harder for them to ignore us.

The next time there is a riot at the statehouse on election night like there was in Ohio that November, they will HAVE to cover it because we will ALL be there.

Even my local paper, the "nothing to see here" Chronicle is starting to cover the machine problem because we SHAMED them into it.

:toast:

for months on end.

hailing him as the Democratic frontrunner.

Edit- this has me nostalgic for the old Primary wars. -sniff-

here's a beer for BullGooseLoony :toast:

for Kerry, IMO. They would have done it endlessly to either of them.

The Swiftboat crap was a surreal nightmare.

The Candy Crowly last campaign minute hack job on her Presidential Candidate "Biography" for Sunday CNN---transparantly listless and AWFUL. As if it were some sort of last minute afterthought, after what-- about 3 or 4 of those final Sundays running in a row on CNN documentary of Bush's heroic father?

The Cheney soundbytes and propaganda and accompanying cheers over and over and over...

Dean for months in the run-up to the caucus- which, some would say, actually led to Dean's loss of said caucus?

All I remember about the pre-Iowa media coverage was Bill Schneider saying, over and over, "Democrats just aren't sure that Dean is electable," a statement for which he would give no reasoning.

But they didn't stop with Dean. Their complicit heavy handed self-insertion into the political process, the Bush cheerleading agit-prop and their unconcealed love of the perpetual wartime-ratings-windfall titty will be etched in my brain forever. They wanted a pre-determined Bush. It was that obvious.

Don't send a message, send a President. That's what electable meant, the only one completely ready to be President. That's politics, not a screw-job.

The only problems Dean had with the media are the ones he created himself.

particular camp today is how the media didn't get Kerry's crystal-clear message out for him.

On the other side, maybe you can tell me why Dean wasn't "completely ready" to be President. You're sounding like Bill Schneider.

Dean is a likeable, decisive, true Democrat with five terms of executive experience under his belt. He also has, and had, a message. What exactly was the problem?

And that was the primaries, not the GE.

The people voted, the primaries are over. Let it go.

I'm not sure what it was that we "sent," but I know what we got back. And it wasn't pretty.

;)

That's what you got back, just like Kerry people told you you would. As well as the only one who has fought every pile of crap the Bushies have shoved on us. Roberts, Alito, Rice, Gonzales, Bolton, DSM, ANWR, bankruptcy bill, tax cuts, - who else has fought against every single pile without fail?? Stood up for health care for children, small business, vets, Katrina victims? One of the first, if not the first, to respond to attacks on Murtha?? Always there, every step of the way. He even swallowed his pride to mend fences with James Webb to get his Virginia supporters to back him instead of Miller. There STILL isn't a better person to send to the White House.

on the ground while UNDER-reporting Kerry's strength on the ground in Iowa?

The fact that they tried to kill off Kerry early by reducing his coverage after his senate resolution against the FCC's move for corporate media expansion? BTW - it could be just coincidence, but, didn't the corporate media ASSIGN a press plane to Dean shortly after Kerry's senate res?

Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"

Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.
Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

feels their candidate got the biggest "screwgee" of them all. If I were to answer this question, the correct answer from where I sat would be "Wes Clark". But, the REAL answer is that OUR ENTIRE PARTY -- every single candidate who ran on our side (except Joe Lieberman who was able to get the media to go along with his "last place is as good as second place" bullsh*t for so long, people almost started to believe it) got a screw job that would have madee Joan Collins weep with envy, and we all know it.

It's time to stop these useless pissing contests about who got screwed more than anyone and acknowledge WE ALL GOT SCREWED. The media effectively helped Diebold install another Bush administration. So, I repeat, WE ALL GOT SCREWED. The question should be: How do we change it next time? How do we get the media to cover everyone -- and each side -- fairly? If someone starts a thread about that, we can actually solve a problem in our present and future instead of this constant re-hashing of the past.

TC

thread - nice to see.

Doesn't get much more straightforward than this.

It IS a challenging question. I'll certainly give you that.

Could this be the reason one was declared dead in the water for months while media was OVER-reporting the strength on the ground of the other? And why on earth WOULD corporate media ASSIGN a press plane as early as beginning of summer for a primary race?

Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"

Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.
Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

.

Three times in a 20-response thread.

had no intention of acknowledging that the media was manipulating the primary for reasons other than what you believed at the time?

Dean took the lead because he had a message.

The party insiders- like John Kerry- didn't like Dean. By coincidence, those people who didn't like Dean didn't have a message.

They used their media connections to spread the baseless "electability" meme far and wide in the months before Iowa. They were trying to scare Democrats, and they did.

Dean's numbers went down, and he lost. That was our entire primary.



You're holding it against the media that Dean took a leadership position, and had a message to begin with, so there was actually something to cover? That's seems to be your argument.

think he would have used them to protect himself and get rid of Dean EARLY ON, eh?

No - Kerry WANTED all coverage of him reduced while Dean was ASSIGNED A PRESS PLANE BY JUNE - that's a real good fairy tale you got there.

and what happened.

I shouldn't say that the Kerry campaign was personally involved in getting that meme out there, but I know for damned sure that our party insiders/DLC corporatists used all the political capital they could to bring Dean down.

They knew where to go, too. CNN. I even saw the anti-Dean "electability" message in editorials in the larger, traditionally liberal newspapers when things started getting really tight.

And I heard Kerry's campaign is dead, he should withdraw for the entire 5 months before the first vote was cast.

And the purported Clinton/Clark conspiracy had nothing to do with it. The Kerry campaign took on a suspiciously "Boston Ward Style" of a campaign with regards to their opponents. Wherever did they get that idea from?

You think Dean and Trippi were only fighting about money by December?

"The Scream."

Beat that.

REAL questions about THEIR coverage of the actual primaries.

By hyping the scream, they could change the story to how Dean "imploded" and only has himself to blame - - UTTER BULLSHIT. Dean's ground numbers were NEVER as strong as media had been reporting, but, since the Iowa caucus caught up to them, they could use the scream that didn't happen to avoid questions about how they could have gotten it so wrong for so long.

Why would anyone want the media left off the hook for that - they were pretty obvious about using that scream to ignore questions about THEIR months of analysis and reporting that Kerry's campaign was dead.

And I'd say the swiftboat lies got alot more hours of regular play than the scream did. It even has a name - swiftboating.

Bill Schneider single-handedly killed Dean.

EVERY DAY he would go on CNN and say "Democrats aren't sure that Dean is electable" a few times, with no reasoning, and that was the end of Dean, because it was a primary.

That was for the month or two before Iowa.

That is what happened, blm. Dean was most definitely the front-runner, until that bullshit electability meme took hold.

He lost Iowa because of that, then "The Scream." The media killed him, outright.

The internal numbers were different than what was being said on TV. Why do you think Dean and Trippi were on the outs by the end of Dec.?

How rude of blm to disagree with your tired rehash of 2004 whining. :eyes:

is near zero in this discussion.

what is so funny about pitting Democrats against each other, by the way. LOL

They both got screwed, they're both still getting screwed.

This thread is nothing more than scab-picking.

Dems were already turning on Dean.

The American Public?

just proclaimed him "far-out left-wing". Of course this was only after his campaign started to get traction and attention. I would have to say though that the media was taking its cues from prominent Democratic Party insiders. These insiders, sometimes unnamed--sometimes named were always reported as the source of this wisdom.

Even though his positions on issues as well as his record were only center-left he was unleashing grassroots activism and changing the nature of fund raising in a way that threatened the power structure.

where they wanted him. As our nominee. ;-)

Julie

They gave Dean a PRESS PLANE the end of June while they left Kerry "alone" with minimal coverage after he submitted a senate resolution against the FCC's gift to corporate media.

Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"

Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.
Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

In December 2003. Because the media was terrified of him.

Howard Dean was an obscure candidate until he was blasted from the cover of every major news periodical in late 2003. If the media had wanted to "take him out" so badly, why would they have given him such national exposure to begin with? Why not let him languish in comparable obscurity?

This ridiculous thesis doesn't make any more sense now than it did when it was first invented in 2004.

We all got screwed......and yet we are not a "choice" in this poll!

was neccessary to help Republicans win.

The media turned Dean into an anti-war candidate when he, himself, said he wanted to be the health care candidate. The media made Kerry appear to be an elite, UN-loving appeaser. For Edwards, they knew that his policies were appealing so they only talked about his personality and never about his policies. They built up Clark, I believe, because he helped make the point that it's all about war, but then they took him down by making Clark seem like he was talking out of both sides of his mouth when it came to approving vs disapproving the invasion.

Compare that to how they treated Bush. They turned a late-blooming, draft-doging, former alcoholic, reverse-midas touch failure of a CEO into the best thing since George Washington.

got the "treatment" quicker than others. Timing is everything, and "they" utilized that strategy impeccably!

Kucinich was ridiculed from day one. He was never built up......that's a fact....and he was never torn down, either. Totally ignored is more apropos in his case.

They built up Wes Clark for about a nano second...BEFORE he was even running.....By September 18th, the day after he announced, Clark was being torn down.....and became marginalized when not being smeared from that point on! They called him "not so ready for Primetime", not a Democrat, a Clinton puppet, and distorted his stance on the Iraq War. "They" were amazed when poll numbers resuccitated him in early January '04.....at which time they started the "ignore him no matter how well he does" campaign rationalized by the fact that he skipped Iowa (no matter that he came in behind two New Englanders in New Hampshire and in front of Iowa's 2nd place winner). Many still don't really know who Wes Clark is....which is why he remains viable for 2008.

They built up Dean from August of '03 till January 1st of '04. Check out the words they used on Howard Dean; called him the "the Presumed nominee" day in, day out all throughout the summer and fall! (similar to what is going on with Hillary right now, as we speak!) They started his downfall soon after Al Gore endorsed....by digging up his video comments on the Iowa Caucus process, his lack of Foreign policy credentials and his Sealed Governerial Records. From that point on, it was bu-buy Howard Dean. The "scream" was added fodder that sealed Dean's fate after the fact.

Two weeks before Iowa, and when all primary voters really started paying attention, They started to built up Edwards; called him the man that could talk owls out of trees, i.e., the next Bill Clinton, and then never showed him saying a thing! just showed us great footage of how "cute" he and his family were. By the time we got to the Democratic National Convention, his speech couldn't do nothing but be a let down considering the built up. They also never mentioned his Iraq War stance in the same manner as they did Kerry....although Edwards was much more supportive of the war from day one. He was reported by all account as "the Clean campaigner" and the only Southern candidate (as Clark was excluded, period). He was disappeared during the General election....which is why he is still considered viable.

They try to make Kerry go away, but he just wouldn't. following the Iowa voter's cue, they then built up Kerry and proclaimed him most "electable". The one with the Foreign policy experience (as Clark was excluded, period) and the congressional experience to boot! Then they tore Kerry up by questioning his wartime heroics, his international bent, his patrician bearing and by highlighting his so called "Flip/Flops" vote. Of course, Edwards had voted the exact same way as John kerry, but that was never mentioned (the IWR and the 87 billion) when reporting on John Edwards.

Icing on the cake for their take down of John Kerry, besides the Swiftboaters? The Osama tape released on 10/31/04.

In the end, we all "got played"! :shrug:


What will we do next time to make it any different? That's a more important issue for us to discuss, IMO!

time they trained negative press on Dean, in hopes they'd sufficiently damaged them all just enough.

but of the two, Dean

the media killed dean

they let Kerry kill himself

If you don't raise the big bucks to pay for their ad space, you get ignored.

I feel like *I* am PERSONALY screwed by the media on a daily basis.

Among primary candidates, I'd say Edwards and Lieberman.

I voted Kerry in this poll, because he went the distance and thus got it worst in the long run. However, Dean got it too (after being crowned the "presumptive nominee" early on -- a media game); Clark got it too, in a different way (media ignored him, whereas they overplayed Dean).

I'm not sure what happened to Gephardt. I didn't think he'd last through the second-tier states, but I didn't think he'd go down so fast in Iowa.

I think they ALL, naturally, suffered from the primaries themselves -- to be expected. But I think Kerry may have benefitted from being discounted and marginalized early on (iin the early months, I kept wondering why his campaign wasn't doing better), and then surfacing as an "alternative to Dean" in Iowa, without much baggage.

That created momentum there was no stopping. There were a few primary slaps, but once the writing was on the wall, most got on board to support him. I think Sharpton and Kucinich held on a while to have their voices heard. I think Edwards hung on because he had the money after his Iowa 2nd-place, and campaigned for VP.

The real media screw-job ALWAYS comes after the nominee is in place -- because that's when the RNC kicks it up. Once Kerry was the clear winner, even informally, it started full-strength. And it was brutal. But yes, they were brutal on everyone (in different ways), and would have been as vicious with any nominee -- just with different ammunition, and different ammo back from different candidates.

Also critically important: a campaign manager who takes no crap, and "unrelated" organizations (like the swiftliars, except we don't need to lie) who go NEGATIVE to the hilt, just to level the playing field!!!

Kerry sqrewed himself.

using nothing but made-up shit, and along came Dan Rather, trying to get the truth out about the little chickenshit's incomplete Guard Stint, and he ends up swiftboated.

Any future Dem candidate will be subject to intense negative reporting, while the repuke, whoever he is, will be untouchable.

And also Dennis Kucinich.

He was treated as a "non-serious" candidate from the beginning, while Lieberman and Gephardt were given full press coverage and serious analysis--until, that is, they dropped out.

In fact, he was plenty serious, but his positions were considered outside the boundaries of discussion permitted by the Establishment.

I call that getting screwed. If they say something bad or false about you...you can fight back!

If they say nothing...you can say nothing! It's better to have bad publicity than no publicity. Ask Hollywood!

I wonder if, in 2010, DU will still have threads espousing the Great Conspiracy to Eliminate Howard Dean in 2004.

You guys are the ones pushing this new tack on Kerry. I was just wondering what others thought about it.

because the press turned him into an object of complete ridicule. He is still having difficulty living down what was said and printed about him.

But really they screwed all of us by facilitating for the Bush campaign and covering up the lies and secrets surrounding it, which only came out when it was far to late to do anything meaningful about them.

from the get go. First Kerry was a washed up has-been and all the smart money was on Howard Dean, and then after Iowa, Edwards was supposed to be the come-from-behind hero who was gonna do us all a favor and take out Kerry. Remember Rather's Elvis question? It was pretty nauseating.

I guess they got what they wanted in the end.

Kerry never would have gotten the nod. However, the press would have done their best to take down whoever the Democratic candidate had been.