Edwards supporters: Is the MSM giving Edwards a fair deal?

He's doing well in polls posted here, but (seems to me) getting very little mention in the MSM who seem to talk of Obama and Clinton to the exclusion of all others. Do you think he's getting his fair share of the MSM's attention?

...to events with HUGE CROWDS that are StandingRoomOnly for JE. Hell, I'd wait to hear anybody speaking up against corporate greed and control of our govt. No one else is.

and all you'll hear are 2 names Obama and Hillary

I think we have a lot of great candidates on our side, but the MSM thinks it's a two-person race.

and an even worse situation for the others. The corporate media has decided, it would seem, that either Clinton or Obama will be the Democratic nominee, and that's that. It doesn't matter, it would seem, that there are other candidates with important things to say. While the isolation of Edwards angers me, it's a broader problem, which means Dodd (wiretap filibuster, Peace Corps, Latin America -- nothing to talk to him about, huh?) or Biden (vastly knowledgeable on foreign policy, surely nothing to see there) or Richardson (UN Ambassador, Secretary of Energy, boy that's irrelevant to our current problems) get the deep freeze. Kucinich is a tireless voice for peace and he gets treated like he's a joke -- the MSM does not deem him a "serious" candidate. Hell, Gravel did more of a civic duty in 1971 when he committed the Pentagon Papers to Congressional record than I'll likely ever do, so he's got something to say too.

This focussing on the big-money raising front runners reinforces phony gotchas and $$$-driven political culture. The MSM has got to make it a gladiator match...

I think we have a great field and while I'm a huge Edwards supporter, I would be happy to support any one of them.







Well, Gravel scares me a bit but...

He has been too outspoken against them and he has indicared he won't "deal'. He is not in the best interests of MSM and corporate, and those are the only interests MSM serves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXtHJDxbEOw

while Edwards get the real message, it's corporate greed.

Industrial Disease, perhaps a close second
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlAPDQdHqCY

This has been bugging me for some time now. Although he seems to be doing well in the polls, and consistantly beats the Repubs in hypothetical races, all we hear is Clinton and Obama. Are they afraid that he could possibly win the Presidency? I can't think of any other reason for the lack of coverage.

It is no surprise. He is the only one talking about taking on corporate power, except for Kucinich, who doesn't have a prayer of winning. They ridicule Kucinich and ignore Edwards because they address the reasons why government doesn't address the people's needs.

and fewer threads focussing on why edwards should be the nominee.

and the whole 'globalizationist' movement of jobs offshore and corporate profits offshore and importation of jobs to lower-cost immigrants on H1b's while our own education system is set up to profit off importing students to phd programs on student visas. Hell, even the DoD is now fully dependent upon electronic parts imported from overseas !

http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=312

This information alone should get JE the nod. Instead, HRC takes the money and that, along with 'sucking the oxygen outta the room' by doing so (the Des Moines Register is a NBC affiliate that endorses HRC) makes the M$M's choice a no-brainer.

You vill vote zee Hilary, now von't you ?

The media, whether for laziness or something else, never fails to present a bifurcated horse race between Obama and Clinton.

But hey, the media elite will be shocked come January 3.

the MSM is not giving him a fair deal.

He's not. I've been in his camp for a long time, a member of Onecorps, etc. etc. FWIW - neither are ANY of the Candidates other than Clinton and Obama.

As much as I love Edwards message, there are also great IDEAS being bandied about by Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich. They all deserve a fair shake (says the woman who is voting for a Democratic in 2008 no matter what!)

They refer to him as the "progressive" candidate, as if his voting record weren't well to the right of most of the other candidates.

Obama and Kucinich have the most liberal voting records, but just because Obama doesn't yell "We're going to get rid of corporate greed!" louder than Edwards, some people may assume Edwards can actually make that happen.

Passing ethics legislation which makes "bundling" transparent - which Obama did - seems more effective, to me, than yelling about "Corporate Greed".

JMHO.

with her and supporting her campaign!

:eyes:

This was the month that matters. He's lucky all of his negative press was early on and over with.

This old email about trial lawyers has been making the rounds again after being debunked on snopes.com but I just got a copy the other day from a freeper. Apparently the M$M is STILL printing this up in LTE's. Look who owns many of these newspapers: NBC, NYTimes affiliates.

When they do cover him the articles it either is negative or has subtle negative tones.

But at the same time it is expected. He is a populist, a president for the people. Corporate MSM most likely protecting their assets.
You would think some news reporter, some newspaper, some journalist would stick their neck on the line for the sake of Democracy....but as the saying goes, " I won't hold my breath."

He won't get the coverage, they will continue to suppress him...headlining Clinton/Obama in hopes people believe the race is about these 2 candidates only. Edwards is, and I know it seems old fashioned or corny....He is truly running for the American people. The Corporate MSM, Oil, War profiteers, all of them DONOT want him to win. Obviously they are threatened.

It will be up to the American Public to make him president.

Edit: spelling

and

Go John Go, We love you!

because I was wondering if it was just my impression.
:kick: for supporters of Edwards!

For a while during the summer he didn't exist.

He's above the fray, and stacking up support.

Once he wins Iowa, then the negative shit comes out.

Even P.B.S. radio and T.V. leave him out and tend to call it a race between Clinton and Obama. In fact P.B.S. gives more coverage on the Republicans than they do Edwards.

1) as documented on MediaMatters.org, much of the coverage of Clinton, and sometimes Obama, is unfairly negative. The other candidates are basically ignored. Is it worse to be ignored or to get unfairly negative attention?
2) the media largely is obsessed with style over substance--the "horse race" over a meaningful comparison of platforms, accomplishments, and other qualifications. As a result the Average Amerikun has probably heard about Clinton's "cackle" or Obama's "being Muslim"--or may have a vague sense of not liking either one without being able to tell you why. But the AA can't tell you more than a tiny amount about how any of the candidates differ from the Republican candidates or from each other --and probably couldn't name more than two candidates on either side. Jon Stewart was and is absolutely right when he pointed out how this lazy, biased and superficial coverage is "hurting America", and it isn't just Tucker and Tweety.

:kick:

Unless I missed it while watching the other channel...

Mostly, we have been getting "The Two Man Race" which means talking about only Obama and Hillary even when the two of them are in a statistical dead heat with Edwards, so that the public forgets that they have a choice. "Edwards was a Phony" is still out there, but it was more common earlier in the year, before Edwards showed that he knew how to fight back. It is more difficult to fight back against a media blackout than it is against bad press. Just ask all the people that Joe McCarthy had black listed.

The media loves a story, and if someone who's written off wins or comes in with an unexpectedly strong showing, it's a story. Never underestimate the herd instinct of people and their need to belong. The story elements are all there, and if a proper confluence of events comes to pass, it could be a big plus that they've consistently spun it as a two-way race.

The two-way race crap has been going on for months now, even though Clinton's been 20ish points ahead of Obama and Edwards has been within 10 of him for most of the time. To a certain degree it's just the oversimplification that's typical of those hawking the news, but to a certain degree I also side with those who smell fear from the corporatists. Then again, a woman and a black man as frontrunners is good cheesy theatre, too...

John Lennon said it best in "Nobody Loves You (When You're Down And Out): "all I can tell you is it's all show biz."

Complete lyrics:

Nobody loves you when you're down and out
Nobody sees you when you're on cloud nine
Everybody's hustlin' for a buck and a dime
I'll scratch your back and you scratch mine

I've been across to the other side
I've shown you everything, I got nothing to hide
And still you ask me do I love you, what it is, what it is
All I can tell you is it's all show biz
All I can tell you is it's all show biz

Nobody loves you when you're down and out
Nobody knows you when you're on cloud nine
Everybody's hustlin' for a buck and a dime
I'll scratch your back and you knife mine

I've been across the water now so many times
I've seen the one eyed witchdoctor leading the blind
And still you ask me do I love you, what you say, what you say
Everytime I put my finger on it, it slips away
Everytime I put my finger on it, it slips away

Well I get up in the morning and I'm looking in the mirror to see, ooo wee!
Then I'm lying in the darkness and I know I can't get to sleep, ooo wee!

Nobody loves you when you're old and grey
Nobody needs you when you're upside down
Everybody's hollerin' 'bout their own birthday
Everybody loves you when you're six foot in the ground

:hi:

"Black guy and chick poll high numbers. Film at 11."

They're treated like oddities because of their appearance. Is that fair to them? Or Edwards? Or us for that matter?

John Edwards is just another white guy. Never mind that he was on the ticket in 2004. Never mind that he's polling as well or better than the "interesting candidates" in some states.

John Kerry was polling 4% and John Edwards was polling 2% at this time last time. They got nominated. Edwards is way closer this time.

MSM is shit. But we knew that.

they never say anything positive about Hillary...but Obama always gets a lot of attention and mostly all positive. So I put them in this order...Obama, Edwards and Clinton. I'd personally like to get my name mentioned less and have the comments be positive. I frankly can't believe Hillary is as high as she is with so much negative press. She has several whole TV stations devoted to degrading her. Which ones are picking on Edwards? None!