Has anyone else noticed . . . (media coverage of Bush v Kerry)

Is it my imagination, or do the Bush campaign rebuttals get a more prominent placement in stories about the Kerry campaign than the Kerry campaign rebuttals get in stories about Bush campaign? There's an article on the Washington Post web site about Kerry's plan for reducing gas prices where the Bush campaign rebuttal appears in the SECOND sentence -- before the article has even explained the nuts and bolts of Kerry's proposal. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36386-2004Mar30.html)

Now I realize that relatively few people are likely to be influenced by newspaper articles (headlines perhaps, but that's another story . . .), but still, this is ridiculous.

They're getting all the media attention and running the most ads. And people wonder why Chimps numbers are up?

how bad he is doing.. on CNN

Like they all got their marching orders to play down all the negative and up the Kerry attacks, play up any Bush bump in polls...it's gross...

AIR AMERICA to the rescue!!!!

We use to could depend on CNN being fair at least when Ted owned them

this ad.
now, i understand why "whoring for dollars" is so important to this administration. unfortunately, this media barrage is working and it's going to get worse.
sickening, $170 million and climbing.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Welcome to DU! :hi:

Unfortunately, it wouldn't matter if we had an unending supply of money -- the media is run by corporate interests, for corporate interests.

Bush Scores Points By Defining Kerry

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37462-2004Mar30.html

Nobody from the Kerry campaign is quoted until paragraph 6. Something tells me that if the article had been about Kerry attacks on Bush, the Bush campaign would be quoted no later than paragraph 3.

Bush doesn't even need to pay to run his ads, every major network, websites, and newspaper runs numerous stories on every ad Bush releases.

When Kerry releases ads, it's nearly silent, except when they run big articles with Bush disputing the ads and calling Kerry names.

We are seeing Gore 2000, destroyed by the media, all over again.

haven't really hard negative. Chimps ads are ruthless. They aren't fighting back hard enough. Remind the american people who was in charge when 9/11 was in. Show the factors that have closed down.

A recent poll posted here on DU showed the more American blame Kerry for the negative campaigning than blame Bush.

It's the media, more than the ads, that are working to bring down Kerry.

Someone I know complained about that earlier today to some media group.

It could be a help if it's done right.

If I've understood what present day journalists and editors have said on neutral networks (e.g. PBS), they seem less biased personally than operating on the assumption that conservatives/Republicans have functionally a majority and/or control of government.

It's been an empirical truth of political reporting for them for just about all of their professional lives- it's been that way since ~1968- and they really aren't well prepared for that to change, let alone capable enough to see the subtle signs that indicate that it is changing. So they do the easy thing and assume that a conservative majority is a permanent feature of the society in general and the career and funding landscape personally, and behave accordingly.

It's lazy, it's incompetence, it's partly due to Republican manipulation and obfuscation. They generally don't mind a Democrat being ahead, they just don't trust that state of affairs to prevail. It's a symptom of the Democratic Party becoming the de facto minority party in '68 or '72 and taking so long to fully and properly recover.

it's a huge problem, compounded by the even worse bias of tv news.

The same media said he was so much more electable before, what's happened!!!

Just goes to show you, don't listen to those idiots. They are nothing but corporate mouthpieces, and in every conversation of the day, you should mention that to any person you talk to. Say "Well, of course the news outlets only want to project the opinions of the Pentagon, and huge corporations." "These interests are most-often in direct opposition to the real people of this country."

All of us Deaniacs knew this would happen, just as we knew the democratic voter was steered away from Dean, and to a more unelectable Kerry, who had two decades of Senate votes to demonize. The media-corporate-tools were also aware that Dean might have kept Nader out of the race, but the minute Dean quit campaigning, Nader entered. They didn't want Nader-esque opinion from within the Democratic Party, it might actually have united them. Only outside does it serve their purpose, sapping liberal democratic votes away from centrist candidates like Gore, and Kerry. In essence the media duped a lot of folks into the myth that Kerry was more electable, just to get their main threat out of the race, Howard People-powered Dean. Had Dean locked-up the nomination, Nader would be nowhere in sight. People make mistakes while under the corporate spell, that is for sure. If they say something, you should believe the opposite is true.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1308711&mesg_id=1308711

The media is WORKING AGAINST THE PEOPLE. This is INTENTIONAL, NOT ACCIDENTAL. This is NOT JUST WHORING FOR RATINGS.