Proof Edwards Has Been Intentionally Slighted in Coverage by MSM ...LINK

Over at TalkingPointsMemo, David Kurtz finally comments on data collected which shows that Edwards has been intentionally slighted in coverage by the MSM.



http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/01/study_john_edwa.php

"John Who? What's the deal with the John Edwards media blackout?"

(More than a few readers have pointedly asked TPM the same thing.)

--David Kurtz


If you follow the link, http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/01/study_john_edwa.php

You get to this:

Study: John Edwards Doesn't Exist
January 16, 2008 -- 5:31 PM EST // //

"A new study finds that John Edwards doesn't exist.

Allow me to explain.


After John Edwards placed second in the Iowa caucus on January 3, Elizabeth Edwards took to the airwaves to argue that his finish should occasion the media to stop covering the Dem contest as little more than a showdown between two political superstars, Hillary and Obama. Not surprisingly, nobody listened to her.


Comes now some statistical evidence of this fact. The Project for Excellence in Journalism has released its latest campaign coverage index for January 6-11, a study that does its damndest to try to quantify which political figures are sucking up the most media oxygen and why.


It found that Edwards only got 7% of political coverage during those days -- less than one-fifth of what Hillary earned, and less than one-forth of that accorded to Obama. Edwards even got less attention than Mike Huckabee, even though he, like Edwards, finished third in the New Hampshire primary."

<snip>


"But here's the thing about this. For literally the past year we've been hearing justifications for the fact that Edwards, despite being competitive in Iowa polls, didn't get the attention that his Dem rivals got -- he didn't raise as much money; his candidacy isn't as historic as theirs; etc., etc. Indeed, the virtual media blackout of Edwards got so glaringly obvious that even New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt urged his paper to give Edwards more attention back in November. At a certain point we should just acknowledge that Edwards basically got screwed and that this shouldn't have happened to the extent that it did."

MORE

THE CHART THERE MAKES IT CRYSTAL CLEAR

.... Yet Edwards remains competitive, and in a dead heat in Nevada.

Timmy on the Today show said he was 1/2 a candidate.Fuck you Doughboy.

and excused when it happens to DK?

For the record, I don't support media manipulation in either case. I just don't get why people would be surprised. It's business as usual.

I was fully sympathetic towards DK about what happened to him. NBC pulling the rug out from under him was disgusting.

When it happens to DK, people ignore the opposition to his progressive stances and focus on height, hair, "elfin" qualities, ufos, etc.. Voters buy into the programmed "unelectable" message without question.

When it happens to Edwards, who has bigger name recognition, more money, and polls better, it becomes to ignore or to pretend that it isn't happening.

ACK!


John Edwards 2008

Obama and HRC had more coverage in that 6 day period because:

1) It included the day before and of the election - HRC's tears and speculation that she could lose were the biggest story. Obama's high poll numbers were the other. They did cover where each candidate was and what he/she did.

2) The day after the election - was the results of the election - a positive story for Clinton and a negative one for Obama even though he was far closer to HRC, than Edwards was in Iowa to Obama and Obama had been down 20 points 2 weeks before. There was also the nasty Clinton "fairy tale rant" Edwards did what was expected in NH, came in a week third.

3) Then there several days of the coverage you allude.

4) Finally there was the Kerry endorsement.

Those were the news events. What Edwards stories of comparable news value were missed?

is not a novelty - so in order to give Edwards his due, the media needs to acknowledge that he is STILL in the running and remains VIABLE.

They will not do that.

His comparable story is that he has not been knocked out of the race by all of the big time money.

That is a huge story and one that needs to be reported on...

This proves what we Edwards supporters have said repeatedly for some time now, that the MSM is ignoring and marginalizing his campaign.

The media chose their candidates some time ago. Clinton and Obama have ruled the airwaves and the newsprint and Edwards, no matter what he does, is treated as little more than an afterthought.

That Clinton and Obama lead the Dem polls, and McCain and Romney lead the gooper polls.

Whoever said the media doesn't influence elections?

Found this posted by a guy who goes by the name Historymike (has a blog but he posted this on another blog and it was in regard to something unrelated to Edwards, but I think it may be helpful to those of us who are frustrated by the Edwards blackout):

"if people think that certain issues are being missed by the media, contact individual reporters and make your case. Letters to the editor are a dime a dozen, but a well-placed bug in a reporter’s ear gives you better advocacy in the editorial rooms."

I'm going to take Historymike's advice to heart and write to some individual reporters. It'll be hard to get the MSM to cover Edwards' ideas, but they might at least cover the lack of coverage. Maybe the best way to get a reporter to work on this would be to contact those who show up as contributing to the star reporters' stories -- folks who need their own issue to get their name first on the byline.

What did Edwards THINK was going to happen next?

You can check it out here. I have two versions this link is the REVISED Version. Corrected some glitches and took the effects out of the VO.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


This is the original version.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I composed the background music as well, if anyone is interested.

Also if you guys could go to youtube and rate it, would be really sweet. And hopefully more coverage.

2nd Version


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x85488


1st Version

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=85389&mesg_id=85389

Go figger...

guessing of when he will quit, also many on DU.

I am envious of the Republicans who still have so many candidates that will stick around until Feb. 5th.

plenty of room for all 6 of them in the media, we get coverage on two, obama and hillary- the dems with a smaller field of candidates have to shout out or sue or go to court to get coverage. That sums it up.

nonsense.

When Clark was beating Edwards in five of the nine races in which they both competed and Edwards was still getting tons more press than Clark and when Clark out-raised Dean the first quarter of 2004 and it wasn't reported, it was more than obvious that the media was intentionally ignoring Clark - he was actually winning or coming in second and still raising lots of dough.

But, Edwards? He's been the perennial third-place candidate since this thing started and has taken public financing as a result.

He's not being ignored - he's just being given the rightful time he's due based on his popularity.

...if there was enough of a demand to have his voice heard in the MSM, someone in the MSM would be willing to do it. Whether right or wrong, most of the excitement (and money) surrounds Obama and Clinton. Ron Paul was initially ignored, but there was clearly a demand to have him heard, and the MSM obliged (for advertising profit).