For about a month and a half, we've been barraged with negative Dean coverage in the TV and print media. You couldn't flip on the news without hearing "Dean is too angry" "Dean is too unprepared" "Dean is too liberal" "Dean is too conservative" and on and on. Kerry? Clark? Who?
It's culminated in the relentless playback of that silly scream on Monday. A dumb yell! And it gets so much airtime you'd think it started WWIII.
So why have all the major networks been so incredibly negative about Dean? I've seen them handle front-runners before, but I've never seen them so continuously vicious.
Turns out that, on December 3rd, on MSNBC's "Hardball", Dean promised to break up huge media conglomerates if he became president.
quote:DEAN: I would say that there is too much penetration by single corporations in media markets all over this country. We need locally-owned radio stations. There are only two or three radio stations left in the state of Vermont where you can get local news anymore. The rest of it is read and ripped from the AP.
quote:MATTHEWS: Are you going to break up the giant media enterprises in this country?
DEAN: Yes, we’re going to break up giant media enterprises. That doesn’t mean we’re going to break up all of GE.
What we’re going to do is say that media enterprises can’t be as big as they are today. I don’t think we actually have to break them up, which Teddy Roosevelt had to do with the leftovers from the McKinley administration.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: ... regulate them.
DEAN: You have got to say that there has to be a limit as to how-if the state has an interest, which it does, in preserving democracy, then there has to be a limitation on how deeply the media companies can penetrate every single community. To the extent of even having two or three or four outlets in a single community, that kind of information control is not compatible with democracy.
So is it just a coincidence that the all-out bashing of Dean on every major network started in early December?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I agree that the coverage of Dean has been incredibly negative.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Yeah, it's kind of amazing.
I liked Dean. But all the negative attention is seriously questioning his ability to actually become elected. Sure, everyone knows who Dean is, but everyone's scared to death of his oddities.
Another scary thought: My ever-bizarre apartment-mate said that while he'd vote for any other major Dem candidate running, he'd actually vote for Bush over Dean. It's entirely about character, and he gets the heebie-jeebies from Dean.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
I think part of it is laziness on the part of the media. American media generally isn't very good at covering complex issues like economics, foreign policy, etc. So they have a tendency to focus on character issues... and so when right wing folks start doing their spin to charge that Dean is too temperamental, etc., that's an easy line for the media to pick up. (Same thing also happened with Clark -- and, going back to '00, McCain.)
I now take any political profiles I read with a huge helping of salt...
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Putting aside his promise to break up the media giants, most of what I have heard from the Dean supporters suggests that he has quite a lot of grassroots and Internet support. Established media have a distinct interest in marginalizing such alternatives, and one way to do so is to "prove" their ineffectiveness in elections. Not that I blame them; Dean sucks.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Bush was labeled "dumb" his whole campaign. Now that's been changed up to "liar". Sticks and stones etc. I guess Bush switched from being dumb because then he "stole" the election, and no one wants to admit being robbed by a half-wit. Anyway, I wouldn't worry about the media chewing on Dean. I still think he's the only Dem who will give Bush a run for his money. Unfortunately, and I mean this part sincerely, Bush has quite a bit of said money. Liberal or Conservative, I think that's bad for America.