From the Program
Journalists covering the 2008 presidential race have spent the past year-and-a-half obsessing over every incremental development. But after Thursday's caucus in Iowa they can finally respond to actual voting. Mark Jurkowitz of the Project for Excellence in Journalism took a look at some of the coverage.
________________________________
See more on the media blackout of John Edwards, including the numbers.
Americans vote how they are told to vote.
The media sets the agenda.... not the people.
And the media decided months ago that John Edwards would not be President.
Obama and Clinton are the only two choices for Democrats.
Being the obedient sheep that they are known to be, Americans will vote as the media has instructed them to.
It's not a issue of Edwards being done. It's an issue of Edwards never being allowed in the game in the first place.
This is why we need fundamental changes in our electoral system....to allow candidates equal time and unbiased coverage (by law).
Other countries already do this.
The U.S. needs a strong independent election authority and new laws/policies so that the corporate media cannot hijack the process.
The media's motive here is ratings... They set the stage with the Obama/Clinton Show because it was the biggest ratings draw....not because they were the most electable candidates or the best candidates in the race.
And with so little time between Iowa and New Hampshire...and with the continuing media blackout... Edwards doesn't stand much of a chance to make up any ground. He was doomed from the start.
The media sets the agenda in this Country and has a greater role in choosing Presidents than voters do.
This is one of the big reasons why American elections are a complete farce.
Posts
6 comments:
Isn't the principle of Occams Razor that the simplest explanation is usually more correct? There is certainly a case to be made that some of the ways that media shape our political opinions are not appropriate. But your premise is essentially that millions of Americans are simply zombies with no independent critical thinking skills of their own. Your argument requires us to buy the notion that we would all be seeing the light of Edwards great truth but for the media's anemic coverage of the guy and I think you make that argument because you like the guy. But the simpler explanation to me is not that millions of Americans have been turned into mindless zombies who can't think for themselves, but rather that Americans are just not that into Edwards. The man had six years to campaign in Iowa. He was there longer than anybody else in the field. He got 30%. The voters of Iowa arguably got a better look at him than anyone. Are you arguing that nonetheless, they all had their brains sucked out by media coverage?
Politics and reasons we have our elected leaders are nothing close to simplicity. Devils Ad under aaron & alaine's premise, would the reason we have Bush for a 2nd term simply be that he was the better candidate than Kerry? or was it that voters "would rather have a beer with Bush than Kerry"?
There is something to be said of the American general public and their propensity to vote under a collective unconscious. Psychologists smarter than I can pick out all the factors in why we have an Obama vs Hill race rather than any other candidate; its very complicated.
Why are Hill and Obama talked about so much? Why do Hill and Obama have more money than the rest of the pack? Why are donators more incline to give them money? Maybe it's BECAUSE they are talked about more than any other candidate that voters are more inclined to cast for popularity rather than actually take the time to review all the issues for all 8 candidates and make an educated choice for themselves. Maybe...
I'm actually shocked media coverage of Obama's win in Iowa trumped coverage of Britney going to the hospital, given America's disturbing fascination with celebrity and "reality". But maybe because the media DID cover Obama's win over something so superficial, is why people are actually paying attention to him more in NH and you may see a tidal wave of support come his way as a result...
Look at advertising theory, where repetition of your product and omittance of your competitor's sells more of your own product. If more time in the media is spent on certain candidates then, people are more inclined to go with them. I'm smart enough not to buy Bud/Bud light or an iPod because of the media coverage but others are not; they assume these are superior products because the market and other people tell them so.
Is there a correlation between the amount of time given in the media to Biden and Dodd vs the shortness of their campaign run? I'm certain you can make a case for it - you could also make a case that they were not the right candidates for the job. I personally thought Biden had some good things to say and given a solid platform he may have succeeded further, but he never got the visibility, support or the money to make a good run.
Given the current state of our nation as well as the foreign perception of the US, did it make sense for the voters in 2004 to go drinking with their elected leader, or should they have taken the time to get educated on the issues and voted for someone that actually might work for the people and get the job done right the first time?
@aaron&elaine:
The simplest -- and observable -- conclusion is that both answers are correct: Edwards is not the godsend this site makes him out to be AND "millions of Americans are simply zombies with no independent critical thinking skills of their own."
"your premise is essentially that millions of Americans are simply zombies with no independent critical thinking skills of their own."
That's exactly what i'm saying. Absolutely! And I have been saying it for years.
You have more Americans today who believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, even though that myth was dispelled years ago. The facts on that have been clear and available to the public for some time. But because the media spin has been so strong... and the media's effort to sell the war in Iraq was so aggressive, that people STILL believe that Iraq attacked us on 9/11.
@ Austin Vegas, Yes, I would argue that Bush was a better candidate than Kerry. Kerry had the opportunity to win, but he was not up to the challenge. As to the premise that millions of Americans are mindless zombies, led around by the media, if you take that view of the world, then why even bother to vote or be involved in the political process since it is all rigged and controlled by corporate media? Biden and Dodd both had good things to say, but there out because they are not inspiring people to follow them. A ton of media coverage does not mean you will be advantaged. You could have covered Al Sharpton every day during his election run and I would not have voted for him or sent him a dime. I'm supporting Obama to get the nomination not because he's covered, but because I think he has something to offer. So I'll buy the media manipulation of america to a point,
"As to the premise that millions of Americans are mindless zombies, led around by the media, if you take that view of the world, then why even bother to vote or be involved in the political process since it is all rigged and controlled by corporate media?"
I don't.
You must be new to this blog.
I have stated countless times that I don't vote... have never voted, and never will vote in this Country, because the election process is a sham. I don't see this Country as a real Democracy. I can't vote in a system that I have zero confidence in.
But that doesn't stop me from observing, blogging and writing about what isn't right about American politics.
This blog is my vote.
Post a Comment