It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

People'sChoice revoked: Media Empires squash Dean

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 08:34 AM
link   
"In an interview Monday night [ll/17/03], Dean unveiled his idea to 're-regulate' utilities, large media companies and businesses offering employee stock options. He also favors broad protections for workers including the right to unionize."

************************

"Dean, the former Vermont governor, said Tuesday that if elected president, he would move to re-regulate business sectors such as utilities and media companies to restore faith after corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom."

************************

"On December 1, 2003, Howard Dean was ahead by twenty points in the polls when he appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews and said, 'We're going to break up the giant media enterprises.' ...It was an extraordinarily noble and dangerous thing to do: when he advocated a truly free press, Dr. Dean was provoking the corrupt media conglomerates that control what most Americans see and hear and read, and thereby control what most Americans think... After the last presidential election, the corporate functionaries on the Supreme Court overrode the will of the people by empowering the man who had lost. It was an awkward procedure, so the process has been refined. In 2004, the mainstream media is rapidly disqualifying all the candidates who fail to honor the business agenda, thus eliminating the need for another controversial judicial intervention. Howard Dean’s campaign now lies in ruins because he chose to confront the multinational conglomerates that run this country."


*********************

No other candidate, regardless of political ideology, has gotten the true grass roots juggernaut rolling like the Dean campaign had. Those funds amassed were truely from the little people everyone is so fond of falsley saying are enlisted to their cause.
They installed a president over the will of the people in 2000 & have gotten the payback agreed upon: deregulation has run rapant over the environment, has siphoned off major chunks of the federal budgets operating capital due to massive corporate tax refunds/rebates/abolishments, and has set up a return to the past of yellow journalism by unchecked media monopolies.


How was it done?

The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization in Washington, D.C., which conducts scientific studies of the news media, was monitoring the nightly network news broadcasts that are the source of news and information for most Americans. The results of the CMPA study, released January 15, 2004, revealed that Gov. Dean received significantly more negative criticism on the network broadcasts while his Democratic presidential competitors received significantly more positive comments. The research examined 187 stories broadcast on the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news in 2003. Only 49 percent of all on-air evaluations of Gov. Dean in 2003 were positive while the other Democratic contenders received 78 percent favorable coverage.


In a follow-up study by CMPA, of the network coverage of the candidates from January 1 to January 18, the night before the Iowa caucuses, revealed that the networks selected Kerry and Senator John Edwards before the Iowa voters did. As you may recall, Kerry finished first with 38% of the vote; Edwards ranked second just below Kerry with 32%; and Dean managed only a poor third with 18% of the vote. During the two-and-a-half week period leading up to the Iowa caucuses, there had not been a single negative word uttered about Edwards by the three networks (100% favorable coverage) while nearly all, 96% of the comments about Kerry were positive. However, Gov. Dean's coverage during those first 18 days of January was significantly less glowing with 42% unfavorable on-air evaluations.

****************

The media giants quickly responded by crushing his high-flying campaign with the greatest of ease. This time, they didn’t even have to invent a scandal in order to achieve the desired result; merely by chanting the word “unelectable” at maximum volume, the mainstream media maneuvered Democratic voters into switching their support to someone who poses no threat to the status quo.

***********************

By mid-December, the news divisions of the four major television networks were reporting as fact that Dean was unelectable. The print media echoed the theme; on December 17, the Washington Post printed a front-page story that posited Dean could not win the presidency. The Post quickly followed up with an onslaught of articles and editorials reasserting that claim. Before the month was over, Dean’s lack of electability had been highlighted in The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, and every other major paper in the United States.
As 2004 began, Time and Newsweek simultaneously ran cover stories emphasizing that Dean was unelectable. In the weeks before the Iowa caucus, the ongoing topic of discussion on the political panel shows was that Dean was unelectable. National talk radio shows repeatedly stressed that Dean was unelectable. The corporate Internet declared that Dean was unelectable. And the mainstream media continued with the storyline that Dean was unelectable right up until Iowans attended their caucuses. Iowa Democrats could not watch a television or listen to a radio or read a newspaper or go online without learning that Howard Dean was unelectable.

It was the classic Big Lie. Through the power of repetition, the corporate media – which has been wrong about who would win the popular vote in two of the last three presidential elections – inculcated the public with the message that Dean could not win. Pollster John Zogby wrote, “Howard Dean was the man of the year, but that was 2003. In 2004, electability has become the issue and John Kerry has benefited.”

The unexamined factor is how electability became “the issue”. It had never before been the dominant consideration in Democratic primaries, because voters had focused on policy rather than crystal ball gazing. Electability was this campaign’s version of “Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet”: it was a media contrivance that was used to manipulate voters.

*********************

Those Democrats who have been hoodwinked into believing Dean self-destructed by yelling at a pep rally should recall how the major media handled Bush’s drunk-driving arrest that a small Maine newspaper revealed right before the 2000 election. It was an incident that on the surface seemed as though it should have been politically fatal – the candidate who had based his campaign on the vow that “I will restore honor and dignity to the Oval Office” was proven to have lied about drunkenly driving off a road.

Demonstrably, it is never what a politician does that creates a scandal; it is always whether the television networks and major metropolitan newspapers respond to the incident with saturation coverage. When a presidential candidate who was committed to deregulating the corporate media got caught lying about breaking the law, the importance of the event was minimized. When a presidential candidate who was committed to breaking up the corporate media got caught shouting at a pep rally, the importance of the event was maximized.



For the kiddies......yes, you are inside the Matrix, the veneer of legitiamcy is too easy to pull back for you to ignore. And before you marganalize this analysis as spurrious, ask yourself about the recent Super Bowl - How can a people who are so manipulated into unchecked consumerism ( running up credit card debt and working 2nd jobs for "stuff"), so much so that they talk for days about how those same masters latest advertising hook is some sort of culturally significant occurence that most be polled about/watched offline and voted for.......how can these people not help but be lead around like sheep!?!?!


They've given their free will up, whether they know it or not.

makethemaccountable.com...

www.joplinindependent.com...




posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I think the only person to blame is Dean.
I think after people saw his insane side, they decided he might not be the best one to trust with the football.



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 09:33 AM
link   
- 52% negative press overall in 2003

- 42% negative in the three week lead up to Iowa

- Almost All of the journalist of all the weekly periodicals & major dailys "predicting" that he's "unelectable" before the first primary vote is ever cast


Yeah - Bush is honarable, though he went AWOL during wartime & drove his drunk @ss in a ditch several times, yet Dean who yells at a pep ralley is "insane"?
Come over here Thomas & let me sheer your back so my grandmammy can knit me a sweater!



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
When a presidential candidate who was committed to deregulating the corporate media got caught lying about breaking the law, the importance of the event was minimized. When a presidential candidate who was committed to breaking up the corporate media got caught shouting at a pep rally, the importance of the event was maximized.


Exactly! Great post, BoutTime.

I've read in a couple of threads that Kerry or Bush will win 2004 simply because they're both Bonesmen. I'm beginning to believe that prediction will come true. Bush's boots are a bit too dirty, so a brand new pair on a Democrat will have to do.

"But no, society says don't tip these guys over here, but tip these guys over here. That's bull$hit"-MisterPink



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I'm afraid the media insights you're reporting are paranoid at best and just plain spin at worst.

Media coverage IS negative. If you're on TV, they are saying bad things. Dean stuck his nose into everything just to get on TV ALL SUMMER, yet the media did their best to report on the "frontrunner" as the man to go up against Bush (boring as it was to most Dems, myself included). Then Kerry and Edwards entered the race to CRICKETS chirping.

Enter Wes Clark. Finally the media had something to talk about. It falsely generated excitement about a two man race between Dean and Clark to go up against Bush. The media HARDLY COVERED Edwards announcement to run instead opting for Wes Clark pontification and his Madonna endorsement. Man.

Dean and Clark couldn't have paid for better coverage raking in HUGE amounts of $$$ based soley on media HYPE. Dean's media comments are interesting given that's around the time Dean imploded, but it wasn't support that imploded. It was a media BUBBLE. You can't lose what you never had.

Please don't kid yourself into thinking America loved Dean and Clark, and the media changed it. The media just stopped PRETENDING we should give a damn about Dean and Clark after the voting started and the gig was up.

I always liked Edwards, even when no one had heard of him and it was a "two man race" between Clark and Dean. What "matrix" am I in?



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   
dean rocks. he would be the best thing for america. he truly represents democracy. he'd be less of a puppet to big money/brother.



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time

Come over here Thomas & let me sheer your back so my grandmammy can knit me a sweater!

I don't agree with you, but that's a great line!!! Thanks, you made me smile on an otherwise hard day...



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 10:09 AM
link   
The Center for Media and Public Affairs compiled the stats. From my own personal observations, I saw it and read it, while their findings on the blackout of the messages of Edwards/Kuccinich are accurate as well.
I will be pleased as piss for any Dem candidate to take back the White House.
I do agree that " all press is good press".
I don't agree that Dean imploded. He had, in comparison to the other candidates, a managing of perception on scale with GW Bush - the diffrence being that Bush's was all postive with no basis in fact & Dean's was all negative with no basis in fact.
Everything Dean did that showed the slightest emotion was labeled "unstable", while GW could haved jerked off into his cutom made Tony Lama boots & had Condi and Karen Hugh snowball it back & forth and he STILL would have gotten good press!

While I will back anyone in the 11/04 contest going against Bush, I will admit that I was itching to see a Dean/Bush debate. At some point they would have had a mike still live when off camera ...."You know George, you're one of the stupidest motherf***kers I ever met"!



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
dean rocks. he would be the best thing for america. he truly represents democracy. he'd be less of a puppet to big money/brother.


I don't understand how the remaining Deaniacs still think Dean truly represents Democracy when the VOTERS say otherwise. Make no mistake Dean is in dire danger of crossing a fine line here from the people's champion to stubborn egomanic. When Lieberman lost every single state he dropped out. Why is Dean still running around again? Oh yes, for the people.
The people that won't even vote for him ON A BET



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
The Center for Media and Public Affairs compiled the stats. From my own personal observations, I saw it and read it, while their findings on the blackout of the messages of Edwards/Kuccinich are accurate as well.
I will be pleased as piss for any Dem candidate to take back the White House.
I do agree that " all press is good press".
I don't agree that Dean imploded. He had, in comparison to the other candidates, a managing of perception on scale with GW Bush - the diffrence being that Bush's was all postive with no basis in fact & Dean's was all negative with no basis in fact.
Everything Dean did that showed the slightest emotion was labeled "unstable", while GW could haved jerked off into his cutom made Tony Lama boots & had Condi and Karen Hugh snowball it back & forth and he STILL would have gotten good press!

While I will back anyone in the 11/04 contest going against Bush, I will admit that I was itching to see a Dean/Bush debate. At some point they would have had a mike still live when off camera ...."You know George, you're one of the stupidest motherf***kers I ever met"!


I'm with ya BT. I'd actually RATHER see that Dean/Bush debate than more from MONOTONE KERBOT.



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 10:18 AM
link   
...They better get a REAL candidate that take Bush on one on one.

Edwards is an ambulance chasing Personal Injury Attorney who has bilked millions from insurance companies, Kerry is old school entrenched poiltics as usual inside the Beltway and Dean has proven to be a loose cannon that most are laughing at.

Sad cadre IMHO...

PEACE...
m...



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by billybob
dean rocks. he would be the best thing for america. he truly represents democracy. he'd be less of a puppet to big money/brother.


I don't understand how the remaining Deaniacs still think Dean truly represents Democracy when the VOTERS say otherwise. Make no mistake Dean is in dire danger of crossing a fine line here from the people's champion to stubborn egomanic. When Lieberman lost every single state he dropped out. Why is Dean still running around again? Oh yes, for the people.
The people that won't even vote for him ON A BET


i love it! no backstage media makeover crew walking on eggshells as the talking head delivers its propoganda. i would love to see him win. kerry's a bonesman. bush is a bonesman. just like kang and kodos. they arrived in the same spaceship.
he truly represents democracy because of his approach. democracy is being crushed by the media spin machine. just because he's fighting against the whole system, is no reason to demonise him. i say we should get out our pitchforks and torches and march behind him.



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
...i say we should get out our pitchforks and torches and march behind him.


NOW, I'm on board.
I'm a sucker for an angry mob.

:sharpening stick:



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Excellent post----

Bout Time!!!!

Howard Dean is the man, and the RNC + media are trying all manner of dirty tricks to ruin him.......



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Howard Dean was "hype".....
The man brought alot of this on himself. Its really called and termed: "self-destruction."
I recall making significant comments, to you BT, concerning this and that the Democrats, overall, would not stand for someone who would be politically "unstable" or a Democratic "loose cannon".
It began prior to Iowa and the implosion began with the "I have a Scream speech." You discounted me then...but interestingly, seems that what was mentioned has happened, isn't it?



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 4-2-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I'm still trying to figure out what the big deal about Dean was in the first place. I like to get some kind of excitement (not rabid excitement like after Iowa...) from potential leaders. Passion mixed with intelligence, you know? Dean seemed to show either no personality or he was whooping and hollering at the post-Iowa rally.

Nothin' personal against the guy, but I prefer to see someone who can be excited about their situation without going overboard -- too high or too low.

I'm not particularly sold on any of the Democratic candidates, but I think the best chance they have at unseating Bush is a Kerry/Edwards ticket. Just my opinion of course.....



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I think the only person to blame is Dean.
I think after people saw his insane side, they decided he might not be the best one to trust with the football.


Ding,Ding,Ding....we have a winner.
The media companies did not need to crush Dean. He sunk himself. And Dean did get all kinds of press. Be it good or bad...he was on every news station,newspaper,internet sites..every where. And in politics any press is good press.
I think just about every American that saw Deans outburst went man what a schmuck.
Hyaaaaa.



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Howard Dean was "hype".....
The man brought alot of this on himself. Its really called and termed: "self-destruction."
I recall making significant comments, to you BT, concerning this and that the Democrats, overall, would not stand for someone who would be politically "unstable" or a Democratic "loose cannon".
It began prior to Iowa and the implosion began with the "I have a Scream speech." You discounted me then...but interestingly, seems that what was mentioned has happened, isn't it?



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 4-2-2004 by Seekerof]


It shouldn't have, but based on what I outlined above, it did. That it did happen reinforces the numerous threads on corporate medias complicity in the erosion of America.
You have the accumulation of negative media going past the point of critical mass. The most effective form of coersive propaganda? A sliver of truth + relentless repetition = desired effect.
Look at the sheer volume of coverage on the pep ralley yell.
Again, I have no vested interest in any of the lead contenders, I'd be happy with any of them. I just find it a tremendous shame that the one candidate from either party who is a Centrist & damn near a Libertarian is not going to be allowed to stake, as points of debate, some very sound plans & a stellar record of governing achievement to a broader audience with more time for drill down.
But, sheeple is as sheeple does....life is like a box of chocolates...and all that.
Now you know why I'm of no party......too many things to make my @ss itch!

I do think Dean has been just about the best rabbit possible to get the geyhounds around the bend & to realize that they are up against a lying, incompetent punk....no need to be polite.



posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I'm just against all these guys like John Kerry and John Edwards who are suddenly"for the working man" because it garners support, and posturing on being "anti-war'because Howard Dean voiced the peoples belief. They, in effect, got popular by being Dean-like and stealing his message, while at the same time, slinging mud-balls at him.

The difference is- Senator John Kerry has been in Washington DC for the last 20 years, playing ball and dealing your ass down the river with NAFTA and GATT, and cozying up to Republican defense spenders and
siding with Bush......

Whereas Howard Dean has not been siding with Bush on anything, and is not at all responsible or partially to blame for what the hell is wrong in America



posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Yeah, well at least Edwards learned how to bilk the system by himself!

Yeah, I agree the Dems suck, but that is good for us conservatives.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join