MSM Gets It ALL WRONG (again!)
MSM Gets It ALL WRONG (again!)
Remember not so long ago, when Time and Newsweek put the doctor from Vermont on their covers, anointed him the status of front runner, and all but declared him the next presidential nominee of the Democratic Party? Remember how CNN, MSNBC, and other mainstream media (aka MSM, in keeping with chic blog glossary terms) joined in on the fun, all of them keeping the good doctor from Vermont all over the place, on your screen on the front page, and with a zillion back-stories and sidebar factoids?
Remember how the doctor from Vermont had incredible buzz, how he had harnessed the power of the net, and in doing so he had ensured his slot, let there be no doubt, no question, as so assuredly reported, predicted and factualized by the aforementioned MSN?
A momentary digression: what the good doctor from the Green State did have was a talented campaign staff who devoutly believed in his message, and who indeed were the very first to harness the power of the web as a fund-raising and communications tool for a political campaign. Indeed, they took a man who was almost completely unknown, brought him into and onto the national stage, raised enormous money for him, and got MSM so excited by it that it seemed as though he was really going somewhere.
Fact is, he wasn't going any further than he went, and may have gotten that far more by virtue of good internet use and buzz than anything else. The primary results the night of the famous scream effectively ended his campaign. It wasn't the scream, although that clarified that MSM would grab any story, even negative ones about their previously anointed nominee, and run them into the ground if the story had any sensationalist value whatsoever. Dr. Howard Dean went from presupposed nominee, hero, groundbreaker, internet mover and shaker, to laughing stock, stooge, butt of all jokes. Thereafter he was relegated to an afterthought, though almost always with a snicker (to remind viewers/readers of the scream).
And Now Back to the Present
MSM has taken up the cause of Rudy. New York's former mayor, the man who was told after the first WTC bombing that the buildings were totally vulnerable and to get all essential services out of there. What did Rudy do? He put the Office of Emergency Management in the Towers. Rudy was a bulldog of a mayor, and these days any number of his appointees have since had numerous run-ins with the law. Just like W, he finds himself comfortably surrounded with toadies who abuse the system to their benefit. When the real dirt campaigns begin, watch out for how "America's Mayor" begins to look like a NYC version of W, given his cronies and their corruption records. And watch how MSM will go from big fat wet-kiss journalism to an "investigative" approach as the Rudy poop hits the fan.
McClain was all but written off as a mere afterthought by MSM last time around. He was weak, he was too old, his skin cancer weakened him, he lacked support, he was not a party man. He was even touted as a possible Democratic possibility for the Veep slot. Now, if we are to believe MSM, it is a two man horse race, too close to call.
Rudy or Mcclain. Neither of whom --you read it here-- will make it to the finish line when the GOP convention names its nominee.
Then There's The Democrats
MSM has declared the race a simple one: Hillary or Obama. Is this insane or what? Hillary cannot win. Outside of certain areas, she is universally reviled. Sure, she has lots of money and a top-notch campaign team. But that cannot and will not overcome her biggest problem: people hate her. Democrats hate her. Women hate her (something to do with the health insurance screw-up and the Monica thing, and everyone knowing about all those floozies of Bill's)(and naming their kid Chelsea, after a song from that 60's Canadian pot smoking hippie songstress's album)(and everything else). Undecided Democrats, particularly those in the political center, will jump ship and vote against Hillary.
Furthermore, despite her moves to the Center, she's still perceived (and sold to the masses by her opponents) as a card carrying Liberal. And to the left-of-center and to the more Liberal members of the party, her move to the center makes her harder to trust, to support . . . or to vote for in the primaries.
Barack Obama is this year's Howard Dean. He's got heavy internet support, with younger voters and supporters working their butts off for him. MSM loves him to death.
And why not? What wonderful story fodder he offers them at this point. Think about it: thus far no votes have been cast, no results are in, and none of the serious national level get-the-vote campaigns have been launched. It is all fund-raising and PR to get the name out to this point. For MSM Obama is a dream. He's telegenic, he's a great story, and he's an underdog by virtue of his youth, his mixed-race ethnicity, and the fact that he is a relative newcomer to politics, especially on the national stage. He's a junior senator, only in the chair since 2004. And another point: the GOP so gave up on winning the senate seat in Illinois back then that they ran Allen Keyes against him. Keyes, a candidate from Maryland, who stood no chance at all. Keyes, by the way, still lives in Maryland, showing what a commitment he'd ever made to Illinois.
By virtue of race, inexperience, and the sort of politics that makes red staters' skin crawl, Obama cannot possibly win the election. Maybe he could be a Veep candidate, but that would weaken, not strengthen, a Democratic ticket. The country is still more dominated by the electoral votes of the breadbasket, making Obama a liability, not an asset. Perhaps with more time on the national stage and more ongoing national exposure he can be a greater asset to the party. But the real deal on Obama is best expressed via a baseball analogy: he's a great prospect, he deserves a shot, but he needs to stay at the top level of the minors, to develop his offense and defense, and to come to The Show when there's no doubt he can make it. Too soon will be too bad. Why hurt a good prospect by rushing him along?
MSM CHOOSES TO IGNORE. . .
Where is MSM when it comes to the John Edwards campaign? He has none of the oh-wow factor of Obama and Hillary, so he is relegated to minimal coverage. Edwards has been running a campaign and has had workers in the key primary states for a long time.
Except for his "clean" gaffe over Obama, what coverage has MSM given Joe Biden's campaign?
Why does eternal Democratic nominee Dennis Kucinich get no coverage? If nothing else, he's become the Harold Stassen of the modern era. That alone should get him come ink and some air. And is MSM trying to tell us that Bill Richarson and Chris Dodd have tossed in the towel? Gee, they barely threw their hats in just a moment or two ago.
On the GOP side one never hears about some candidates after news of their announcement that they're running. Or, in the case of Chuck Hagel, after his announcement of his intent to make an announcement of some kind at some time. Where is the coverage of Mike Huckabee? Of Sam Brownback? And surely there's more to Romney other than that he's a Mormon and that he's flip-flopped about abortion et al to conveniently serve his political agenda. Well, maybe there isn't, in his case.
What about the Republican moderate from Texas who is nearly a Democrat, given his positions on various items, Ron Paul? He's tried running a few times as a Libertarian candidate, now he's taking his GOP affilliation to another level. If for nothing other than contrarian and entertainment value, MSM should be giving this man coverage, perhaps always with an equal time/fair play Kucinich story to provide balance.
In Other Words
MSM is totally out of touch, as are most of the the wild-eyed political bloggers who are so caught up in the moment that they can't see the forest through the trees. MSM has an agenda: big stories for big readership, viewership, circuation, eyeballs. The bloggers tend to be committed activist/typists, who get their slanted messages out with great zeal and gusto. Bloggers, however, should not be confused with MSM, which supposedly follows certain rules of journalistic order or at least claims to offer balanced and credible reportage.
Let's take a good hard look at the bottom line.
The very same old-line MSM and devoted and committed bloggers who declared the good doctor from Vermont the winner last time around -- you know, the winner who stopped winning when the primary voters made their voices heard -- are running amok with this dead-heat Hillary-Obama nonsense. And with a GOP race this time around, MSM and the bloggers would have us believe that it is Rudy or McClain.
The California primary has been moved up, and that will force some of the wannabes to either raise more money much quicker or to abandon the race. Others will have to come out and announce or abandon hope without ever officially testing the waters.
A final note: this is not meant to damn all of my fellow bloggers, particularly the ones who write with great passion and commitment about politics. It is, however, meant to offer a voice of reason and sanity to counterbalance the "THIS IS IT!" maniacal posts to be found in various quarters.
I had thought of posting links to a bunch of credible and reasonable political bogs and sites from various points of view. But the sin of omission would haunt me more than any error of inclusion (yeah, there's one political blogger who seems about to go nuts any moment now). And it is clear that the net will play an increasingly greater role in the political process with each coming election cycle. Blogs help fuel the fire and can be an important and immediate source of information. Bloggers brought down Dan Rather (of course, there's always the thought that Dan Rather not doing his own homework, or seeking the counsel of anyone at all who understood computers, the net, fonts and so forth . . . did himself in) and will continue to play a major role in geting the word out. But it is critical to understand that the blogosphere is only a small dimple on the face of politics. And that elections are won by voters, a good many of whom --at this point-- are not at all impacted by the net, much less blog posts.
That is why the gist of this post is that main stream media, with a little help and support from bloggers, is misleading their readers and viewers, and not reporting on the total scope of Presidential Race 2008 issues. They pick their sensational stories and run with them, leaving basic and general news coverage to secondary media. Hmm, sounds like a good opportunity for bloggers, eh? And for grass roots and local journalism (print and electronic) to seize the day and run with it.
