+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Have Y'all Ever Considered Being FAIR? (/thread-219942.html)
Pages: 1 2
- joebordenrebel - 12-14-2003 02:16 PM
Why is the liberal media establishment [cough cough] afraid of "ultra-liberal" Dean?
The Dean Surge
Fear and Loathing in Campaign Punditry
By Jim Naureckas
Jacqueline Bacon's cover story in the last issue of Extra! (9=10/03) documented how prominent news outlets feel a compulsion, from the beginning of a presidential race, to select a handful of candidates as potential winners and dismiss the others as also-rans. One sign of the absurdity of this process is that between the early campaign coverage that Bacon analyzed and our time the magazine arrived in people's mailboxes, one of those supposed also-rans--Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont--had become "the unofficial front-runner," according to no less an authority than the New York Times (8/5/03).
Dean's surge gathered a great deal of attention in the media, as pundits rushed to rewrite the campaign's script. But the excitement was colored by a clear sense of foreboding from the press: "Howard Dean: Destiny or Disaster? Inside the Democrats' Dilemma" was Newsweek's headline (8/11/03)--and the question was pretty much answered inside the article: "The dilemma for Democrats tempted by Dean is whether to go with their hearts or their heads."
"Why Are Democrats afraid of Dean?" asked a U.S. News & World Report subhead (8/11/03)--an odd question to ask in a story about Dean's rising popularity with Democrats. But the subset of Democrats who were frightened was specified in an ABC News report (6/23/03) that concluded, after noting Dean's polling strength in Iowa and New Hampshire, "Some in the party establishment worry [that] if Dean wins these key early states, he and those in the 'Dean Machine' will have fatally weakened the party."
The danger these establishment Democrats saw was, as always, that the party would move to the left. The New York Times was particularly vocal about this fear, giving front-page space to a story like "Centrist Democrats Warn Party Not to Present Itself as 'Far Left'" (7/29/03)--essentially an unpaid advertisement for the corporate-funded Democratic Leadership Council. A month later (New York Times, 8/31/03), "worried Democrats" were still fretting that "a complicated nominating fight...was pulling their party to the left."
The main focus of these fears was Dean and his "very liberal campaign" (NBC, 6/22/03), since his "anti-war rhetoric and liberal stance are clearly to the left of his Democratic rivals" (Reuters, 8/24/03). (This same odd-man-out framing--which pointedly ignores several media-disfavored candidates who are quite openly running to Dean's left--was used by an August 22 Washington Post article to paint Richard Gephardt as an extremist, asserting that he "is calling for a bigger and more activist federal government, one markedly different from the one envisioned by President Bush and by the other contenders for the Democratic nomination.")
Dean does not himself claim to be on the left: "I think it's pathetic that I'm considered the left-wing liberal," he told the Washington Post (7/6/03); "It shows just how far to the right this country has lurched." Occasional articles in prominent publications pointed out that Dean's record in Vermont was not markedly liberal: See the Washington Post's "Dean a Tax-and-Spend Liberal? Hardly; Candidate Stressed Fiscal Discipline in Vermont" (8/3/03) or the New York Times' "Defying Labels Left or Right, Dean's '04 Run Is Making Gains" (7/30/03). Newsweek's "Destiny or Disaster?" piece, like some other accounts, acknowledged that the far-left Dean was a caricature--but persisted in using that caricature to frame the piece.
If it's not the candidate who's too far to the left, though, perhaps it's his supporters. The New York Times (8/27/03) covered a Dean rally using the same tired stereotypes that are trotted out for any sort of progressive protest: The crowd, according to reporter Jodi Wilogren, was "mostly aging flower children and the tongue-studded next generation." Later, the article claimed that "the feisty crowds were filled with Birkenstock liberals whose loudest ovations always followed Dr. Dean's anti-war riff--there were few union members, African-Americans or immigrants." One might wonder how the reporter gauged the immigration status and union membership of the crowd--and even more so why she implies that members of these groups would not welcome an anti-war message. (See Labor Educator, 2/28/03; AP, 2/24/03; and NCM, 5/5/03, for some actual discussions of these sectors' attitudes toward the war.)
Despite the complaint of the New York Times' Adam Nagourney (8/31/03) that the presidential race was still "unsettled" 15 months before Election Day, there is no need for the media to artificially hurry the process by picking a winner or predicting disaster. The job of journalists at this point is to give thorough and accurate coverage to all the candidates in the race. That way, when they go into the voting booths during the primaries, Democrats can decide for themselves who they're afraid of.
Research Assistance: Ben Somberg
- georgia_tech_swagger - 12-14-2003 06:13 PM
Oh please. The liberal media is afraid of Bush winning relection.. and have been since 9/11. Thank god for Fox News.
- Guest - 12-14-2003 06:59 PM
That "liberal media" thing never stops being funny! :laugh:
- Rebel - 12-14-2003 11:42 PM
Oddball Wrote:That "liberal media" thing never stops being funny! :laugh:.....because Fox News is such a juggernaught. Why do you think that is? You leftists have NPR, PBS, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc. .....we conservatives had to go SOMEWHERE.
- Guest - 12-15-2003 11:32 AM
Even funnier... :laugh:
- KlutzDio I - 12-15-2003 03:43 PM
Kev, I think ABC would consider themselves more conservative than the others you lumped them with.
Wonder what group you'd lump C-SPAN with! Now they are the real fair and balanced outlet!
- Rebel - 12-15-2003 08:20 PM
KlutzDio I Wrote:Kev, I think ABC would consider themselves more conservative than the others you lumped them with.RE: CSPAN.....I agree.
Wonder what group you'd lump C-SPAN with! Now they are the real fair and balanced outlet!
- joebordenrebel - 12-21-2003 04:48 AM
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Oh please. The liberal media is afraid of Bush winning relection.. and have been since 9/11. Thank god for Fox News.Yeah, that whole multi-billion dollar propaganda arm of Corporate America cast as "liberal" thing never ceases to amuse me either.
Just stop and think about how dumb that sounds, will you? Just for a second.
Okay, now. All we ever hear about is Dumbya this, Dumbya that, blah blah yeah us USA blah blah etc. And that's from ALL the networks and cable news outlets.
And then we hear about Dems too liberal too far left too far gone blah blah wackos etc. wussies unamerican hate america blah blah etc.
Then we hear polls so funny Bush leads don't even turn out to vote blah blah especially if you sound like a felon in any state run by the GOP blah blah etc. cause it's already over but the crying Bush for four more years etc.
Now, if the "liberal" (your words) media was so AFRAID of Dumbya, don't you think they'd spend a wee little more bit of time tearing him down?
I know, makes too much sense. Probably (literally) unfathomable for you lemmings.
Sheesh. Maybe I should move to France. I love French Fries.
- Rebel - 12-21-2003 09:14 AM
joebordenrebel Wrote:Sheesh. Maybe I should move to France. I love French Fries.:wave: Tell Chirac I said to piss off for me, will ya.
- joebordenrebel - 12-22-2003 01:43 AM
(pssst. . .they have computers in France too, Kev. . .just think. i'd be happy, have free health insurance, plenty of vacation, stimulating work directly related to my degrees. . .and twice as much time to get on the board and make you show your arse again and again)
Did you want to make a point about the main topic, Kev? Or did you just come here to say I piss you off, again?
- nate jonesacc - 12-22-2003 04:20 PM
France > USA
It's not even close. Americans always complain about how arrogant the French people are. Well, I spent 2 weeks there this summer, and the only even semi arrogant people I met were the ones in Paris... but what big city doesn't have arrogant pricks? NYC, LA, Chicago and Baltimore CERTAINLY do.
- Rebel - 12-23-2003 10:10 AM
nate jonesacc Wrote:France > USAYou're 16 and you spent 2 weeks in France. Hmmm. Now tell me how that makes you the authority on France again? It slipped my mind from last years debate.
It's not even close. Americans always complain about how arrogant the French people are. Well, I spent 2 weeks there this summer, and the only even semi arrogant people I met were the ones in Paris... but what big city doesn't have arrogant pricks? NYC, LA, Chicago and Baltimore CERTAINLY do.
- USMC - 12-23-2003 04:56 PM
joebordenrebel Wrote:(pssst. . .they have computers in France too, Kev. . .just think. i'd be happy, have free health insurance, plenty of vacation, stimulating work directly related to my degrees. . .and twice as much time to get on the board and make you show your arse again and again)you would fit in there JBR. You hate america, have nothing good to say about it....EVER. Shall I make a contribution to your ticket?
Did you want to make a point about the main topic, Kev? Or did you just come here to say I piss you off, again?
- nate jonesacc - 12-23-2003 05:09 PM
RebelKev Wrote:I didn't have to want to toot my own horn... but you've pushed me to it. I am very confident that I know more about France than you do. I speak the language fluently, have been there, have studied the culture and history for 7 years, know some people there, and plan on going there next year.nate jonesacc Wrote:France > USAYou're 16 and you spent 2 weeks in France. Hmmm. Now tell me how that makes you the authority on France again? It slipped my mind from last years debate.
It's not even close. Americans always complain about how arrogant the French people are. Well, I spent 2 weeks there this summer, and the only even semi arrogant people I met were the ones in Paris... but what big city doesn't have arrogant pricks? NYC, LA, Chicago and Baltimore CERTAINLY do.
What YOU know is the crap you read on the internet, gossip about with your military buddies (
), see on the TV and convince yourself of. Yeah let's hate Chirac because he goes with the UN! Chirac is a snake! Get that commie lib pinko ******! He sold nukes to Saddam (Nevermind that we put him in power)!!!!! God bless Amerikuh!
Personally, I dislike Chirac too, but for reasons other than the Iraq war.
- nate jonesacc - 12-23-2003 05:11 PM
And don't you worry, almighty Kev, when I get the chance, I'm shipping my ****** off to England or France just like you want.
"This is the way Amerikuh is! If you don't like it, you can GET OUT!"
Thanks, I think I will.
- morwell84 - 12-23-2003 09:30 PM
RebelKev Wrote:Of course PBS is more liberal....it provides open minded educational programming and features the fine arts. Things the Cons have been trying to get rid of for yearsOddball Wrote:That "liberal media" thing never stops being funny! :laugh:.....because Fox News is such a juggernaught. Why do you think that is? You leftists have NPR, PBS, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc. .....we conservatives had to go SOMEWHERE.
- joebordenrebel - 12-23-2003 11:52 PM
And welcome to another edition of To Tell the Truth (about JBR)!
Contestant #1
"you would fit in there JBR. You hate america, have nothing good to say about it....EVER. Shall I make a contribution to your ticket?"
Let's just get one thing straight, Marine. I do not hate America. I think this is the greatest country in the world. The freedoms we have I would never think about leaving behind for another country. Besides, it's my freakin' country, too. Every progressive stride we have made has been because of PROGRESSIVES, not because of people who were so stuck in their ways that they couldn't think of any other way to be.
There's just a lot I would change about it. . .nay, that moral consciousness DEMANDS that we change about it.
Otherwise, we're just whistling "Dixie."
And if you've got some loot you want to send me for a plane ticket, then send it on, bro! I take PayPal! :wave:
Contestant #2
"Tell Chirac I said to piss off for me, will ya."
How's that 'ignore' feature working out for you, Kevie? Tired of butting heads with me so you figured Nate was a good target instead?
Sad thing, big fella? I know you've got a four year degree and all :rolleyes: but that 16 year old still argues rings around you. . .sad but true.
How do you like them apples? :roflol:
- KlutzDio I - 12-24-2003 10:57 AM
As I said in a previous thread, if one does not vote GOP, one is anti-American and a host of other misrepresentations. The GOPpers have done a very effective job of persuading most Americans that this is the case.
- Rebel - 12-24-2003 11:03 AM
So Nate, we put Saddam in power 30 years ago?
- KlutzDio I - 12-24-2003 11:30 AM
We tolerated Saddam. We propped his regime up, influenced him to attack Iran for us. Sold him weapons and ignored his atrocities until he invaded Kuwait.
And he's just one example of a dictator we've dealth with, aided.
Enter GW Bush's statements about states dealing with terrorists.
It's all inconsistent foreign policy on the part of the U.S.