Salon magazine's cover story, The media vs. Howard Dean, reports on the media's war against Dean Howard. The article suggests that newspapers and NBC's Tim Russert are in cahoots with the Republicans to take out the Vermont Governor in his attempt to become the Democratic candidate for the upcoming Presidential election.
In the wake of "Meet the Press," the Washington Post ... managed to use the following words to describe Dean: "abrasive," "flinty," "cranky," "arrogant," "disrespectful," "yelling," "hollering," "fiery," "red-faced," "hothead," "testy," "short-fused," "angry," "worked up," and "fired up." And none of those adjectives were used in a complimentary way. In fact the Post, in an Aug. 4 Is-Dean-mean story, took pains to distinguish him from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, whom the paper termed "brilliantly cranky."
For Republicans the anger angle fit perfectly with the party's plan to attack Dean personally rather than politically. As was true with Gore in 2000, the GOP spin machine is paying less attention to Dean's policy agenda than to his alleged personality defects: "Arrogance" and "anger" are high on that list.
Two things come to mind after reading this.
First, the argument that today's media are hell-bent on liberalism and against the red-neck-conservative establishment is completely misplaced in today's journalism. The media (most of them anyway) are more likely to hop on the story selling bandwagon and ride it for ever nickel and dime they can get.
Look no further than last April when the media was in a constant ecstatic flurry over their live invasion coverage. Never mind covering both sides of the story, we're going to war LIVE, 24/7, from the top of an Army tank. Ye-haw!
The media are not liberal, they are prostitutes at best.
Secondly, I like that Dean speaks his mind. The man is educated, he is a leader with a lot of experience, and he is an American. Those things entitle him to speak his mind, in front of cameras or where ever he may choose. Would you rather have a watered down hand puppet who doesn't have the kahones to speak openly with candor and confidence? Whether or not you believe Howard is right or wrong, at least he has some blood pumping through his veins which is more than could be said for most political candidates (both Republican and Democrat).
It's also important to keep in mind that he is a candidate. He is not President of the United States. While the Office of the President must carefully consider what he or she says in public, a candidate is free to express what they believe.
Who cares how many men and women serve in the military. I want passion, ideas, sparks, not vegetable soup.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
Right now, the American people don't come high in regard for me in general, mostly because they "elected" Bush Jr and allowed themselves to be fooled by his administrations propaganda (and I'm not just talking about the war, but every aspect of his god damn presidency).
Present company excluded, of course. I really mean that, you seem like a very shrewd person, Greg. I'm talking about the American people in general.
Anyways, I think of the 2004 presidential election as a chance for the American people to correct their mistake. And it isn't just me who thinks well of America in general, but loathes the current president (and the people who put him there). What is often and frivolously referred to as "Anti-American sentiments in Europe" should really more aptly be described as "Anti-Bushism in Europe".
God help us if you guys re-elect that notoriously poor excuse for a world leader, again. I'm counting on you Greg.
Oh, and by "shrewd" I mean "astute", as opposed to "mischievous". Just so there is no confusion.
"I'm talking about the American people in general."
Tomas, please be aware that Bush II didn't even win the popular election, so thinking that the general population supports this guy is not accurate. Winning elections are another thing, and while I agree with Greg's sentiments re: Dean, it's important to remember that Bush & Co. will outspend whoever the Dems nominate at least 3-1. There's plenty of anti-Bushism in America, thankyouverymuch.
I agree 100% with your assessment, Greg. I support Dean because of his fire, his drive, and his willingness to take on the current regime. I supported Gore in 2000, but only because he struck me as the best candidate for the job. Bradley would have been fine as well. Unfortunately for us and the rest of the world, things didn't work out that way. Dean, IMHO, is our best hope to win against the Bush regime. The sooner the other Dems realize that and throw their backing to him, the better.
Tomas, I mean no offence, but this ain't Sweden, bub. America is amazingly heterogeneous. "The American people" are so wildly diverse in just California alone that to apply the phrase to the entire country is careless. Who is the "typical" American? I can't even conjure an image, let alone a description. There are so many subcultures and sub-constituencies here that it boggles the mind.
As far as Dean goes, although I am a green I will be voting for him. He is far from perfect, but I think he is a good and thoughtful man. I just wish he would stop with his silly "Look at me attack the president" grandstanding. This arrogance is what causes the press to want to take him down a few notches.
> The media are not liberal, they are prostitutes at best.
Yep.
Mmm. Vegetable soup.
The media is neither liberal, conservative, or independent. They are what is popular at a given second. They are what feeds their advertisers' pockets at a given second. They are they're supposed to be at a given second. They jump on fresh prey and shred it to bits. It makes no difference what Dean's views are on a given subject - he is the hot topic. The hot topic must be pummelled while Budweiser sponsors the pummelling.
I also love how the media will talk about themselves in the third person. "You've had trouble with the media, haven't you?" Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. YOU.
Its sad that out of all the candidates that are out there, Dean seems to be the best of them. There's alot I don't agree with that he represents, alot of policies and ideas that I just don't agree with. Its also sad that there's no way in hell he'll win the election. He'll come away with the nomination but the Democratic party will fragment and bush will have a cake walk actually staying in office.
I'm hoping for the best...but realizing the worst
Chris, I hate to admit it, but I'm really quite worried that your prediction will come to pass. The Dem party is already so fragmented that if he can't rally the support of the entire party, or at least a majority of it, there's no way he'll beat Bush.
That's one huge difference between the Dems and Repubs: no matter who gets the Repub nomination, the party will stand behind the nominee and vote for him. Dems will nominate a guy, but can't, for whatever reason, unite behind him come election time.
If I was a card carrying Democrat who was really into the party, I would call for the party chairman’s resignation. Failure to form a cohesive effort in a Presidential election is not only leading the Democrats to their knees, it’s helping form a one-party system.
Do Democrats care more about winning or whining?
I'd have to concur, Tomas, with beerzie boy: the US is just too large and diverse to pigeon-hole. Of course, as large and diverse as we are, one thing can be said about the gross majority: we can't be bothered to even show up and vote... and so we deserve, in large measure, what we get.
I voted. So I'm entitled to complain.
I'd also have to concur with the sentiment that the US media isn't politically biased. Their bias is the bias of popular sentiment: they're all for whatever their audience is all for (at the moment). Sickening, really.
One thing I take exception with, however, is the notion that Bush wasn't elected. He was. It is incorrect to say that Bush lost the popular vote when in so many places the margin of victory (for either side) was well within the margin of error. For all intents and purposes, it was a tie... which lead to a tie breaker in the Supreme Court. So until we do something to change the way we vote, we should be ready for this to happen again and again, as the two parties are so hell-bent on appealing to the center that they're damn near indistinguishable — and indistiguishable will get you a 50/50 split every time.
I beg to differ with many of the responses in regards to the media. The media is in complete control of what they broadcast and discuss and it isn't all about what the people want to hear. If that were the case, more people would watch the news without the sense of unfortunate obligation, treat as though it's some hassle to be well informed of what's going on in the world. The majority of Americans don't even know who the hell is running against George Bush, let alone give a damn about the Democratic Caucuses. In a way, I'm surprised there's so much coverage on the issue, since caucuses are treated as concerns only for the devout voters.
With the exception of a very few, the mainstream media is unbelievably biased. Regardless of one's political and social agreeance, the reason for news reporters is to, unsurprisingly, report the news, not give a short segment on the issue and then tell us what you think. We have Bill O'Reilly (Fox News in general), Scarburough Country, and Imus in the Morning. People watch these broadcasts well aware of the opinions that will be stressed. However, 24 hour and even local news announcers should never engage in commmentary on any sort simply because it isn't their place or job to do so.
Furthermore, the media is very conservative because they are no longer willing to take risks. Certainly homogeneous. Definitely prostitutes.
I'd also like to add that the split decisions amongst Democrats, especially the professionals, to occur before the primaries. I believe there are two reasons that determined this "shock-and-confusion" state. It has been many years, before Bill Clinton, that we've witnessed so many candidates and, more importantly, the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans think they are always right, whereas Democrats challenge the idea that they might be wrong.
Many of the Democratic candidates know they don't have a chance at winning against George Bush, let alone the Democratic nomination. However, they aren't running for the job, they're running to educate, to get their collective point across, and hopefully motivate people to react (i.e.--vote). Whether I disagree with a lot of the things people, friends, and family have to say, in the end I always encourage people to vote. It's a privilege, not a right.
Jennie, voting is actually a right (not a privilege) guaranteed by the 15th Amendment of the United States Constitution:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
The lack of educated voters is a major problem in our democracy that is not being given the proper attention. I'm glad that you're encouraging people to vote no matter their belief. Our country needs a lot more citizens like you.
Some additional reading for you. Hopefully you'll find it interesting.
Creative Class War : How the GOP's anti-elitism could ruin America's economy.
>The media are not liberal, they are prostitutes at best.
That seems to be the strategy now, even though a poll showed that 89% of Washington journalists voted for Clinton. (I'd assume Gore's numbers were lower). It's impossible for the news to be devoid of bias. Every story has either a positive or negative effect on someone's view on some aspect of the political world.
More and more information is the best strategy to combat this bias and with the networks, cable channels, radio and the Internet our citizenry has no excuse.
If someone could look up the percentage of journalists registered Republican vs. Democrat, that would be a fairly impartial way of deciding this issue, wouldn't it?
And whether the media is left or right leaning, the public perceives them to be left leaning. Which means something.
>I support Dean because of his fire, his drive, and his willingness to take on the current regime.
That's sad really. It sounds to me that you support him because you hate Bush, not because of anything Dean actually stands for.
My take on the Democrats right now is that none of them stand for anything. Marketing teaches us that products (people) own characteristcis in the minds of the customers (voters). What characteristic does Dean own? How about Kerry? Most politicians do a poor job of setting their platform and running with it. (As do most companies with their strategic marketing.)
My perception is that the Democratic candidates are merely trying to be the best anti-Bush.
(btw, even though sites like the Media Research Center appear impartial, each and everyone of them are funded by groups to promote certain lines of thinking. The key is knowing which side of the aisle each organization is on.)
Almost forgot to mention Larry Elder's book, Showdown: Confronting Bias, Lies and the Special Interests That Divide America which covers the amazing slant of our schools of higher learning. It only briefly addresses journalism in particular, but the net effect of these professors is profound as they look to "reach" our nation's young people. Oh yeah, Elder is a black man... how's that for bucking the status quo.
While I wouldn't invite the guy over for dinner, I don't 'hate' Bush. His rule over our country drives me crazy but that doesn't mean that Dean's decision making will not do the same.
I support Dean as a candidate because he's being a Democratic Presidential Candidate, not a Senator who's try to run but keep his day job on the side in case it doesn't work out.
Howard is running a campaign that says being a Democrat is more than just having a D next to your name on CSPAN.
He's out trying to make the 2004 election into a real race while the media and members of his own party use their efforts to take him down. That's why I support Dean, that's why I hope he wins the nomination to force our country to make a choice between ideology, not the color of a necktie.
Those are admirable motives and I agreee that ideology should be the deciding factor. So what exactly is Dean's platform?
Greg, I'm already aware that voting is an actual right given under the 15th Amendment, just commenting on how Americans treat such a privilege. Everytime election dates arrive, I hear collective sighs all over my neighborhood. It's pathetic. This should be important to people. I can't wait to vote, and considering it's the first major election I'm allowed to vote in by law, you're right. It's very unusual.
I just got back from Iowa, and I'm heartened by this post. The outcome in Iowa was disappointing for so many different reasons, but Iowa would have given us a chance at a one-two knockout combination, that's all. Iowa should not (and does not) choose our presidents. I'll be in NH this weekend, and I expect a much different outcome.
Sorry ... haven't time to read through all the above, but I just thought I'd comment on the American voting system.
I'm Australian and here voting is mandatory. You have to vote. In my mind this is a far better system, as I forces the public to at least consider the issues involved. Whether or not they make an informed decision is another matter, but at least you've got them in the door.
Of course some people choose to cast blank ballots, but this is a minority and even so, they usually do so as part of a conscious decision against all the candidates, rather than out of laziness.
One more thing. Australia has approx 12 million eligible voters (I think) and we manages to get the entire federal election (excluding postal ballots) completed in a day. Why does it take so long in the US? Last election I remember is took weeks and weeks and weeks to finalise.
>Last election I remember is took weeks and weeks and weeks to finalise.
That gives the officials time to doctor the results. ;^) Just kidding, can you tell I'm a bit jaded by our system?
I don't know if mandatory voting is a good answer. It's ultimately educated voters that we desire... sounds a bit dictatorial to me.
In an ideal world everyone would be an 'educated' voter, but obviously it isn't an ideal world and thus having mandatory voting at least gets people to consider their options.
As I said above, you don't actually have to vote (you can donkey vote), so you're not forced to vote for someone if you don't believe any of the candidates are deserving of your vote.