Study: John Edwards Doesn't Exist

Study: John Edwards Doesn't Exist
January 16, 2008 -- 5:31 PM EST // //

A new study finds that John Edwards doesn't exist.

Allow me to explain.

After John Edwards placed second in the Iowa caucus on January 3, Elizabeth Edwards took to the airwaves to argue that his finish should occasion the media to stop covering the Dem contest as little more than a showdown between two political superstars, Hillary and Obama. Not surprisingly, nobody listened to her.

Comes now some statistical evidence of this fact. The Project for Excellence in Journalism has released its latest campaign coverage index for January 6-11, a study that does its damndest to try to quantify which political figures are sucking up the most media oxygen and why.

It found that Edwards only got 7% of political coverage during those days -- less than one-fifth of what Hillary earned, and less than one-forth of that accorded to Obama. Edwards even got less attention than Mike Huckabee, even though he, like Edwards, finished third in the New Hampshire primary. Take a look:



Now, before we get into a big argument about the study's validity or over whether Edwards deserved more coverage than he got, let me just say that I'm flagging these numbers just to make a larger point.

You can make a valid case, I suppose, that Edwards didn't merit more media attention during those days. Even post-Iowa he looked to be a long-shot for the nomination; New Hampshire made things worse. What's more, Hillary's New Hampshire comeback was obviously going to get a ton of attention. So the above numbers are understandable.

But here's the thing about this. For literally the past year we've been hearing justifications for the fact that Edwards, despite being competitive in Iowa polls, didn't get the attention that his Dem rivals got -- he didn't raise as much money; his candidacy isn't as historic as theirs; etc., etc. Indeed, the virtual media blackout of Edwards got so glaringly obvious that even New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt urged his paper to give Edwards more attention back in November. At a certain point we should just acknowledge that Edwards basically got screwed and that this shouldn't have happened to the extent that it did.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/01/study_john_edwa.php

It's that Hillary and Obama, being the rather large (historic) personalties they are, simply suck up all the oxygen. Only so much to go around, you know.

Why are all republican candidates given so much time and space and energy, no matter how absurd they are. Whereas Democratic candidates like Edwards, and to a much greater degree Kucinich are ignored as forcefully as possible.

of them a pass for taking so many of JRE's ideas - My God, that's media fodder.

Giuliani, McCain, Romney from the beginning. Then Thompson when the speculation about him running began. Huckabee also began getting coverage when he rose in Iowa in October. They all got major national coverage and there was not a big disparity. If they could cover five rethugs why only two Democrats?

*sigh*

The media is terrified of him.

:rofl:

There is some concern about the U.S. Government Public Enforcements. I will enforce the U.S. Government’s Public Enforcements regulating its enforcements itself with its regulations pertaining to itself and according to its enforcements.

etc

http://www.mercerforpresident2008.com/page.php?D=ct_20060716151723&DP=85a03b2bc84ae79da689dd9d4aa200c7
http://www.mercerforpresident2008.com/page.php?D=ct_20060716151723&DP=db619376f264eaa0a08c6836514ee492
http://www.mercerforpresident2008.com/page.php?D=ct_20060716151723&DP=5cb063f6b02f926a81b81f01b5e47fef

:rofl:

I really, really hate being force-fed elections.

has their own agenda and anyone who thinks that's poppycock can go study the 2000-2006 elections and selections.

John Edwards is too much for the People now and not enough for the corpswhores. I'm so glad he's in this race and I hope he stays in.

then Kucinich has been dead for 40 years. :P

It is all a sham, a game and a sham to make us think we live in a country that cares about what the people want.

I'm not an Edwards supporter, but the media has whited him out prematurely.

Sometimes, I really wish that the M$M would concentrate on Edwards a bit more, too.

Perhaps they could concentrate on his $459,000 "part-time" employment with, $16 million investment in and $180,000 contributions from Sub-Prime leveraging Hedge Fund Managers, Fortress Investments, his $500,000 advance and subsequent $300,000 payment from a NewsCorp-owned publishing house and his pro-Corporate, pro-War, pro-Police State votes as a Senator? Maybe they could talk about flying his hairdresser back in from Hollywood for $1500 or accepting a $55,000 cheque from a University for a speech on poverty?

I don't believe any candidate should be ignored, but I think Edwards justifiably deserves a few headaches AT LEAST for his complicity in marginalizing less popular candidates.

I simply find him to be the biggest hypocrite in the race.

I admit to a certain admiration for his chutzpah, however, to run as an anti-poverty candidate. Wait until after May 15, when people find out how many MILLIONS of dollars (Fortress Investments) JRE made off the backs of those foreclosed upon and then evicted by sub-prime and predatory lenders.

If he's the nominee, the Dems are sunk. The Republicans will pass him around like a drunken cheerleader at a frat party.

When John Edwards announced he would be taking public money, the media knew he wouldn't have as much to spend so therefor, they started to ignore his campaign...

Look, if you needed anymore proof that the media is all about bottom line over substance, look no further than how they covered the war...

They knew right from the start that covering the war would be easy and reap mighty returns as the war attracted more eyeballs to their operation...

That's why they didn't cover the peace efforts...

They wanted war just as much as GWB wanted war...

It's all about money...

It has been for decades now...

No more journalism, just point, shoot and rake in the dough...

As it is to what passes for journalism these days...:eyes:

:kick: