Who's Afraid of John Edwards?

Media freezes out a threat to corporate owners

BY TED RALL
JANUARY 30, 2008


http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A310690

John Edwards isn't just the most electable Democrat—he's the best choice. But the media is starving him of the oxygen campaigns require in order to thrive: coverage. Shortly after placing second in Iowa, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that John Edwards received a puny 7 percent of national media coverage. Clinton and Obama got between four and five times more; their poll numbers were nowhere close to that much higher than Edwards'.

"The media goes to this very engaging story about a legitimate woman candidate and a legitimate candidate with an African-American heritage, and that drives up their fund-raising numbers," Elizabeth Edwards told Time. "Then the media folks say, 'See, that proves we were right to focus on these two candidates'... It's enough to make you tear your hair out."

But there's more to the Edwards story (and non-stories) than reporters dazzled by Clinton and Obama—contenders who, though they don't seem likely to make political history, add a bit of demographic flavor. There is no precedent in memory of the news media freezing out a major presidential candidate to this extent.

The New York Times' own public editor conceded that his paper had shortchanged Edwards. "In Iowa ... John Edwards is close behind Clinton in the most recent Des Moines Register poll," Clark Hoyt wrote on Nov. 18, "yet The Times has given him comparatively scant coverage. Clinton and Obama have been profiled twice each on the front page since Labor Day, but Edwards not at all this year. Throughout the paper, The Times has published 47 articles about Clinton since Labor Day, only 18 about Edwards."

"I don't track our coverage by quantity," campaign editor Richard Stevenson responded. "In a qualitative sense, we've covered him pretty thoroughly, and there is more to come."

There wasn't.

What's really behind the media animus toward Edwards," Jeff Cohen wrote for AlterNet, "is his 'all-out courting of the liberal left-wing base' (ABC News) or his 'looking for some steam from the left' (CNN)."

When the media gets tough, read the overseas press. Kevin Drawbaugh, a reporter for Reuters, knows what's up. "Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients," he writes for the British wire service, "and the answer is almost always the same—Democrat John Edwards."

Drawbaugh quotes Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at the Stanford Group think tank: "My sense is that Obama would govern as a reasonably pragmatic Democrat ... I think Hillary is approachable. She knows where a lot of her funding has come from, to be blunt." Edwards, on the other hand, is "an anti-business populist" and "a trade protectionist" who "would be viewed as a threat to business," he said.

I was going to vote for him on Tuesday.

Watching their destruction also today. The drain hole enlarged by the numbers this a.m.

And mentioned it name about 50 times a day, that is CNN

That's why I believe that to get anything done in our favor, Hillary is the best choice. She knows the players well.

She knows her corporate donors well. Wants to mandate that we buy insurance from some of them.
Universal health care in the sense that the fleecing of the public by the insures will be universally enforced by the government. I will vote for her if it comes down to it, but with the most apprehension I have ever felt voting for any democrat. She won't even say going into Iraq was wrong as far as I know. Yep, I don't like her.

:banghead:

:cry:

:wtf:

even IMAGINE what John Edwards must be feeling! How could he ever have competed against this?? The Rock Star & Queen Bee, that's what it's come down to. And that's why I HAVE to walk away!

I was enthused in 2006 because after such a long time I felt Democrats were FINALLY going to stand up to The Idiot, Decider! Instead, we've seen so very very little. And who is part of all this. BOTH of the Democratic front-runners! Obama can scream til the cows come home that he was against the war, but HOW does ANYONE really KNOW how he would have voted?? That would have answered one of my main questions from the get-go! I realize that almost everyone "got on board" and we descended downward because of it. But at least, and it's NOT meaningless and so many say... John Edwards apologized for this over and over. It's NOT meaningless. Even Clinton has YET to say it outright!

People, in some ways my stress I feel about who will be the nominee has been lifted, but my SORROW about the future has just begun. Many people think those of us who supported Edwards are only being sore losers, but I KNOW in my heart of hearts, it has NOTHING to do with that! THIS IS NOT A GAME!

But it's been made into one! I've been around a lot of political elections in my life and this is by far the MOST BIZARRE! I've hurt almost all day long, I've cried and have NOT even bothered to listen to ANY MSM! It sickens me, and as Ted Rall said so well... What would THEY do for a Living?? Why didn't he say this BEFORE?? Why didn't those who SAW & KNEW what was going on make MUCH MORE NOISE?

One can thank him for telling it like it is, but it changes nothing NOW. Unfortunately the real WHORES are still out there pumping & pimping for all it's worth. And America loses AGAIN!!

What a Country!!! Spreading Democracy when we have NONE!!

and it absolutely sucks...but it isn't anything we didn't already know.:cry:

*sigh*

:kick:

the rising populism like a bug. $60 million was mentioned. The Bidness News has dropped banners like, "War on Wealth." Apparently, the danger has passed.

Yay for democracy!

they've got ALL the money.

Ted Rall discusses to no avail...the youngsters know everything and after all they have 'hope.'

I'm sick...mccain/huckabee. I want to secede.

edit for typo

He seems to be planning to hold them till the convention.

see how Super Tuesday goes. We don't vote until March 4. I just can't believe that the Rich White Boys are laughing at us....pitting a black man against a white woman and the Dems fell for it.

I'll keep your advice in mind....thx.

Hell, with all the media attention Edwards is finally getting he may get a ground swell of followers. Ok, won't happen but I will vote for him, especially since it is a toss up between O and C.

Preach it, sister, because I personally will be very surprised if that is not the republican ticket. And it terrifies me, because I just can't see either of the 2 remaining Dems beating that ticket.


"Hope is the worst of evils, for it prolongs the torments of man." Nietzsche

Obama is naive and thinks he can "work" with them. Clinton would just keep giving them whatever they want-think Kyle Lieberman.

I don't work in journalism, so I can't be sure about this, but I have a sense that journalists know what stories and story angles will get published, and which won't, and that drives coverage. There's no explicit emails being written saying "don't write favorably about Edwards or we'll kill your piece" but the message is coming through. I heard rumors that during the buildup to the Iraq war, journalists at place like the LA Times knew that if they wrote anything questioning the rationale, it would be hacked up or killed, so they didn't do it.

Ack. The only real progressive in the race is out.

So at this point forward, we know to expect: tax cuts to corporations (to shelter whatever isn't already moved abroad) National health care only of a sort that guarantees that the Blues, Aetna and Cigna can still take their huge chunk of flesh without adding any value whatsosever; more offshoring; continuing decline in median wages; in short, more stuff that Good for Business but NOT good for America's middle class majori.

then please consider voting for him in the primary.

He hasn't endorsed... he'll probably keep his delegates till the convention.

I'm sticking with John.

:kick:

been "duped" again! Follow the yellow brick road, Dorothy will click her heels and we'll all be BACK IN KANSAS again! Safe and sound!!

It's just weird!

Simply put, corporate media is a big part of what John Edwards was fighting against; they're a part of the entrenched corporate and lobbyist interest. And as he said, they won't give up their power willingly.

I am voting for John Edwards on March 12. That's not a protest vote; it's a realistic one. The more delegates he gets, the more voice he has in this campaign. Clinton and Obama may be able to ignore him personally, but they can't ignore the delegates.

:kick:

Once more, we get the candidates they want.

for all of us who sincerely believe AND feel we lost something HUGE, it deserves overwhelming attention! I suppose in time the reality will sink in for others! Many haven't seen it, and they carp at each other like it's a dog fight day after day. Kind of reminds you of being back in school, but the shame of it is... we're NOT back in school and THIS IS the REAL WORLD!!

I KNEW it for so long, but I thought "just maybe" some big honcho would give him a leg up, but no... big names, bright lights, hoopla and parties... that's how it's going down. It IS A SHAME!!

That's me.

could at least ACKNOWLEDGE what I'm sure THEY all knew was going on! A little coverage a couple of weeks ago, and then PFFT!!

If I've said it once, I've said it at least 100 times... this country is LOST! Running down the road on three wheels, and the front two are barely attached to the axle! What is it going to take?? I THOUGHT (and pardon me for THINKING) that the Democrats "got it" back in 2006, but it's ALMOST WORSE! Worse because there was a glimmer, a chance that we could break through!

Day after day I've seen so many in Congress come out and support Clinton or Obama and I wondered. I wondered and wondered. People who I THOUGHT were "for the people" and yet watched them jump on that band-wagon with the wheels all screwed up.

Something in me says I didn't hear what I heard today... but this country just KICKED out a truly dedicated wonderful person who really wanted to "take back America!" While I wouldn't let myself hope, I'm really shocked that SOMEBODY with some CLOUT hasn't at least come forward to address what a SERIOUS mess we're in, and that John Edwards COULD have made a WORLD of difference.

I'm in a place that must be LIMBO! Something I remembered from being a Catholic. But I feel like a lost soul, just floating around somewhere and I just DON'T belong anymore!

What a SHAME, an outrageous SHAME!!

John Edwards was scaring the hell out of the GOP - and judging from the comments left on washingtonpost.com regarding his decision, he might have been throwing the fear of God into the campaigns of the remaining Democratic challengers.

Poll after poll showed former Senator Edwards beating the Republican candidates. He would've carried the South, independents, moderate GOPers, centrist Dems and labor. He may have been the only electable candidate on our side.

He fought the good fight, he was the best candidate, and the underdog, but he was up against Senators Clinton and Obama, who have garnered the bulk of the print ink and media spotlight.

Former Senator Edwards has stated that he believes Senator John McCain will be the front-runner, and I concur wholeheartedly with his assessment. The problem is that we may have just lost the best and strongest candidate who could've beaten McCain.

My parents in Reno, NV were caucusing for him too - I am so sad!

I feel we lose a chance at any fairness in representation now that he is out of the race.

but I believe we need to go back to the days when a candidate could only be covered in print or on the radio. If you want to see one, see them in person, read their own words, not some comment by some third party. Listen for yourself. No polls until just before a vote. Forego the slime oozing out of the video. We don't need no translators to interpret reality for us.

That's the whole point Joe. Major international corporations own all the print and radio outlets. They decide who gets covered and in what way. They were afraid of John and his message, so they chose not to cover him.

From the article:
"Then she repeated the biggest mistake of her undistinguished political career, voting for a resolution that supported Bush's campaign to start a war with Iran."

Didn't Edwards vote the same way?

Hmm, I support Hillary because she voted the same way, um, Edwards did on that Kyle Lieberman thing.

The sad thing is that many of the people caucusing for Edwards are probably conservative Hillary Dems who were taught that Hillary is a leftist and they couldn't and can't bring themselves to vote for a black man so they are left with Edwards, who they figure can't be all that bad. That seemed to be true in places like New Hampshire and South Carolina, Edwards' vote broke for Hillary. Who is the polar opposite of Edwards on the issues. :cry:

and the Dems and the media shut him out. Big surprise there - not. It is literally sickening, though.

Like previous Democratic nominees.

Clinton doesn't even need to crow -- "statist" or conservative, everyone
knows she is big business. Tory is what you used to call it, actually.

This is part of the Reagan legacy, the destruction of the protections we had for media conglomeration and control before Reagan. They froze out Edwards because they could get away with it. News people may vary by personal politics, but they are all addicted to face time. They will be managed in what they say because their owners want it that way.

John Edwards was given the back of the hand by global corporatists and Big Business in America.

:hi: if'n I haven't before.

that the MSM was choosing our candidate for us. John Edwards was marginalized, pushed into a corner to be forgotten while the other two-Clinton and Obama were touted as Rock Stars.

You would never have known that he came in second in Iowa. With all the papers and the TV Talking Heads it was if all you read was the papers or watched the TV Talking Heads because it was all about Clinton and Obama. John's name was all but excluded from the national discussion. The media basically choked off his campaign and no matter what he said or did, they refused to give him the coverage he deserved.

John Edwards and his campaign never stood a chance. :cry:

And I mean the print, TV correspondents would have IMMEDIATELY decamped to Manchester to report on

the "two leading campaigns' reactions here in New Hampshire to the Edwards upset."