Evidence of Media-Driven poll results and gatekeeping

[cryofan]

Hypothesis: the large lead of Dean over Kucinich was caused by the media, who instead of reporting on Dean's poll popularity, instead mentioned Dean in stories in a surge of media mentions, which was followed by an upsurge in Dean's poll popularity. See this URL:

http://www.politicsus.com/presidential%20press%20releases/Kucinich/102903.htm


Also, recently the browser hits on Kucinich's website have surged, while the hits on Dean's site have dropped.

See this URL:

http://www.kucinich.us/polldata.php



Also, note from the above URL that Kucinich's website is much more popular than both Dean's and Kerry's, although both Dean and Kerry get more media mentions than Kucinich.

Yet media mentions of Dean have even increased, while media mentions of Kucinich have remained essentially the same. From a news.google.com query, we have media mentions numbers for Dean, Kucinich, Dean and Kerry:

Searched news for "Howard dean". Results 1 - 10 of about 6,870

"dennis kucinich". Results 1 - 10 of about 1,720.

"wesley clark". Results 1 - 10 of about 4,460

"john kerry". Results 1 - 10 of about 5,350.


So, although the data presented above may not be conclusive, it certainly would seem to raise serious questions about how the media manufactures poll results and acts as a gatekeeper to the presidency, despite the self-proclaimed neutrality.

[Old and In the Way]

1. An Internet Primary.

Wouldn't that be interesting? A non-binding internet "election" that polls all Democrats on their choice at the same time.

I would think a solution to controlling ballots would be necessary, but certainly doable. Then we could get an objective assessment where Democratic voters are in their choice for President.

[DieboldMustDie]

4. MoveOn.org did something like that...

a few months ago.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. And Dean one that vote

Before that Dean was getting little media attention. That victory, combined with much greater than expected fundraising figures and his huge volunteer base, made the media take notice of him and begin covering his campaign. Had Kucinich accomplished those things rather than Dean, he would be getting the attention.

[pruner]

2. Alexa is totally unscientific

it only counts people using the Alexa browser, which is a very small segment of the internet population.

you should also note that Dean's blog & Howard Dean TV both use unique URLs and so hits to those site are not counted in the deanforamerica.com stats.

[drfemoe]

3. I just don't agree

this POV ignores the fact that Dean was out there first working his tail off and people were responding. He is the first individual I heard say anything about *u*h and what was happening to our country.

You can believe what you want, but Dean has worked for and earned his "perceived" position. And he has done so while taking a multitude of fire from an endless supply of special interest groups and their spokes-people.

No sale.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

6. You disagree, then support the hypothesis that was presented...

The original post is speaking of Dean's popularity being effected by the HUGE disparity in media coverage.

You disagreed then said this...
"He is the first individual I heard say anything about *u*h and what was happening to our country."

Proves the point :).


February 2002(yes 2002 not 2003).

http://www.kucinich.us/speeches/speech1.htm

snip>>>
"Because we did not authorize the invasion of Iraq.
We did not authorize the invasion of Iran.
We did not authorize the invasion of North Korea.
We did not authorize the bombing of civilians in Afghanistan.
We did not authorize permanent detainees in Guantanamo Bay.
We did not authorize the withdrawal from the Geneva Convention.
We did not authorize military tribunals suspending due process and habeas corpus.
We did not authorize assassination squads.
We did not authorize the resurrection of COINTELPRO.
We did not authorize the repeal of the Bill of Rights.
We did not authorize the revocation of the Constitution.
We did not authorize national identity cards.
We did not authorize the eye of Big Brother to peer from cameras throughout our cities.
We did not authorize an eye for an eye.
Nor did we ask that the blood of innocent people, who perished on September 11, be avenged with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan.
We did not authorize the administration to wage war anytime, anywhere, anyhow it pleases.
We did not authorize war without end.
We did not authorize a permanent war economy.

Yet we are upon the threshold of a permanent war economy. The President has requested a $45.6 billion increase in military spending. All defense-related programs will cost close to $400 billion. Consider that the Department of
Defense has never passed an independent audit. Consider that the Inspector General has notified Congress that the Pentagon cannot properly account for $1.2 trillion in transactions. Consider that in recent years the Dept. of
Defense could not match $22 billion worth of expenditures to the items it purchased, wrote off, as lost, billions of dollars worth of in-transit inventory and stored nearly $30 billion worth of spare parts it did not need.

Yet the defense budget grows with more money for weapons systems to fight a cold war which ended, weapon systems in search of new enemies to create new wars. This has nothing to do with fighting terror. This has everything to do with fueling a military industrial machine with the treasure of our nation, risking the future of our nation, risking democracy itself with the militarization of thought which follows the militarization of the budget."
snip>>


----------------------------------------------------

..there is a lot more to that speech. This speech was the catalyst that started the movement to DRAFT Kucinich to run. That's right, he was not holding his finger in the wind to see which way to turn his campaign. He was just saying what he believes in, what he is passionate about.


TWL

[loyalsister]

5. pitiful

"Also, note from the above URL that Kucinich's website is much more popular than both Dean's and Kerry's, although both Dean and Kerry get more media mentions than Kucinich."
DUH!!! The people who support DK go to his web site more frequently to look for updated information about him because he's getting less mainstream media coverage. People don't have to do that with Dean and Kerry. This is lame. I'm a little exasperated by the charges of a conspiracy against the fringe candidate who knew he didn't have a chance in the first place.

[AP]

9. Dean was a fringe candidate who was made legitimate by the media.

And, incidentally, I go to the internet to get my news because I find the major news outlets so unsatisfying and full of shit. And you know what? They are unsatisfying, pro-corporate, and full of shit.

If DK's website is doing well, and it's because the media is ignoring him, then there is probably a very important message about the media and they way they're trying to control the outcome of the election in there somewhere.

[loyalsister]

15. Dean was never fringe

in the sense that DK is. Dean's ideas are mainstream. Then you have a guy who talks about cutting the pentagon budget while we're in the middle of a war. Time and place are also what make him seem like a freak. Calling it a "Department of peace" was politically stupid. Same concept with a different title might do a little better. He talks about how he marched in the streets against WTO. This is attractive only to a VERY tiny miniority of people.

I agree about the news. I don't watch Television media. The point I was making was, that apparently the web site is the place to get info about him. He's not getting news coverage so his supporters go to his web site frequently. YET, in the article they were trying to argue that the fact that his web site is more popular than that of the other candidates means that the polls are dishonest. The other candidates are all over the news. People don't have to go to their web sites for info.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Of course that's what happens...

All one had to do was to follow Arnold's race in California.
The media decides, we follow. Doesn't sound odd to me.
It's unfortunate and unfair...and until we get a "free press" again and not a "Bought one"...we will continue to have the media decides who runs this country. It was fairly evident during the 2000 election. Slapped us in the face if you ask me.

[cryofan]

8. The initial media promotion of dean was the most egregious example of this

Am I the only one who was sickened by the way the media promoted Dean like he was a hot new movie when he was about to enter the race? That was disgusting!

The recent Bush manipulation of the media with the Irag Thanksgiving dinner was even worse that the Dean debacle. The way Rove and Co. played them was so embarrassing. I am sure that the european media does not bend the knee like our media does. Can you imagine what the europeans must be thinking about this latest media sellout?

[AP]

10. Here's my take on the promotion of Howard Dean

Presidential Hopeful Howard Dean
Morning Edition audio
March 11, 2003

NPR's Mara Liasson reports on the presidential aspirations of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean who's campaign is gaining momentum in early caucus states such as Iowa because of his strong remarks against a war with Iraq.

http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1188565

This was the first big story I heard on Howard Dean, and I noticed that right after this story, people started getting interested. Now this story isn't all positive, if you think of it as comparing him to Bush. However, when you think about NPR demographics, then this story comes off as a very subtle sell to the people NPR know must be listening to the show. It really sells him as the anti-war candidate who is criticizing Bush. It is designed, in my mind, to write the script for Dean and the Democrats.

Also, if you do a search of the NPR Morning Edition archives in the last year for "Howard Dean," up to today, you get 15 hits.

How many do you get for Edwards? ONE! (These aren't archives of every story in which the candidate is menitioned. They're stories where the candidate is the focus of the story.) And Edwards's one story was part of series in which EVERY candidate was (or is going to be) interviewed. So it wasn't like he was getting anything special. (http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=947355).

Kucinich gets two hits in the previous hear -- his Bob Edwards interview (same one Edwards got) and a jokey one about finding him a wife.

[cryofan]

12. teh advent of internet media will hopefully destroy corporate media grip

Now that we have computerized internet media, it is so much easier for dissenters like you and me to get across our message to the public about how established power uses the media to perpetuate its power by promoting status quo candidates and and denigrating reform-minded candidates.

[AP]

13. I'm looking through the NPR archives...

...and some more important data: If you do a search of ALL the NPR archives, you get 91 hits for Dean, 48 for Kerry, 34 (I think) for Edwards, 24 for Sharpton, 24 (I think) for Kucinich.

One of the hits for Dean is this:

http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1395638

What is the "NPR Type?"
Day to Day audio
Aug. 14, 2003

NPR's Karen Grigsby Bates talks with NPR audience researchers who correct some myths about who the typical NPR listener is -- and there are surprises. Apparently they're not all voting for Howard Dean and driving Volvos.

In August, NPR was "surprised" that, after all their efforts, by mid-August, they hadn't convinced everyone to vote for Howard Dean. Now, the weird thing is that the story which was broadcast doesn't mention Howard Dean once, so maybe it's not not a fair hit for Dean. But, what the hell is NPR thinking when they feel they have to insert this spin on the story? However, maybe it isn't spin. Maybe the reporters did find that NPR listeners didn't like Howard Dean as much as NPR seems to like him (91 stories worth, vs Kerry's 48). They just didn't bother to mention that statistic in the version of the story that was broadcast because that would contradict their editorial agenda. The information, however, slipped through on the web site.

[helleborient]

11. Unfortunately, this article ignores what was happening in NH

Dean was in a strong second to Kerry with 15% in New Hampshire BEFORE Dennis Kucinich ever entered the race. This is where the media coverage came from.

Kucinich supporters seem to want to ignore Dean's strong showing in New Hamsphire, which was stronger BEFORE Dennis entered the race than Dennis has been in any state. Instead they wish to only look at national polls, because the real story from New Hampshire destroys the Kucinich media conspiracy argument.

[Padraig18]

14. Your analysis ignores the most obvious of points

Dean's coverage is as result if INTEREST in Dean as a candidate. I hate to tell you this, but very few Democrats I know in real life are interested in supporting DK--- and yes, they DO know who he is. :eyes:

On edit: I could believe passionately that the Arcola, IL Christmas Parade is more entertaining and wholesome than the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade--- and all around better parade--- but my belief does not mean the media is 'dissing' the Arcola, IL Christmas Parade in favor of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, simply because there is less media coverage of it.

[dfgrbac]

16. Thank you, I agree!

I am glad to see others are catching on to what is happening in this country! I have been discussing the corruption of our democracy and our media extensively at E-The People. You can no longer trust what you read, see and hear - except in independent media like the FSTV and WorldLink channels on TV and in print media like The Nation magazine. Commercial TV channels and our other major media are completely edited for the corporate agenda to support the economic Empire for the profit of our multinational corporations. These people don't want you to even begin to think that Dennis Kucinich is electable.

Dennis Kucinich is feared! Why is that?

American Propaganda, how it's done! WOW!

[leyton]

17. The media does not have to

cover each candidate equally. Journalists have a responsibility to be fair, but not to dedicate equal time to each politician. If that were the case, Bush would get one tenth of the media coverage and so would Carol Moseley Braun.

But the fact of the matter is, throwing your hat into the ring does not guarantee you equal coverage. Bush is much more important in shaping the election than Carol Moseley Braun, by virtue of incumbency, funds, support, and other factors. In regards to the democratic primary: that is being shaped primarily by Dean, Gephardt, and perhaps Clark and Kerry. Thus, these guys may get more coverage - and indeed, this coverage does amplify their support. This is a somewhat unfortunate side effect (well, it depends on your viewpoint). Nonetheless, the media's responsibility is to cover the candidates in proportion to their impact on the race. Sorry, but Kucinich didn't ever have the base of support, nor has he presented a campaign that is both innovative and effective, like other candidates have.

I hope I haven't ticked off too many Kucinich supporters here. It's not that I dislike Kucinich; in fact, I have seen him speak and though I disagree with his positions I like him. It's merely the political reality that there is no good reason for the media to give him the time that they give those with a better chance at impacting or winning the race.

[snoochie]

18. I love seeing the assertions and refutations

It's all very entertaining.

But so unnecessary.

To me, all there is to do is think of the media's role pre-Iraq war. Now think of their actions with respect to the candidates vying for the nomination.

Case closed. :)

[AP]

19. Bingo. They wanted war. Now they want Americans to support an

anti-war candidate? Hmm. Why?

So they can get more of Bush.