Yes the 'media' REALLY wants Dean! They're not smearing him at all.

[Sean Reynolds]

Thought I'd post headlines from articles about Dean. Tell me if this proves Dean is well liked and propped up by the media?

Bush's Party Takes Direct Aim at Howard Dean
Reuters - Dec 03 10:21 PM

New Ads Target Dean Over Documents, Guns
AP - Dec 05 6:07 PM

Dean's Agenda Reminiscent of McGovern, Dukakis; Club for Growth Launches TV Ad Campaign Showing Democrats' History of Raising Taxes
U.S. Newswire - Dec 04 10:14 AM

RNC Chairman Criticizes Dean in Vermont
AP - Dec 02 9:23 PM

Lieberman Needles Dean on Sealed Records
AP - Dec 01 9:55 PM

Clark Attacks Dean on Avoiding Draft
AP - Nov 27 10:30 AM

Other Candidates Question Dean's Record, Experience
washingtonpost.com - Nov 25 10:12 AM

Dean under attack in Democratic debates
AFP - Nov 25 9:28 AM

Gephardt, Kerry Criticize Dean in Debate
AP - Nov 25 8:17 AM

Campaign 2004: Kerry, Gephardt lead attack on Dean
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Nov 25 7:30 AM

Now this is only a sample of articles I've found. IF the media really wanted Dean to win so badly, why would they publish attack articles? I mean, wouldn't they not want to taint Dean until the general election? Fact is, I've read JUST as many negative articles as I have non-negative. I don't really think the media WANTS Dean. In fact, I believe they're scared of him, that is why they have so many negative articles out there.

I mean case and point: why would the news media's debate headline talk about Dean getting attacked by Gephardt and Kerry? I mean the attacks were only a small part of the debate, why would they make that their headline? Moreover, why would they publish articles about Clark, Kerry, Lieberman and Gephardt attacking Dean on different areas? It just doesn't add up if you ask me.

They know Dean has a chance to knock off Bush. So what do they do? They start making HIM the target - they're always saying how the other Dems will target Dean in the debates. When the debates are over they only show the clips of Dean being attacked. YET that only makes up 10% of the whole debate; the rest is 90% of Bush attacks. Why again are they doing that? I think that the media feels that Dean has a GOOD chance at beating Bush. So they add the fact that he's still believed by the general population as being too liberal - yet not adding that he's said MANY times that he's a moderate. They'll go on and talk about how he's angry and they're JUST waiting for him to blow his top. They'll go on about how he comes from a small New England state that has NO population and little political power. They'll go on about how he'll raise taxes on the middle class, even though we all know that isn't true. They'll go on about how he 'dodged' the draft, even though he got a LEGAL draft deferment. They'll go on about how he's a rich, Park Avenue banker and has used his money to garner support throughout his life. They'll go after him as being anti-Israel because he stated that the United States should be 'even-handed' in its dealings in the I/P conflict. They'll go on about him wanting to regulate business, thus making him a hard-core Stalin liberal. They'll go on about him flubbing a few times; not even realizing President Bush flubs every damn time he opens his mouth.

People cry about Dean getting all this attention, but don't realize a lot of it paints him as a McGovern like Democrat. THAT tells me they're scared he HAS the power to beat Bush.

[wtmusic]

1. The liberal press is at it again

going soft on the lefties :eyes:

[whirlygigspin]

2. didn't you know?

it's a double/triple cross conspiracy/plot by the Queen to boost Nader's chances and have LaRouche come out the winner.

[AP]

3. Psst. That's not the opinion press attacking him. That's Bush attacking...

...him, trying to create the impression that Dean's nomination is a foregone conclusion, and that the media making Dean the story, stealing all the oxygen from the rest of the candidates.

Call me when you see opinion journalists trading on their crediblity by telling the truth about what Deans candidacy is all about. Also, call me when they start giving equal time to other candidates (and gving equal quality, ie, affirming the candidates meta-message, rather than dismantling it as they do with Clark and Edwards).

[Sean Reynolds]

4. Ever listen to the opinion press?

I'll repost what I said above, which fits well with the opinion press and political pundits found on CNN/MSNBC/FOX

They know Dean has a chance to knock off Bush. So what do they do? They start making HIM the target - they're always saying how the other Dems will target Dean in the debates. When the debates are over they only show the clips of Dean being attacked. YET that only makes up 10% of the whole debate; the rest is 90% of Bush attacks. Why again are they doing that? I think that the media feels that Dean has a GOOD chance at beating Bush. So they add the fact that he's still believed by the general population as being too liberal - yet not adding that he's said MANY times that he's a moderate. They'll go on and talk about how he's angry and they're JUST waiting for him to blow his top. They'll go on about how he comes from a small New England state that has NO population and little political power. They'll go on about how he'll raise taxes on the middle class, even though we all know that isn't true. They'll go on about how he 'dodged' the draft, even though he got a LEGAL draft deferment. They'll go on about how he's a rich, Park Avenue banker and has used his money to garner support throughout his life. They'll go after him as being anti-Israel because he stated that the United States should be 'even-handed' in its dealings in the I/P conflict. They'll go on about him wanting to regulate business, thus making him a hard-core Stalin liberal. They'll go on about him flubbing a few times; not even realizing President Bush flubs every damn time he opens his mouth.

[whirlygigspin]

6. This is all a plot to keep you from voting for Lanora Fulani

[AP]

12. The opinon journalists (and news journalists) affirm HoHo's meta-message

they know is helping Dean: "Dean attacks Bush," "Dean is anti-war," "all the other candidates think about is defeating Dean."

They reaffirm what they know makes him more popular, even if , on the surface, it appears to be negative.

Call me when the start telling the truth.

You know what. Look, there are some very sensible, smart Dean critics at DU. You RARELY see the arguments they make in the press. Why won't the major media tell you about Dean's Cato visit? Why don't they talk about where Dean got his seed money? Why don't the look harder at Dean's tax policies? Why did NPR have to lie about which confederate flat statement Edwards and Sharpton criticized? Why don't they talk about Dean's business friendliness?

Because, unlike the things they do report on and comment about, they know those stories will hurt Dean among the people whom they want to vote for him in the primary.

[Sean Reynolds]

20. BS

You think saying he's a left wing liberal will help him? Remember, a majority of Democrats *WANT* a candidate that CAN beat Bush. If they're being spoon fed crap about Dean being too liberal they'll NOT vote for him in the primaries because they'll buy into the crap, in which the media puts out, that he's too liberal to beat Bush.

Why don't they talk about Dean's Cato visit? Maybe because it's not news TODAY? Show me why they should look harder at Dean's tax-polocies. OH that is right, they're continually saying he's a tax and spend liberal that will raise taxes on the middle class.

The media is gung ho on painting Dean as a left-wing nut job. Tell me how that doesn't hurt Dean among the people whom they want to vote for him in the primary?

Face it, Dean isn't getting an easy ride from the media. You're just pissed that your candidate, Edwards, continues to sit at the bottom of the pack. Well ya' know what, where the hell were these kinda attacks when Dean stood at 2% in the polls? I remember DU back in February of 2003 when no one gave a two shits about Dean. The media didn't care, the candidates didn't care. Now the media DOES care because they know Dean can beat Bush. NOW the Democratic candidates CARE because they risk losing to the doctor - something they wouldn't have even thought was possible back in February of this year.

[AP]

22. It is helping him.

There was a graph here that charted Dean hits on Lexis-Nexis. It almost precisely overlaps with a slight lag his popularity. Same with the decreasing coverage of the other candidates. Dean's coverage is WAY higher than the other candidates.

There's no reason at this stage that the media should be ignoring any candidates, or trying to sabotage some and prop up others.

The media knows what it's doing.

[ryharrin]

40. It sounds like the graph shows how Dean's coverage followed

his popularity. Why wouldn't they cover a candidate more or less based on their popularity? That's the way news works, they go where the story is. Dean has made himself the story all along.

[AP]

46. That's a bs explanation, and it's probably not true.

The media has been driving his popularity, I'm sure. Also, when you look at the graph, it looks like Dean get's 3-5 times more coverage than the 2nd place candidate, and more than all the rest combined, and 2-8 are way closer togehter than they are to Dean.

The impliation is that the rest only get mentioned when the media feels compelled to mention them, and there's no way that Dean's warrants the disparate treatment.

[sandnsea]

24. gossip column politics

It sells. I really think it's that simple.

And, just like in a boxing match, the champion gets the edge. So next year the candidate will have to score lots of hard blows or really execute a brilliant strategy in order for the media to swing against Bush.

The media doesn't report on any of Bush's issues for the same reason it doesn't report on our candidates issues. People really don't want to know. They just want some little piece of red meat to toss around at the water cooler.

[madrchsod]

8. the rethugs

will not mention clark,i wonder why? i think clarks to much like clinton and he`s been calling out bush and they seem to be scared to answer.

[wtmusic]

10. Ha! a meta-message?

I'd love to know Clark's and Edwards' meta-message (I'm actually a meta-voter, so I'm in an excellent position to understand it)

:silly:

[AP]

13. Edwards: middle class opportunity -- let's reverse the flow of wealth and

political power from wealthy to the middle and working class.

Clark: in dangerous times, we need a guy with military experience, and, by the way, just because I wore a uniform doesn't mean I don't believe in democratic principles.

Dean: I'm not making any promises about the economy, or your savings, but I'm going to give you national health care (just like 80s Tory Britain). Oh, by the way, you'll have to pay for it, and for everything else. Oh, yeah. You've got the power.

[wtmusic]

16. Why the hell should the media affirm that?

I'm not going to buy a paper to read campaign propaganda.

[AP]

18. They're affirming Dean's meta message today, and you're paying your cable

bill and buying their papers.

That was my version of Dean's meta message. Dean's actual meta-message is: "I hate Bush the most and I'm not afraid to repeat it in every sentence coming out of my mouth."

And the press DEFINITELY affirm that meta message.

Why don't they affirm the other candidates' meta-messages? Why do they do the opposite--why do they dismantle the other candidates meta messages? Why is Dean alwasy the 'wealthy trial lawyer'? Why is Clark alwasy the cold, unpopular with his troops, hyper-intellectual self-obsessed striver? Why is Kerry the cold, aloof, patrician?

[wtmusic]

19. I don't see it AP

I used to see a lot of slamming of Dean in the press. If there's less now it's because the whore press doesn't want to lose numbers by going up against public opinion, that's all.

Don't look for the press to lead anything.

[AP]

21. There are many people here who have smart, well-argued criticisms of Dean

that you never see in the press.

I don't think there is a single other candidate about whom you could say the same thing. Every criticsm of other candidates you read here eventually finds its way to the major media, or came from the major media.

With Dean, you have people putting things together from original sources, or you have little media reporting things here and there, without fitting them in to the bigger pattern.

I think that is very telling.

The criticisms of Dean that do reachh the press are either intentionally stupid, or designed to help him affirm his meta-message, or both.

[Sean Reynolds]

23. Well of course. But it's like that for ANY candidate.

Even Edwards. That is political life. Not every politician is going to be set with 100% of your view. I haven't heard many stories attacking Edwards, or Kerry, or even Lieberman. The news media doesn't do that, they only go with what is happening TODAY. Hence why Dean's Vietnam record is such a big issue.

I don't buy the fact that they're designed to help him. IF they did, they'd stop painting him a leftist - which hurts him on both sides of the spectrum.

[AP]

25. We're just going in circles.

I never see any of the best criticism of Dean I see on DU in the major media. (They got the confederate flag issue all wrong, intentionally. The vietnam thing is interesting because of what it says about class, not because of what it says about vietnam.)

But all the criticisms of the other candidates not only are in the press, they're foregrounded in the press.

Dean gets a lot of press (undeniable), and almost all of it repeats the messages the media knows makes him popular with his supporters.

[Sean Reynolds]

26. Firstly....

Show me any major media criticism of ANY of the candidates. For the most part there isn't good crticism of any candidate. The problem is, Dean gets the most airtime because he's leading. I won't deny that. BUT when you state they repeat the message that is popular with the supporters, you're wrong. I've stated it all above; they continue to LIE and paint Dean as a liberal - which will turn off most Democrats because they'll feel he's too liberal to beat Bush in the general election. NOT only that but they continue to state that Dean CAN'T beat Bush because he's too liberal. That isn't a message that helps Dean, rather hurts him.

[AP]

28. I already explained how the media...

...identifies and characterizes the candidates.

Kerry is an aloof patrician who voted the wrong way on IWR. That's designed to hurt him with Democrats. Clark is a coniving, aloof guy, unpopular with his own troops. That's supposed to reverse the perception of his strengths (army man, smart and ambitious). Edwards is the "wealthy trial lawyer" -- every time they point that out to undermine his appeal to the regular guy.

Dean is the guy who's anti-Bush, and they know that makes him more popular with Dem primary voters (and polarizes him with GE voters).

It's all designed to help Bush, who, incidentally, never gets any treatment like any of the candidates above.

[AP]

29. By the way, as you say, they paint him as a liberal to help him in the ...

... primary, and kill him in the GE. That's my point.

[Sean Reynolds]

30. Selective hearing?

Because I've watched MANY political shows and this is basically the run down:

REPORTER 1: Let us move on to Howard Dean.

REPORTER 2: Ah, yes, the doctor.

REPORTER 1: What do you think of him?

REPORTER 2: Well he's got a voice, but it's becoming more and more clear he's just way too liberal to beat President Bush.

REPORTER 1: Why is that?

REPORTER 2: Well he supported that whole civil unions thing in Vermont; is anti-war; and will raise taxes on middle America.

REPORTER 1: Sounds a lot like McGovern.

REPORTER 2: NO doubt, Dean is the modern day McGovern.

REPORTER 1: Don't you think Dean's peaked too soon?

REPORTER 2: Yes. I think ultimately Democrats will see that Dean is too liberal to beat Bush and they'll go after a more established Dem.

REPORTER 1: Meaning Kerry?

REPORTER 2: Or Clark, or Gephardt, they've become the anti-Dean if you will. Basically more moderate Democrats that have a better shot at beating Bush.
--------

That was fun, but basically the same crap I keep hearing about Dean. I do agree it's all designed to help Bush, because they're hoping that Dean doesn't get the nod because he has a GREAT chance at beating Bush. So if they paint him as someone that has no chance, wise Democrats won't vote for a failure and elect someone that can actually beat him. They know Dean can beat Bush and they'll not give him a chance to do so.

[AP]

31. That's not what I hear the most of.

I hear, at the debates, "so Gep, what do you think about Dean?" "Kerry, what do you think of him?" "Oh, you wont' tell us. We're moving on then. Howard, what do you think of you?" "Kerry, so now you want to talk about Dean? Ok, go ahead."

And I hear, "Dean is angry at Bush."

[Sean Reynolds]

32. I guess we're on different channels.

Because at the debates if I recall, most of the attacks were brought up by the candidates themselves, NOT by the moderators.

Go watch CNN and MSNBC during the day, that is all you ever hear about Dean. That he has no chance and that he's peaked too soon.

[AP]

33. I guess. You really didn't think Woodruff and Brokaw really devoted

a great deal of time and effort into putting Dean at the center of those debates?

And how do you explain that Dean consistently go the most time (sometimes DOUBLE the amount of time the bottom two -- Edwards and Kucinich -- got together (in two debates)).

I think only in the last two debates did they finally decided to allocate time more fairly.

[Sean Reynolds]

34. They did....but they did it for the others would attack him.

I mean if they wanted Dean to be the one, why would they send other Democrats after him? Wouldn't that taint his image and turn off a lot of undecided voters? IMO it could, and I doubt they'd risk that just to give Dean more air time.

But the answer to your second question rests in the headline of your post. When you're attacked by the opponents, you're going to have more time to rebut what they say. No one is attacking Edwards OR Kucinich, because they happen to be at the bottom. You've got not only Kerry attacking Dean, but Lieberman, Gephardt and even Kucinich. Of course he'll have more time to refute what they say.

Lets face it, if the media wanted Dean to be nominated, they'd ignore the stories about the confederate flag flap, the medicare flap, the Vietnam flap and now the records flap. They'd not force their shows around it like they have. That doesn't help Dean - it probably won't hurt him either. If I were the Republicans, I would not put out negative news stories on the guy I'd want to win the nomination. It's that simple.

[Sean Reynolds]

35. I'm off to bed though.

Nice talking! :hi:

[AP]

36. They're making Dean the center of attention.

They did the same thing with Arnold. Every day, it was "what does Arnold think of what happened today?"

The media is forcing the candidates to make a deal with the devil. They promise you time if you attack Dean. If you don't, you get no time. Candidates have to decide: high ground and no coverage, or coverage, but contribute to making Dean the focus.

As for the confederate flag thing--I've talked in several threads about how NPR's weekend edition outright lied about that in a way that made Dean look really good.

Vietnam -- they have that issue all wrong too. But the horse is out of the barn now anyway. You didn't hear the stories about Vietnam last spring when they were playing up Dean as the anti-war candidate.

You know, it's just beyond question now that the Republicans want a face off with dean. It's a waste of time to argue whether it's happening. You should argue what you think Dean's going to do about it now.

[Sean Reynolds]

41. I agree they're making Dean the center of attention.

But what you don't seem to understand is that all his air time is negative now-a-days. Just like you said:

The media is forcing the candidates to make a deal with the devil. They promise you time if you attack Dean. If you don't, you get no time. Candidates have to decide: high ground and no coverage, or coverage, but contribute to making Dean the focus.

They continually attack him; bring up past remarks, past things he's done. Tell me how this would actually help him with his base? It shouldn't and often times it will not.


As for the confederate flag thing--I've talked in several threads about how NPR's weekend edition outright lied about that in a way that made Dean look really good.

I didn't hear NPR say anything about it, so I can't comment. But I've heard the political pundits on cable news stations TRASH Dean for it, just coming short of calling him a racist. Remember, that would NEVER go down with the Democratic base, so again if they wanted him why would they risk it? In fact, I'm pretty sure they'd just let the story die down - not feed into it. It didn't die down, in fact it's still going strong today because of that Dean loving media.

Vietnam -- they have that issue all wrong too. But the horse is out of the barn now anyway. You didn't hear the stories about Vietnam last spring when they were playing up Dean as the anti-war candidate.

Back then no one thought Dean had a chance at A) winning the nomination and B) possibly beating President Bush. When it became clear Dean had a chance at winning the nomination and kicking Bush out of the WH, the media began thrashing his record, spewing lies and of course talking about him getting out of Vietnam.

You know, it's just beyond question now that the Republicans want a face off with dean. It's a waste of time to argue whether it's happening. You should argue what you think Dean's going to do about it now.

You know, I don't doubt there are a few Republicans that want to face off with Dean. But some are growing brains and understanding what a challenge he brings to the table. Why do you think they're strongest interest group is running ads attacking Dean? Why do you think they sent their chairman up to Vermont to bash Dean? They're scared of Dean. They know that if he wins the nomination he has a good chance at beating Bush - they don't want that. So they're gonna attack him before it's too late. Attack him before he can win the nomination and maybe get a more beatable Democrat in the race (Lieberman Gephardt come to mind). THAT'S how I see it.

[AP]

43. OK, I'm going to conced that the media is stupid.

I'm going pay close attention to the media representation these days. I admit, I don't know what to make of it.

They clearly puffed him up all spring and summer. Maybe they realized they created a monster. Maybe they are trying to take him down, just like they do with the others, and just as they alwasy have. Maybe too many people have noticed the puffery, and they're backtracking. I really have no idea.

But, they're never going to puff up anyone the way they did Dean. If they can't count on Dean losing to Bush, there isn't anyone else they think will have a better chance. And I don't see them puffing up a real liberal like Kucinich, because it doesn't play into the McGovern thing they were trying to build.

[NashVegas]

42. Just For the Hell of It ...

Every criticsm of other candidates you read here eventually finds its way to the major media, or came from the major media.

Not so; on the night of the debate wherein Edwards went off with the Yankee carpetbagger buzzwords "we don't need people like you coming down to tell us ..." nary a word of criticism of the remark was heard in the media.

[AP]

44. They had a different angle to play up on that story.

Search the NPR's weekend edition archives for Skip Inskeep's story on that event.

Anyway, what's your argument. What was the criticism of Edwards here that didn't reach the press or didn't start in the press?

[Scott Lee]

45. ADJHS does nothing but spout memes against Dean

with Goebells-ish rhythm and determination. If you call these "smart arguments" then I seriously call into question your analytical prowess.

[Demobrat]

5. First they ignore you

Then they laugh at you
Then they fight you
Then you win

- Ghandi

I think were up to the fighting part. It's going to be a long year.

[whirlygigspin]

7. Why does the press continue to ignore LaRouche?

You KNOW why

[madrchsod]

9. why?

larouche is a crook and is daft in the head.

[AP]

14. If paying attention would hurt Dems, they'd do it.

LaRouch is too much of a freak to be of any value to the media whores.

[Melodybe]

15. Dean will win!

Really who the FUCK is going to vote for *Bush? You have those that are profiting from his policies, that is about 1% and you have ignorant red necks that will vote for god, gays, and guns, they are about 20%. 20% is me being very generous and I live in Oxford, MS! A while back at the hardware store my husband overheard 2 red necks talking about how they wish they HAD NOT voted for *Bush. Even my father-in-law, who is a life long republican is going to vote for Dean. His wife, who is a deeply religious woman and a life long republican won't vote for * either. I have been working on them since 2000 and even they have had enough of *'s crap. I have said it before and I'll say it again,

WHO THAT VOTED FOR GORE WILL VOTE FOR *BUSH!?! WE WON LAST TIME!!!!

Now add to that those that have been screwed by Enron and Wolrdcom. They got to see their life savings stolen from them and the people that did it STILL have the big houses and fancy cars!

Who that has family that has been injured or killed in Iraq, thinks that *Bush's reasons for going are still good enough? In Mississippi we have 5 soldiers that have been heavily wounded and will not get their purple hearts b/c this administration doesn't want to acknowledge that they exist! The President still hasn't gone to any funerals, but he constantly takes the time to go to FUNDRAISERS!! Plus he slashed veterans benefits and PLANS TO RE-INSTATE THE DRAFT!!

I doubt that there are tons of gay people that want to vote for *Bush.

Black people don't really like him referring to them as quotas, and *'s pal, Haley Barbour in MS is a racist. I can show you his yearbook frat picture, he was an Alpha Sigma Sigma, he he he, an ASS, that is true BTW. In the blurb underneath the frat says that it is dedicated to preserving the heritage and decency of THE WHITE RACE! Black people freaking love him!

I doubt that their are too many people working in the steel industry that want him to win either.

I doubt that there are that many Alaska that want him to win, just to see their beautiful country side destroyed.

I can guarantee that people who have lost their fucking jobs don't think that * is so great right now.

At our last Dean meet-up we had a few law students that said none of their classmates likes what * is doing to the Constitution.

Anyone who appreciates the environment isn't too fucking keen on him and I can promise that anyone whose child has lung bleeding asthma because the paper-mill 30 miles away and now gets to pollute as much as it wants, likes his ass.

I doubt that all of those public employees like garbage men and cops that are now being laid off b/c no state has the money to keep them, is out campaigning for the chimp.

The list goes on and on! Other than the media whores, a hand full of rich people, and a handful of red necks still like him. That is it! And Dean will loose in a Landslide!?! GIVE ME A BREAK!

[AP]

17. In 1972 Nixon was more unpopular than Bush is today. He won.

He won because the Democrats nominated the worst possible candidate to run against Nixon, and he ran on the worst possible message.

The Republicans roped the dope in 1972.

They could do it again.

Bush may be hated, but he is not more hated than Nixon was in '72. Not by a mile.

[wtmusic]

11. Good one

;-)

[Melodybe]

27. Why even bother then?

It is this kind of positive attitude that will help the media steal another fucking election. You say that you are just being realistic, but that is bull shit. You just don't like Dean. I am willing to campaign for WHOEVER gets the nom. (except Lieberman, I'll start packing early if that is the case). Can you say that? I'm sorry that you feel Dean is "unelectable." I honestly think that we are going to wipe the floor with those assholes. Does this mean if he gets the nom. you won't waste your vote. Please WE OUT NUMBER THEM!!! We don't need this pesimictic crap right now. It is not true anyway! We still have time to turn this whole thing around, please do something: work to register voters, do a freeway blog, print up 100 copies of an article that the media whores would never give the time to. Don't spend your time trying to convince those of us who are working our asses off that we are wasting our time. Any DEM, with the exception of Lieberman, cuz I hate him, can win, PERIOD Also Nixon may have been twice as hated but *Bush is twice as corrupt, his time is coming!

[blm]

37. We always said there was an expiration date on the teflon they gave him.

Now that Rove is satisfied he's the nominee the teflon gets chipped off.

And the reports on Gep and Kerry's attacks were diversionary. They didn't deal with the point they made that Dean has been lying this whole time about the IWR and the provision of Bush determining the use of force being a blank check when Dean supported that SAME provision in Biden-Lugar. The media turned Dean into a victim once again without scrutinizing that actual point against Dean the way Lizza did in his New Republic article.

[AP]

39. Although I'm not sure the quality of the reporting has changed...

...it's still "Dean is the focus" and "Dean is angry at Bush", which helps Dean, I wonder if it goes negative in a way that actually hurts Dean if that's punishment for saying that he'd break up the media.

I'm going to wait another week or tow to see where things go, and to think about the quality of the Dean reporting before I draw any conclusions. However, that must have pissed off the press.

Also, Dean might have said it to encourage some negative coverage by the media, so to create the conflict that has been working for him so well.

[MrBadExample]

38. One tiny nitpick:

case and point:

It's "case in point". :)

[Cat M.]

47. Easy answer.

By making Dean appear to be "under attack," they inspire people to want to rush to his defense.

The media itself does the attacking on Clark, for example. But except for a few odd articles here and there, they leave Dean alone except to highlight how others are attacking him. Of course this serves the purpose of also cementing the media's portrayal of Dean as the "front runner."

It reminds me of an article Saletan wrote for Slate after the second democratic debate that Clark was in. The only negative it had to say about Dean was how all the others were attacking him.

The only two people they really show getting "attacked" are Bush and Dean.

Take the Florida convention speech today. Clark clearly did better than Dean but Dean is given credit for the "best" speech.

Say what???