The corporate media blackout of John Edwards gets worse

[FourScore]

The corporate media blackout of John Edwards gets worse
by JedReport
Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:39:11 AM PST

It has been clear for some time now that the corporate media is actively excluding John Edwards from its coverage of the 2008 race.

After Iowa, there was every reason for the corporate media to have started including John Edwards in its narrative. After all, even though Edwards had been third place since the summer, trailing Hillary by double-digits in several polls, he erased that gap completely, and he did so on a relative shoestring budget. As BruinKid has shown, Hillary and Obama each spent twice as much per vote as Edwards.

But instead of paying more intention to Edwards, since Iowa the corporate media is paying less attention. The corporate media blackout of John Edwards continues, and it's getting worse.

One way of measuring the corporate media's systematic exclusion of Edwards is to look at the frequency his name is mentioned during news broadcasts. CNN publishes a transcript of its programming, so I was able to run a quick analysis comparing how frequently they mentioned his name on caucus night to the day after caucus.

Here's the night of the caucus:



Here's the next day:






SNIP



Another way of looking at the corporate media blackout is analyzing the frequency with which Edwards is mentioned in multi-candidate headlines.

According to a search of the Google News archive, in 2007 Edwards was systematically excluded from coverage of the 2008 race, which the corporate media portrayed as a choice between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama:



Amazingly, since Iowa, this exclusion has gotten WORSE.



As you can see, Obama's share of coverage increased relative to Hillary's, but Edwards fell relative to both of them.

The growing corporate media blackout of John Edwards is really a rather extraordinary development.

Edwards spent $2.7 million on TV ads in Iowa, compared to $8.3 million for Obama and $6.5 million for Hillary.

Edwards had 175 paid staffers in Iowa compared to 300 for Obama and 400 for Hillary.

Edwards had been in third place since August, trailing both Hillary and Obama in nearly every poll.

Obama's victory was clearly the "news of the day," but Edwards' surprise second-place showing should have put him back in the discussion, just like Bill Clinton's eight point loss in New Hampshire in 1992 sent him on his way to the White House.

Instead, the corporate media stepped up its campaign of exclusion.

Here's an example of Chris Matthews from caucus night. In this video he praises Hillary's campaign for plotting a brilliant comeback strategy, yet browbeats Edwards.

SEE IT AT:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/5/12286/27650/142/431084

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. Covering 3 people is too expensive & bothersome.

It's simpler to concentrate on 2.

[SoonerShankle]

12. The job of the fourth estate is...

to provide unbiased information to the public, and allow that audience to decide for themselves. It is not up to the MSM to determine the viability of the candidates, it is up to the people. Unfortunately, economics and editorial bias drive media coverage of elections. Even more unfortunate is that journalists, publishers, and broadcasters know this and do nothing about it.

[Le Taz Hot]

39. No, the job of the corporate-owned

MSM is to shill for their masters' candidates and that's exactly what they're doing. The fairness doctrine was eliminated during the Reagan administration. IF Edwards can get a break in New Hampshire and get 1st place or at least 2nd place, maybe, just maybe, they'll be forced to cover his campaign more. The bad news is that Nevada and South Carolina are the next two after New Hampshire and both are extremely conservative states not likely to vote Edwards in the top two spots. I'm REALLY hoping he can hang on until Super Tuesday as I think California and even New York will be very favorable to him.

[tblue]

104. They did the same thing to Clark in '04.

It was miserable. After Iowa, it was Kerry Kerry Kerry Kerry and Kerry.

[CC]

96. Except that excuse doesn't wash when they are covering

5 repuke candidates and usually with in the same story. Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Romney and Thompson all get covered and even Paul gets a mention on a regular basis.



Written right after hearing the story on the local news about Obama, Clinton and 4 of the above 5 repukes within a 3 minute story.

[begin_within]

2. Edwards' anti-corporate stance scares them... why would they give him airtime if

he is essentially their worst enemy? It doesn't surprise me one bit that they are giving him short shrift.

[Catchawave]

Edwards is NOT anti-corporate

He's anti-corporate crime/greed, which has blossomed in the past 8 years. Any responsible corp. should realize that.

[begin_within]

22. I should have typed "anti corporate hegemony"

[Catchawave]

23. LoL....I had to look that up....yes, that would have helped

:hi: MSM is a good example, and how the news is reported..or not :D

[Seabiscuit]

44. The media conclomerates have also been a focus of Edwards' criticisms. That's why they hate him.

[pokercat999]

33. Exactly they know Hill and Obama will play ball, Edwards

has sworn he will not!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. Now you have some idea of what it's like to be a Kucinich supporter

both now and in 2004.

[AP]

6. Imagine if the Kooch beat HRC in Iowa and STILL didn't get coverage that treated him

like a legitimate contender, then you'd have an idea of what it's like to be an Edwards supporter!

[SammyWinstonJack]

8. Exactly!

[Seabiscuit]

45. As a long-time Kucinich supporter and more recent Edwards supporter, I'm used to it.

The big difference is that Edwards came in 2nd in Iowa, beating Hillary. Dennis has never come anywhere close to something like that. Yet Edwards is still treated with the same disdain and contempt as Dennis is.

[lonestarnot]

54. Well get the fuck UNUSED TO IT! And do something about it!

http://www.tbtmradio.com/geeklog/public_html/index.php

Don't know if this will be deleted or not :shrug:

[Seabiscuit]

57. Are you suggesting I become Symbolman?

There's only one of him, you know.

Posting my thoughts about it here *is* doing something about it, though beyond magically morphing into Symbolman, I don't know what else I can do. Writing/calling the press/politicians has never accomplished a damned thing.

So what are you doing about it? Any ideas besides getting all self-righteous and a tad nasty with someone who says he's gotten used to seeing the media ignore Dennis and JE? Just because I'm "used to it" doesn't mean I accept it.

[lonestarnot]

64. Send money did you see the link?

Send dough to keep it streaming. Symbolman can't live off just air.

[Seabiscuit]

94. I just sent money to Edwards again. I'm not a bottomless moneypit.

If Symbolman's project gets off the ground I'll do what I can to help him.

Meanwhile, beyond the Symbolman thing, what do you suggest anyone do? What are you doing about it?

[demobabe]

65. Well actually...

Symbolman is one person, and that's the thing: in order to have critical mass, we need a huge amount of people talking about this and demanding media coverage. We need to get video/audio clips out to as many places as possible: Blogs, TV, radio, community access TV.

We need to talk and blog about the media manipulation of the Democratic candidates and make it a BIG deal.

You know the Republicans have already sent down from on high the marching orders for media to follow, so if they're choosing Obama and Hillary, I'm assuming they feel they can beat either of those candidates or are hedging their bets that if either wins, they'll best promote the corporate agenda.

So yes, we need thousands of Symbolmans (metaphorically speaking) to get the word out.

[upi402]

86. Don't care for attacking our brothers and sisters

but I share your passion 100%
and will support symbolman too.

[Glimmer of Hope]

4. I think if he wins a primary, he will still be ignored. They will

diminish any wins or portray them as a fluke. He needs to depend on the internet and word of mouth to get his message out.

[AP]

9. The story will be about why Obama didn't win.

Which reminds me of the California recall election. After the debate in which Arnold did NOT participate, all the news coverage was of what Arnold would have said if he had debated -- all the local news stations interviewed Arnold one-on-one and gave him a chance to 'debate' without having to debate.

[FourScore]

18. Gawd!!! That's disgusting!!! Unbelievable... n/t

[Seabiscuit]

46. BINGO!

[davidwparker]

5. I no longer watch CNN, just MSNBC when KO is on it. There, they tended

to mention Edwards when they were talking about how he was in a tie for last -- even though his delegate count was always higher than Hillary's.

[SeattleGirl]

14. And Olbermann brought up how Edwards was completely overlooked

by some people on his own network, after his 2nd place finish in Iowa, when he was talking to Edwards last night.

I'm so glad he did that, but I'd still like to throttle the majority of M$M outlets for what they are doing.

They really ARE afraid of him, aren't they?

[davidwparker]

20. YES they are afraid of him.

[FourScore]

24. Olbermann did not seem himself on caucus night.

I think he hated having to work with Matthews. Sure seemed that way to me.

[Spiffarino]

103. Probably because Tweety spits when he talks

Keith better get a raincoat. It's going to be a long election year.

[blossomstar]

49. something is very strange, very, very odd.

[deminks]

7. Here it is in graphic detail. K&R #4 nt

[bbgrunt]

70. I really noticed it last night on the "debate" on

ABC. While they excluded Dennis, they let Richardson filibuster time and John only got to speak occasionally--and then got cut off almost every time. It was truly disgusting.

[AzDar]

10. He's a (desperately needed) threat to the status quo.

They're skeered.

[90-percent]

11. The Public Airwaves

FCC gives them a license to broadcast as a public trust.

MSM, in turn, reports slanted and censored news to further their corporate profit making interests.

And that goes against the public trust they've been granted and they should be held to account.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17808622&ft=1&f=1006

The above link, which I've been posting all over the place on DU, made an interesting point. Paraphrasing, the high water mark for middle class income was in 1973, and in constant dollars has actually gone down somewhat over time. The wealthiest 1%, on the other hand, has seen their income rise EXPONENTIALLY, especially since the Reagan years.

So, that should make a guy like Edwards have a 99% approval rating, but it ain't that high, is it?

I wonder why that is?

-90% Jimmy

[Luminous Animal]

13. I glad to see this posted over here.

Thanks.

[spooky3]

15. very interesting #s - thank you for finding this & posting

[HCE SuiGeneris]

16. Liars and con-men need only cover what suits their agenda. n/t

[Greylyn58]

17. Thanks for putting this together

It is nothing short of infuriating, how the MSM continues to ignore the Edwards campaign. I've come to the conclusion that even if he had won, going away, Thursday night, the MSM would still have ignored him. Choosing instead to chat up Clinton and Obama...which is what they are doing anyway.

It became apparent to me early on, that the MSM wanted either Hillary or Obama as the Dem candidate. They made their choice and have continued to stick with them, no matter what.

[grantcart]

19. Patience will be rewarded

Everything stated is true.  But their greed will be our ally.
The are making a fortune out of the viewership and the
adsales.  If Edwards continues to gain on Hillary and Hillary
becomes non viable then they will do everything possible to
keep a two person race going.  A brokered convention would be
their wet dream.  They will discover Edwards and make him the
momentum candidate if he is the only one in it besides Obama -
they do not want this to end.

Edwards should let Hillary do the Obama bashing and simply
concentrate on gaining on her.

Moyers and other media critics will eventually focus on what
you are documenting. KO needs to put it at the top of his
countdown.  If Edwards continues to go up as he has from Iowa
he will stay in the race to Tsunami Tuesday.  Finishing a far
distant 3rd in SC will be difficult to get past and you can't
blame it on MSM as it is his birth state.  He has to pass
Clinton in SC.

[IamyourTVandIownyou]

21. Live Google News Search Stats

Live Google News Search Stats


1) Barack Obama - 53,611
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=%22barack+obama%22

2) John Edwards - 37,839
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=%22john+edwards%22

3) Hillary Clinton - 32,841
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=%22hillary+clinton%22

[Echo In Light]

25. Thanks for getting this out there!

[onehandle]

26. A picture is worth a thousand words. nt

[HCE SuiGeneris]

27. Rec'd earlier, time for a kick.

[Raster]

28. Kick and recommend!

Wake up America!:kick:

[Digit]

29. Kicked and recommended!

[deacon]

30. kick and highly recommend. n/t

[Ninga]

31. Kick

[zeemike]

32. Excellent work

All of us that don't have the talent or time to do stuff like tis relay ow you for making this so clear.

:kick:

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

34. Yeah, Edwards is being "Kuciniched" by media

Keep him out of the news, maybe he'll go away.

Edwards has my vote, though on the Michigan ballot, his name is spelled "U.N.C.O.M.M.I.T.T.E.D"

[peace13]

90. Interesting term

No one cared when it was Kucinich and now all of the sudden there is outrage. Get real people, we have not selected Edwards or Obama or Hillary. The media has told us who we can look at. This is the end.

[balantz]

35. K & R

[mother earth]

36. K & R. Thanks for posting this info, Edwards' rise even while

spending the least, has been phenomenal and it will continue because his support will only increase. It's up to us to let MSM know we want to hear more about the candidate that's clearly the people's choice. We need to call them out on idiocracy, esp. Matthews. What Edwards has accomplished is incredible.

[windoe]

37. Can't have it both ways!

i am amazed to see people calling Kucinich 'unelectable' and debating how Edwards is 'shut out' of the MSM. This should be an expected outcome of going against the corporate media/power elite ---and in order to get a non corporate candidate elected into office, there needs to be another strategy or all the far right coolaide drinkers will appear to outnumber us.
We must be wary of being just another mouthpiece for the MSM--I see far too many posts (not this one) here passing on sensationalist misinformation--this is a waste of time, and-- as I see it we are doing their job for them. It is a skill though to keep an eye on the MSM without being sucked in and derailed into an abyss.
This must be a GRASSROOTS campagn and election, it must happen dispite and instead of MSM!!!! If we are serious about a non corporate America then we must form a strategy that will ensure this will happen, using every means at our disposal. Step up the highway blogging , ads in newspapers, becoming more visible are all good, but we need a powerful message to awaken the majority.
==WE NEED EVERY AMERICAN VOTE TO GET OUR COUNTRY BACK==

[spanone]

38. he's on ABC right now, this morning.

[Pooka Fey]

40. K&R

[santamargarita]

41. I haven't watched any of those fascist pig networks for over 6 years

I tune in DU. For me, TV is for HBO and Cinemax only.

[Jawja]

42. As an Edwards supporter,

both in 2004 and now, I will say that my personal blackout of the corporate media has been in place at least since 2004. They are irrelevant to me; and at some point, they will be irrelevant period.

[Joe Chi Minh]

43. John is actually the American people's surrogate in this matter, isn't he?

Yes, the MSM are excluding him, but it's really the people they want to exclude, and they know he is their man through and through.

[undeterred]

47. Charlie Gibson broke into ABC and announced that Edwards finished a disappointing 3rd at 7:45pm

when only 700 precincts had been counted. Did he make an on air apology for this ridiculous blunder?

[zazzle]

52. The corporate media has promoted Obama and Hillary and they owe the media Big Time!

Interesting that Obama and Hillary have not been outspoken about media consolidation. Only Edwards has had the courage to oppose it.

[ChiciB1]

48. Well. I Made A Suggestion The Other Day That We "As A Group"

send individual emails or letters to all MSM that we can to let them know how we feel! Didn't get much response, but thanks for putting this together!

I intend to send this information to ALL MSM I can! I've been talking about this for months and it's an OUTRAGE!!


Anyone else can do what THEY want!

[K Gardner]

50. I've been writing all of them, ChiciB.. I don't think they care. As long as they know we're watching

they will say whatever they want to say. We need to get our internet blogs and messages out to as many people as we can, somehow.

[ChiciB1]

51. I'm Open To ANY & All Ideas! They Should Be Ashamed Of Themselves!! nt

[EFerrari]

66. Everytime someone puts up a report, I do, but I don't always

announce it. Maybe we should start regularizing those threads in the subj line so they're easier to find? "Edwards Media Blackout: (venue)" or?

[windoe]

53. MSM that lie should be boycotted-

an all out blackout of them. Turn the tables. Huh? What did you say, we only listen to the truth.

[Blackdog4241]

55. You've got to be fuckin' kidding right ?????

Which forums or debates has he been excluded from. NAME ONE !!!!
I've seen him on T.V. everyday for the last 4-5 years.
The only way you get to see Dennis Kucinich is on Youtube or you might get lucky and hear about an
appearance before it happens.

[lisainmilo]

56. special interests have become EXTREMEMLY POWERFUL..

It will take strong leadership and JRE is the only candidate to take this task on...plain and simple
We are headed for hard times ecomomically

A few references:

Information Clearing House:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17667.htm

CNN.com Transcripts: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/13/gb.01.html

Atlanta Free Press: Hard Truths for Hard Times: http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/1559/81/

[KharmaTrain]

58. He's Not The Sexy Story

The corporate media doesn't want an election on substance, they want a reality show based on personality. Their coverage is based on storylines they've created or latch onto that jerk at emotions or can fit into soundbites...manipulated and easy to chew. People don't get excited about single-payer vs. universal coverage, but they sure do about Obama being black enough or Hillary being a shrew or Edwards haircuts.

Right now, the narratives are the rise of Obama, the collapse of Hillary, the "Huck-a-Boom" and the McCain "surge". That's a lot of narrative and leave little oxygen in the room for others. Unless Edwards wins, he remains out of this narrative.

[Highway61]

59. Thankyou for this K & R

[TomClash]

60. Wolf Blitzer just had him on

And Stephanopolous said Edwards won the debate last night.

[cornermouse]

61. Don't know about that.

I do know that both his and Huckabee's interviews on This Week had "audio difficulties" for the entirety of both interviews. You couldn't hear a word anyone said.

[smoogatz]

62. Nice pie charts!

On the other hand, note today's bobbleheads:

•“Fox News Sunday,” Guests: Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas.

•NBC’s “Meet the Press,” — Guests: Republican presidential candidate John McCain of Arizona.

•ABC’s “This Week,” — Guests: Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas; Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards of North Carolina.

•CBS’ “Face the Nation,” — Guests: Republican presidential candidate John McCain of Arizona.

•CNN’s“Late Edition,” — Guests: Republican presidential candidates Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Ron Paul of Texas, Fred Thompson of Tennessee; Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson of New Mexico; Mahmud Ali Durrani, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States.

It must be some kind of conspiracy to exclude the two Democratic frontrunners. The corporate media must be terrified of Obama! And Hillary! Or something.

[Moochy]

71. Dishonest list of bullets

Citing republican coverage is comparing apples to oranges and you know it. Quit being dishonest.

[smoogatz]

74. What's dishonest

is insisting that he's not getting coverage when, the day after a major debate and the day before the first presidential primary, he gets booked on a Sunday talk show and his principal rivals don't.

[Moochy]

75. The OP compared Democrats to Democrats

You compared Democrats to Republicans. Thats not a valid comparison when the OP is comparing the democratic coverage. That was my point, you missed it apparently.

To use your logic, I saw Mccain on Face the Nation, so therefore Edwards is not getting special treatment. See?

[smoogatz]

76. Oh for Christ's sake.

I didn't compare Democrats to Republicans. I pointed out that Edwards was one of the two Democrats booked on a network Sunday talk show this week. By inference, Obama and Hillary were NOT booked on network Sunday talk shows this week. I don't have time to make a pie chart for you, but if I did it would be half Edwards and half Richardson, Democrats to Democrats, for Sunday talk shows this week. The implication would be that Edwards and Richardson were getting coverage on Sunday talk shows the day before the NH primary while, bizarrely, Obama and Clinton were not. Sheesh.

I swear to God, critical thinking is a fucking lost art in this country.

[Moochy]

78. Nice bluster but...

You wrote:
"It must be some kind of conspiracy to exclude the two Democratic frontrunners. The corporate media must be terrified of Obama! And Hillary! Or something."

Then you listed mostly republicans that did get coverage on sunday talk shows. The OP was comparing coverage of democrats to other democrats, you purposefully muddied the issue. That's OK, not everyone has to be honest.

[smoogatz]

79. Lordy.

You are having trouble with this, aren't you? I'll try again:

9 Republicans, 2 Democrats. Appalling, yes, but NOT ACTUALLY THE POINT. The point is that one of the two Democrats able to book a slot on a coveted network Sunday talk show the day before the NH primary is Edwards, and none of them are Obama or Clinton. Therefore, Edwards is getting coverage where Obama and Clinton are not. Forget the Republicans for now—don't let their ugly mugs distract you.

There, does that help? Should I do it again, slower?

[Moochy]

80. So your sole metric is the sunday talk show

Thanks for the condescension too, jerk.

[smoogatz]

83. Oy.

The OP has two huge pie charts based entirely on CNN's coverage during and after the Iowa caucus. That's a valid metric, but mine isn't?

And hey, don't feel bad. Not everyone gets logic.

[Moochy]

85. Vey

"And hey, dont feel bad. Not everyone gets logic."

As evidenced by your posts on this thread. Way to make your own point.

[smoogatz]

89. When Edwards does something interesting, like win a primary,

he'll get coverage. His marginal second-place finish was probably the least dramatic outcome of the Iowa caucus—nothing like Obama's late surge to a 7-point win, or the presumptive favorite finishing third by a hair's breadth. You can post all the pie-charts you want, but the thing that will get Edwards on the teevee will be when he starts to look like a solid contender. To do that, he'll have to win a couple of early primaries. Win. Not come in second by a nose.

[flyarm]

92. oh like the primary hillary won? or what second place did hillary win to get her all the media?

please your post is silly!!

Please do tell us what win Hillary has racked up..and do show us what nose she won second in!!


this is a blackout for a reason.. because the corp media has been told by someone..black Edwards out..

and that ought to have all of us worried!

oh and please do tell us what poll either obama or Hillary have polled in that show them winning against all repigs??

Edwards is the only one who can beat all Repigs in every state in this union!!

fly

[smoogatz]

95. Hillary's got the money and the organization, and the Clinton name.

Until Iowa, she was the presumptive favorite any way you looked at it. Plus, she's really the first serious woman candidate for president in U.S. history, and one of the most powerful female U.S. senators in history. You don't find her story compelling? Obama's an incredibly dynamic and eloquent black man, and the first serious African American candidate for U.S. president, and the first African American to ever win a presidential caucus/primary—AND he did it going away, in the face of polling that showed the race a virtual tie. You don't find THAT story compelling? Now you've got Edwards, who's already on the public funding tit, which means that IF he can squeak out the nom while being seriously outspent (long odds there) he'll be a punching bag for every right-wing 527 with an agenda and a million bucks to spend, all summer long. Edwards' big legislative accomplishment was to co-sponsor the IWR; his big accomplishment since then is to apologize for it. He talks the talk on progressive issues, but there's nothing in his political history to indicate that he's actually got the stones to walk the walk—if anything, the opposite is true. His other big electoral achievement? Failing to pull even one southern state for Kerry in 2004. And you're surprised that the media don't fall at his feet in adoration?

A couple of realities for you, in addition:

1.National polling means squat right now. Got to win the nom first.

2.Obama beats all Republicans except McCain, with whom he ties. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

And a question: Edwards beats every Republican in every state? Got a link for that, fly?

[flyarm]

97. it sure didn't win her a first or second place!! and she spent a ton in Iowa!!

what??> 5 to 1 over Edwards!!

and that would be corporate money.,..

fly

[smoogatz]

98. True enough. And that's a story, too.

Everybody loves it when the presumptive (and maybe presumptuous) front-runner gets taken down a peg. But Edwards' second place (by a RCH) doesn't mean much on its own, except that he did about as well as he was expected to do. Not much of a story there, unless you're an Edwards partisan. Then you're understandably stoked.

[flyarm]

101. no see i was on the ground in Iowa..and i know damn well that only two candidates got any of the

media..i also went and helped out at a large caucus..and i know the demographics of who was voting for who..

I know what the people of Iowa were saying as i went door to door and talked to hundreds and hundreds of the good people of Iowa..personally...

I know what the faces of many of the voters looked like..

and i know what their voice sounded like.

fly

[JohnLocke]

63. K&R!

[HughBeaumont]

67. Doll Hands David Brooks: "Edwards' political career is over".

He’s made John Edwards, with his angry cries that “corporate greed is killing your children’s future,” seem old-fashioned. Edwards’s political career is probably over.

Keep shilling, doll boy. Second place with no media coverage = we don't want your corporate "Inevitable", shithead. The only thing "angry" is your damned self for him speaking the truth about your bullshit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/opinion/04brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[Moochy]

72. Would that Brooks career be over

Such a pathetic hack.

[grantcart]

73. David Brooks is a good sign

This guy is the most consistently wrong person in the universe. He cheerlead the establishment into Iraq and has been wrong about every aspect of what is going on. He famously started the "in 6 months there will be a change" 5 years ago. If he says Edwards political career is over then it means somehow, and I can't see how yet, that Edwards will take all 50 states.

[robinlynne]

68. staggering statistics. Even worse than I had imagined!

[Kurovski]

69. K&R

It's true.

You wouldn't know just how well Edwards is doing, and on less money than Clinton and Obama, if all we had was the Corporate Media to rely on.

The media's "role" is so damn clear.

[butterfly77]

77. It doesn't matter he says the same thing in every speech...

we know what he thinks and believes. When I see him it is as if they are showing clips of the 2004 campaign

[liberal N proud]

81. Why does the media get to decide who we vote for?

They shut Kucinich out of last night debate and then there is proof of them shutting out Edwards.
The Federal Election Commission should get involved when the evidence is so blatant

[Uncle Joe]

82. I've noticed two adjectives the corporate media use to describe him, when they do cover him, either

they call him "angry" or he has a "harsh" anti corporate message.

Our so called fourth estate guardian watchdogs for democracy never analyze why he would be "angry", I believe they're afraid that would piss off too many of the American people, should they learn this "harsh" or inconvenient truth and send them in to his corner.

Regarding "harsh", hurting a small child's feelings is "harsh", placing the almighty dollar deity as more important than the lives of the people is "harsh". Taking on the corrupted powerful isn't harsh, that's courageous!

The last time I checked the mega corporations make hundreds of thousands if not millions of times more money than the average American and CEO pay is 300+ times their worker's wages. The same disproportionate amount of power and influence is used by them in their purchasing or renting of the "people's representatives" in Washington. Should this dysfunctional abuse of wealth and power continue, it can only lead to the downfall of our democratic republic.

[HughBeaumont]

107. See the David Brooks column above!

Right on about the "Angry" memes. If anyone needs proof, just follow Brooks' historic Bewsh cheerleading on Ailes/Weyrich/Murdoch/Rove's marching orders. Same as his cheerleading of the front runners who follow the corporate dog and pony show.

It's all a big scam, and the joke's on us.

[AntiFascist]

84. Much of the campaign financing funds go directly into...

the coffers of corporate media. There should be a direct relationship to the amount of money spent by a candidate with the favoritism showed by a corporate network, not to mention the corporatist agenda which is actually separate from the above relationship. This is totally disgusting, but it is how the current system works.

[Moochy]

100. Best Reason Given Yet

For why the Coporate Media doesnt like Edwards.

[AntiFascist]

106. You can even assign a percentage to the "corporatist influence"...

Percentage of money spent = $2.7 million / ($8.3 million + $6.5 million) = 20.77%

Number of headlines since Iowa caucas: 14.9% = 20.77% - 5.87% (corporatist bias)

[Beartracks]

87. Look at the ad at the bottom of this page!!

One of the SodaHead ads that appears at the bottom of this DU thread page asks "Who do you vote for - Hillary or Obama?"
:wtf:

[L.A.dweller]

88. This makes me glad I don't have a TV in the house

I rely on my handy dandy computer to get the news.

That must be why I'm for Edwards and have made a donation to his campaign.

[weeve]

91. In today's Sunday paper ...

... they carried a New York Times article covering the dynamic of the NH primary. Wanting to show my 10 year old son how the media is ignoring John Edwards, I said let's guess how many paragraphs it'll be before they even mention John Edwards. I guessed 10, he guessed 15.

John Edwards wasn't even mentioned ONCE in the entire article.

This has got to end. What's it going to take to stop letting the Corporate Media decide who our candidates are going to be ?

[Duncan]

93. NPR big time also.

Friday morning after Iowa NPR news did a 2 or 3 minute spot and did not even imply the existence of Edwards, let alone mention him. With out a doubt, the corporate pressure on, or outright control of the media is mush worse than probably 95% of the population even begins to guess.

[McCamy Taylor]

99. Great quantative analysis of what we have all suspected.

The corporate media should be ashamed. Expect to see them respond by more Edwards coverage in the coming days as they try to pretend that they have not been engaging in a blacklist. At the same time, expect them to revert to the John Solomon/WaPo strategy of labeling him a "phony"--that means lots of talk about money, hair, slickness, indifference---anything that will derail him as a populist candidate.

[Justice Is Comin]

102. Thank you for taking the time to do this

Our FCC airwaves are held hostage to keep the champagne flowing for the corporate pirates. They're like Schultz....I see n-o-othing.

[99th_Monkey]

105. Not to mention that many of CNN's "mentions" of Edwards were dismissive

by the way ... great post. nice work. lays you point out well with graphics and all.

hope you send it to CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, et. al..