Inside The Bubble seems like its going to be must-see viewing for anyone interested in politics in America, and based on what it seems to contain and what I observed of the Kerry campaign in 2004, I think that’s a good thing. The campaign was simply a mistake, a 1990 campaign running in another era and in another world. Where the Gore campaign misfired by running away from President Clinton (though they won anyway), the Kerry campaign lost by simply not being in the real media world. Reading Newsweek’s account of the campaign you can practically hear the Bush team laughing their asses off at the Kerry people, and I would too.
Check out this video. It’s Kerry staffers complaining that the New York Times Magazine picked a bad picture of Kerry for the cover. Why do Democrats continue to think the media is going to cover things the way Democrats want them to if you simply leave them to their own devices? The press is to be bullied and cajoled, strung along and shut out like spoiled children. They are to be managed and force fed, and simply controlled to the best of a campaign’s ability. They aren’t your pals. They won’t write up nice stories about you because you’re a nice guy.
When the Swift Boat Liars were making the rounds, the Kerry campaign ignored them. Sources indicate that Shrum, etc. apparently wanted to just wish them away. It’s as if they were asleep for the Clinton campaign and subsequent presidency, where it was made clear that the news is a 24 hour game and that in the post-blog era — it requires an even nimbler response mechanism.
Democrats need to learn to bring their campaign game up to where the GOP is, then best it. We’re a far way from that, and if it takes watching a movie that shows the Kerry folks in an unflattering way so be it. Maybe we can actually learn from mistakes this time. I’m not holding my breath.
Yeah, Democrats have brainwashed all of the media into only seeing their side. THE WHOLE MEDIA picked a side and decided,”Well shucks, lets just rally around these guys!” Funny how when the media isn’t on your side they’re biased, when they are though, shucks, they’re “fair and balanced”.
“Why do Democrats continue to think the media is going to cover things the way Democrats want them to”
(Dugger raising hand and waving it in the air enthusiastically)
I know! I know!
‘Yes Dugger”
They have been conditioned by decades of big media bias on their behalf and expected no different now.
BTW who were these liar Guys?
Dugger
Dugger;
You sound more like Ann Coulter everytime you open your mouth.
I am going to ask you for something you don’t like to do. Talk to a liberal.
Define your (stomach in knots now) idea of “Liberal Bias in the Media”
The key word here is ‘liberal’ for definitive purposes. Because semantics will play a part in some of the misunderstandings that occur causing ‘posts ad infinitum’
Can you handle it? I think so. Will you? Uhhhh…..I give it odds of 1 chance in 12.
TF,
They, the media, don’t need to be brainwashed. They are already convinced that the liberal position is a moral imperative. Same with Hollywood. That moral imperative is so strong, and they know so much better than the poor working schmuck, that sometimes it can lead Dan Rather types to understand that there is a bigger picture, wherein a harmless little forgery serves a higher, more noble cause.
Dugger
It was vintage Kerry yesterday when he backed down from a speech which brusquely criticised Bush’s handling of the war. “I see it getting better now”
Jesus. Save us from this guy.
Please explain specificaly what is “liberal” about the media? Instead of using very generic phrases, tell me exactly how they are liberal?
P.S. I guesss it was Dan Rathers responsibility to make sure the documents were not forged, just like it was Colin Powells responsibility to make sure his garbage bogus info wasn’t wrong either. I don’t see any of you neo-cons screaming for his head. I know, I know, Powells info was wrong, Rathers was forged right? Well do you honestly think that Rather himself forged it? No? So shut it until I hear you mentioning Powell-gate.
Thanks, Semanticleo. I was just about to do that. I hope that the public exposure of the fecklessness of the Kerry campaign folks (I remember his campaign manager saying that “we knew it [the swift boat thing] was coming a year ago.” And they sat on their hands and did NOTHING!?!) finally drives these talentless hacks outta town, and back to the minor leagues where they belong. I worked so f***ing hard for those jokers, and as I watched them piss it all away, I realized how inept, how cancerous Shrum and his ilk were/are to the Dems. The Repugs couldn’t have put together a more effective way to humiliate, demoralize, and ridicule the Dems if they’d've tried. The January 2005 issue of The Washington Monthly has an essential article on how and why the players in the Kerry farce got to where they are/were, why they were so incompetent, and how the inertia of the Dem establishment keeps them there. Here’s the link:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.sullivan.html
Everyone who’s the least bit interested in the survival of the Democratic Party, please read this.
StevenB;
I missed that one. Amy wrote it and I thought (before scrolling to the by-line) that Kevin had written it. I Like Kevin, but he tends to be a little too DLC for me.
Do you think there are operatives planted in the leadership? No wish to be paranoid, but we may have our own Mike Brown’s within the party at the very least. At the worst? Dirty tricks? I ask half in jest, but the question could be appropriate.
Semant,
Funny I talked to you several times about ‘war profiteers” until you finally just said I had to identify what you menat by war profiteers. I even repsoned again. Didn’t hear back, but doesn’t matter. My schedule often precludes me from finishing all conversations.
(And Steven)
Well on bias, as I have often said here, we, me conservative-you liberal, will never agree on what constitutes a display of bias. I believe that you and 9/10s of progressives are blind to leftist bias. That you live in a world where you see things as completely skewed to the right . So you don’t question, say, multi-culturalism, ‘diversity’ as it is practiced, environmental iniitiatives (all are good, all opposition is bad), etc. I believe you believe conservatives and Republicans are morally and intellectually inferior. I could go on for a long time. There is no doubt that you, Joe Liberal, are unable to view the world at all through my eyes. At the same time I acknowledge you probably feel the same re us.
Here are some type of media biase techniques I see: the selection of issues in question - like how the question has been framed re New Orleans as largely one of how badly the federal govrenemnt screwed up; there are many, many more. Another : the assumption that leftists are motivated by noble causes and rightists not; another - the assumption that rightist ethics violations are somehow more serious than those of leftists; that radical fringe statements from the left (Farrakhan, Rangel, etc) are ignored by the MSM, but similar rightist Falwellian statements are featured in the MSM (which major MSM outlet has gone into detail on the Nagins Farrakhan conspiracy theories?). Other techniques of bias: spokesmen selected, pictures used, sources selected (lots of liberal organizations cited as authorities or, say, radical enviro groups treated as if they have no agenda), anonymous sources, much more.
What it all comes down to is that with different world views we talk past each other. My own little weighted roll up of all media outlets showed about a 70% factor in favor of leftist viewpoints. Don’t expect you to accept that. Thats how I see it. And as I have said before, I think CSPAN does a very good unbiased job. Not a final answer, but a good place to start. I would be very unhappty to have you be the sole arbiter of media bias. I assume the opposite is true. Thats why I say, unrealistically, give me 50% and you take 50%. My bet would be after a year you would want the old system, todays sytem, back.
Dugger
Semanticleo- Conspiracy theories are for those close enough to have some actual ideas of the real possibilities. From my comfy chair, all I can say is that Shrum, et al. seem to be sublimely incompetent at best, and pathologically afraid of victory, or addicted to losing, at worst. I must admit, though, the ‘mole’ thought has crossed my mind more than once. Wouldn’t put anything past someone as effective as Rove appears to be.
Dugger-Thanks for a calm response. The Coulter/Limbaugh schtick (not accusing, just pointing out a general pattern) has no place in this, or any, world. In recommend, as much as it may pain, you go to FAIR, where they actually count how many ‘experts’ come from “conservative” points of view, and vice-versa. It’s quite eye opening. Chomsky does a geat job in a similarly empirical fashion. It’s all 50/50 until someone actually does the lifting, and these guys do the lifting. Also, how do you identify a “radical” environmentalist group? And just what is the “agenda” of these “radical” groups? Just repeating these kinds of things does not make them so, not here, not anywhere (except maybe in rabid, foaming circle jerks of, well, you know…). I’m a socialist (I swear! I took the online test! Here I was, thinking I’m just a good ol’ Dem…), and I read The American Conservative. Great rag, great writing, true-blue conservatives. Highly recommended. Here’s why I say these things: I have NO idea what you’re talking about when you categorize “liberals” as you do. I honestly think Semanticleo is right. You need to talk to some “liberals.” In person.
Steven,
Have long been aware of FAIR (in Jeff Cohen days). Like Bozells group on right, they are selective and it still all gets down to differing ideas of what constittutes bias. Thats why we can have on this site some liberals saying the NYT is liberally biased and others conservatively biased.
Dugger