Yes, John Edwards has been treated shabbily by the MSM, but

[cali]

that simply doesn't account for his not winning in Iowa and doing poorly in NH. Voters in both of those states put far more emphasis on retail politics and local media than the MSM, and Edwards did plenty of the former and got plenty of the latter. His lack of MSM coverage does pertain more to NV and SC but it doesn't account for the results in Iowa and NH.

[BlueManDude]

1. Obama and Clinton are catnip to the media.

[cali]

2. True enough but that isn't a refutation of what I wrote n/t

[Tesha]

9. WHat you don't have, of course, is actual data to support your contention.

Even in NH, media coverage still matters, and Edwards
got far less of it than did either Clinton or Obama.
For example, some time back in the summer, our local
newspaper, The Nashua Telegraph ran a story
about an Obama visit to the area; the story ran on
the front page, above the fold, with a photo and a
banner headline that read "Barrack Star!".

The only coverage Edwards ever got on the front page
of our paper was as one of the identical series of
articles that the paper ran about each of the candidates.

Tesha

[cali]

11. He got front page coverage

in my local paper in St J which is also read in NH. He got it in the Littleton paper and in the Valley News. He got coverage on VPR and NHPR everytime he was in state. And he held dozens of rallies in the state. There's every reason to believe that voters in NH and Iowa were saturated with coverage about the candidates and were aware of all three of them through their numerous appearances.

[Tesha]

14. Go back and review the coverage from "The Nashua Telegraph" coverage and let me know.

And I suspect the situation was the same in the
Manchester Union Leader.

Tesha

[wishlist]

3. He is not perceived as strong since he lacks power base and endorsements

Clinton and Obama have clout due to their huge money advantage over Edwards and their high powered endorsements plus the perception they are winners. When you go to their campaign events you can feel the power and magnetism (plus all the secret service Edwards doesn't have)compared to his more modest events plus the knowledge that he lost with Kerry in 2000, even in his home states.

[BeyondGeography]

4. When Iowa, where he was very well known, went in another direction

he was effectively done. The two other candidates are stronger than him around the country, both organizationally and in terms of appeal. They haven't even had a strategy since Iowa; since then they have been hoping Clinton would crater in NH and come in 3rd and/or Obama blows himself up. Hasn't/won't happen.

He didn't lose Iowa because of lack of MSM coverage. He's losing because a) this is a very tough race and b) Obama's presence has forced him to embrace a form of populism (the corporations will eat your children) that only plays really well with a relatively narrow portion of the base. If he could have gone one-on-one with Clinton as the anti-establishment candidate, his rhetoric would have been toned down and he would be giving her a good run for her money.

[Inspired]

5. He needs to win to get attention.

To get that win, he needs more media attention. What do you do?

By the way, Cali, I live in Iowa and the media didn't pay all that much attention to the Edwards campaign here either. I canceled my subscription to the Des Moines Register a few months ago because of it and stopped watching the local news after I realized they weren't going to give much coverage to Edwards' events.

[cali]

8. Well, I read the DMR regularly and it seemed like they had

plenty of coverage there, and I live close to the VT/NH border and I know he got plenty of local coverage here. In addition, Edwards spent 3 years in Iowa. I don't see how you can blame the media for his loss in either state.

[Inspired]

13. Do you get the print version of the DMR?

If so, then I wonder if it's the same version I used to get locally. I am a local and I think I know better than you do about his coverage here.

I have no idea what type of coverage he got in the VT/NH area. If you say he got plenty, OK then.

[zalinda]

15. You know what, that is BS

He did not spend 3 years there or 6 years or what ever the "common knowledge" is. The truth is he spent maybe 1 week more there tops. He has been doing other things after the 2004 election. Oh, you know little things like, helping his wife through cancer, traveling the world and starting some foundations.

Here's a little article and it says he spent 23 days in Iowa, http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2007/06/john_edwards

zalinda

[ursi]

6. I see your point ...I've wondered that myself

[EV_Ares]

7. The Corporate Media Blackout of JED is worse

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.

JedReport's diary :: ::
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:





It's no surprise that Barack Obama got the most attention; he won the Iowa caucus, and as much as I wish he hadn't won it, I can't begrudge the fact that CNN told its viewers about it.


entire article at Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/5/12286/27650/142/431084

[cali]

10. you still don't factor in retail politics

most of those who voted in Iowa and NH had actually seen the candidates in person. Furthermore, JE tied Clinton. The myth that he won some great second place victory is just that- a myth. .25% more of the vote is truly as close as you can get. I posit that if he'd won or even come in a close second he would have picked up a lot more coverage. And if he pulls it out today, he'll get a lot of coverage. Not excusing the MSM for not covering him more in the months leading up to Iowa, just doubting that the lack of coverage is responsible for his losses in NH and IA.

[EV_Ares]

12. You could be right on those points and the MSM factor of which I still feel sucks can be

sort of a chicken and egg type factor as he was probably better known in Iowa than especially Obama and more familiar than Hillary although everyone knows and has known her. However, the way the MSM frames everything has an effect regardless of the candidate's coverage more or less and that is where he gets hurt on it and it is a well known fact the corporate media and corporate everything hates him.

That said your points are well made and are correct in their own right as well.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

16. The man isn't having his palms greased by corporations like others are......

Do you realize that in this country no one can run for office and win without money from corporations in exchange for promises to do good by them? What does that say about Obama and Clinton?

[stravu9]

17. You Relly are Full Of IT!!!

Uh,data I mean.