Biden, Kucinich, Richardson, Edwards - Still getting short shrift by the cooperate owned MSM...

[Indi Guy]

Why do you think the cooperate owned MSM (MainsSream Media) marginalize their coverage of these candidates?

[Blue_In_AK]

1. Because they're the best ones? n/t

[Indi Guy]

3. Yes...

...and any one of these people are likely to undo the stranglehold that big (trans-national) business has in DC if elected.

[Radical Activist]

9. Obama is a hell of a lot more likely to take on corporate America

than some of the other people on that list like Richardson and Biden. Why not judge Obama on his record rather than some conspiracy theory about why he's good at raising money?

This is a real disgusting self defeating attitude. As soon as any progressive does well some people will turn against him simply because he's successful. Why do we on the left always eat our own?

[gateley]

2. Money. That's my war cry. It's always the fucking money.

When the campaign began the amounts of the Big Three's war chests were covered as much as the candidates themselves.

The Buying of the Presidency. America. Never thought I'd live to see the day.

[Indi Guy]

4. Well understood. It's always about the $$$ these days...

The only fly in the ointment is that the DC lobby money comes mostly from abroad (or at least off-shore).

[Radical Activist]

6. Obama only got coverage close to Hillary's after he raised more money than her

in one quarter. That's when the media was forced to talk about a second candidate.

[cali]

7. Not true. Obama's gotten huge media coverage since

his speech at the Dem Convention in 2004.

[Radical Activist]

8. Not on the same level as Hillary.

Obama and Edwards were both getting similar levels of coverage while the media obsessed over Hillary until Obama raised the most of any candidate in one of the earlier fundraising quarters.

[cali]

13. nope. you're wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3765672&mesg_id=3765672

[Radical Activist]

16. Your link proves my argument.

It measure coverage for this year, when Obama started raising big money. That's very different than saying he has been getting heavy coverage ever since his convention speech. Too bad the study doesn't distinguish between early '07 and late '07, which is where we disagree. I very distinctly remember the Sunday morning talk shows obsessing over Hillary and rarely mentioning anyone else until Obama raised more money and rose in the polls.

[Think82]

5. the msm needs a barometer by which to measure success. The only ones they have are polls and money

They take it upon themselves not to inform in terms of ideas but in terms of "the race" and "winning and losing" as if it is a sports event. The problem is, their coverage also affects people's outlook because if someone is lacking in these two things, it is unspoken, yet assumed, that popular = right. Then the press gives to certain candidates with surfacer appeal and early name recognition a leg up. However, as people listen closer as the caucus draws near, they will turn more serious, like you would buckle down before a deadline. I think Biden might pull a Kerry, of course he may not, as these things are not predictable, and Biden will have to convince voters and caucus-goers to fight for him.

[Indi Guy]

10. Bottom Fucking Line - The (cooperate owned) MSM are not doing their jobs!

We Americans don't count on the media to be an echo-chamber of the polls!

The media are supposed to report on issues! I remember the good old days when issues were king! These days the (now corporately owned) media are mealy mouthed regurgitators of boring common knowledge. :puke:

[ixion]

11. yep... remember that in the 80's they televised Iran-Contra

it was always on. I remember watching it every afternoon.

That wouldn't happen now. Hell, we can't even get congress to do it's job and provide oversight on the most corrupt WH ever. This is, in large part, thanks to the MSM, who have dumbed the news down to tabloid format, acting as enablers for those who crave empire.

[leftchick]

12. because they are not the Corporate Candidates

.

[riqster]

14. DingDingDING! We have a WINNAH! nt

[MiniMe]

15. Add Dodd to that list

Not that Dodd is my candidate, but he is getting the short shrift too.

[IndianaJones]

17. so people have something to whine about. nt.