Friday, February 29, 2008

old story



John Edwards has been ignored because corporate leaders want to insure that the party would nominate candidates who can be relied upon to protect and foster their interests. With his challenge to their power, Edwards does not qualify for those powerful companies. In the 2004 primary, the corporate-owned media used many strategies to take down Howard Dean in Iowa and make the voters believe that the candidate to represent the Democratic Party was John Kerry. For the 2008, the media narrowed the Democratic candidates in to two; both very important candidate that would change American history. Even though Hilary Clinton has the highest negatives of any Democrat, the media had to choose her because of her name recognition and fundraising ability. John Edwards has offered a detailed universal health-care plan. He has promised to make union organizing easier. As president, Edwards has said he wants to increase the minimum wage and retract tax breaks for the wealthy. He believes that the United States should cooperate with other nations rather than unilateralism. Unlike Obama and Clinton, he does not believe that nuclear power should be part of the mix to decrease dependence on fossil fuels.

How will these policies affect major corporations? First, a health care plan could harmfully damage health insurance companies. Helping unions organize easier and to increase minimum wages is something that is unpleasant for corporate-owners. Retrieving tax breaks will give the wealthy people difficulties. The armament companies will have a decrease on their sales and so does companies that deal with nuclear power. In addition, John Edwards has accused FOX that they are too sympathetic to the GOP. He has skipped a debate in Nevada last year because FOX was the host. With this kind of a relationship, there will be no hope for Edwards to appear in such media companies.

How was the media coverage of the candidates based on political parties? A joint report by “The Center for American Progress and Free Press” has announced that a conservative talk radio is broadcasted ten times longer that progressive talk radio. Looking at the headlines of mainstream media there might be a clue to understand which political party is more important to the media corporations. With the understanding that there were terrible tragedies of the tornados, excluding The Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press, most online news sources had their headlines about the tornados right after the “Super Tuesday” was over. But reading the political page, CNN and ABC were referring to the GOP. The New York Times, CBS and MSNBC— splashing both of the stories, the primary and the tornado half and half— chose the Democratic Party. It was interesting that the FOX— being accused by John Edwards— had the pictures of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain nicely divided into one-third each. Overall, it was unfortunate, but there were more media that had chosen the Democratic Party for their headlines than the GOP.

Merci

7 comments:

mike's spot said...

Liberal Media creating Biases? surely you jest!

but seriously- Rupert Murdock's doctrine of fair and balanced, I think, means he'll show the conservative side of the story because most other major news outlets are so liberal they are damn near socialist.

there is no such thing as objective reporting. It is totally impossible. This is not to say that it is not a noble goal, and that all reporters are intentionally misleading, just pointing out that nothing can be done without some opinion and influence, if only for the single reason that everything needs to be edited. as soon as you delete something you consider worthless, you have interjected your opinion into a writing.

YiFaN ReN said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
YiFaN ReN said...

Mike's comment is really inspiring!
All those gatekeepers, driven by the Corporate Americas' wheels...
We need different voices in the media landscape, we are eager for some fresh air!
Check out my little blog PokerLitics if u got some time buddy~

mondemondomundo said...

mike's spot>
thank you for your consevative thoughts! Hope I can learn more from your blog.

mondemondomundo said...

elgoog>
Hey, I thought our abbreviation was lmao!

Nicole said...

I know this one's a little old but I think it's really fascinating how the media is at the helm in this election with its selective coverage and lack thereof. It's really important for the presidential candidates to establish a presence in our minds because, as we saw with Edwards -- if the media leaves you out, you are out in the minds of the American people. I think the problem with Edwards also was that he spent a lot of time whining about his lack of media coverage and not enough time trying to build up his presence and distinguish himself as a candidate.

I also think the leftist/democratic hatred for Fox News is a little ridiculous. Every other news outlet projects a liberal standpoint. We need Fox News in order to get some sort of a balance. So for people who say Fox is over-the-top conservative, I think it's just because they're not used to hearing the other side of the American story. (And there is another side, by the way.)

As a former comm. student, I think it's really interesting to see how media outlets cover certain stories in comparison to one another. People need to keep a keen eye during this election and not take information at face value.

Lastly, leave it to Saturday Night Live to bring it to the media's attention that their adoring coverage of Barack Obama was getting blatantly ridiculous. It took a comedy sketch to get the "reporters" to finally step up and do their jobs (once in a while) and give him the fair amount of criticism everyone else is getting.

mondemondomundo said...

nicole>

thanks for the comment nicole.

is my blog for conservatives?