Simple question: what is the media so afraid of?

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

When I saw most of the mainstream daily papers' headlines on Friday, the FIRST question that popped into my mind was "what in the HELL are they so afraid of?"

A challenger CLEARLY spanked the incumbent in a debate. A VERY important, nationally-televised debate.

But instead of calling it like it happened, I saw a lot of "Bush and Kerry SPAR on the Iraq War"

or "Bush and Kerry Debate a Draw"

WTF? WHAT are they so afraid of? Why can't they just call it? Kerry won. Period. Even the halfway honest repukes I know had to admit it.

So what the hell's their deal?

[Poiuyt]

1. They're afraid of losing their livelihoods

Remember when Helen Thomas asked Bush a tough question at a press conference and was then banned to the back of the room? Reporters don't want to be blackballed.

[devinsgram]

25. Bingo

They have been forewarned.

[The empressof all]

2. They are afraid for their jobs

Corporate signs their paychecks. Corporate supports whoever is best for their stockholders pockets.

It's the same as Walmart supporting sweatshops in third world countries or drilling for oil in the wilderness.

Corporate world is driven by the bottom line and has no morals.

This is what Capitalism without regulation has become-a greedy child sucking on the tit of society.

[Vincardog]

3. The return of 'The Fairness Doctrine'

[Robbien]

4. Access

BushCo wields access to the WH, GOP members, GOP think tanks. If the media loses Access they lose prestige in their community. The media is a closed society so losing prestige is a biggie.

Plus of course, all media outlets are owned by GOP biggies and every corporation must follow headquarters lead.

[BillZBubb]

5. As everyone has pointed out, it's the economic reality.

Any publication that goes against Chimpy loses it's advertisers (businesses) and subscribers (dittoheads and Freepers). They are a very powerful lobby for Repug interests in the media. The left has no such power.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

6. Thanks guys

so basically, the short answer is "money," right?

Q: Why is the mainstream media such right-wing suck-ups?

A: Money.

Accurate?

[Robbien]

7. and prestige.

That is also a biggie.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

8. But prestige leads to more money, no?

So at it's very heart, it is still about money.

[Robbien]

16. Well, I've always thought of money representing power

but prestige is an internal gratification thing derived from how others hold you in regard. The mainstream media is a very closed social circle, and if anyone in the media loses access to WH officials they lose prestige. Think of Helen Thomas. While we here still hold her in high regard, she has lost status in the media world she lives in.

[liberal N proud]

9. Simple Answer: Carl Rove

Carl has them all controlled.
Look where Helen Thomas is after 30 years in the WH Press Corps
Look at what they just did to Dan Rather.

[cheshire]

10. The paper here in Rethugland didn't even have a byline. nothing.

Oh how I yearn for a place in the land of reality amongst the Democrats.

[ant]

11. a different take

While I certainly believe the media has given Bush a pass for some of the reasons already mentioned, I also think they just want to keep a story alive so they have something to report. In other words, if they declared either candidate the obvious winner, how would they draw in viewers for the next month?

I read something yesterday, I think, about how before the debate many of the pundits were all like THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT DEBATE EVER and then after W got his ass kicked they were more subdued. Think about it, though, would you really expect any news channel to have a day of talking heads for Just A Meaningless Formality? You think Wolf would sit for an hour of pre-debate crap where he doesn't try to play up what's about to happen to keep viewers glued?

They have to build up suspense, they have to keep it a tight race...otherwise it's boring and they've got nothing to talk about.

(Except for pesky issues, of course. BORING!)

[MO_Dem]

12. The media acts as if

the Bush people would put out a contract on 'em if they ever said anything remotely critical.

[2Design]

13. I think they have on a number of people and their jobs since they

have been in office - what they can't do by smear they do in other ways

they put family or friends out of business or jobs.

[thinkingwoman]

14. anthrax

Nobody talks about it anymore and it's like it never happened. The media and Democratic senators were anthraxed in 2001 and nothing has been done about it.

[tomfodw]

15. Not afraid - lazy & stupid

What makes you think the press as a whole is any smarter than the rest of the public?

[leftofthedial]

17. death squads

loss of six- and seven-figure incomes.

Plus, many of them are as stupid as the rest of the bushgang's followers.

[DeepModem Mom]

18. kick

[wishlist]

19. Polls with Bush ahead are front page news, but Kerry wins debate aren't

I can understand some neutrality and not wanting to seem biased by running news articles with "unsubstantiated" claims that Kerry won the debate, but I was shocked that my local paper hasn't mentioned even one of the poll results showing that viewers clearly thought Kerry won the debate or anything about Bush's questionable demeanor! This is after they had front page headlines about Bush's lead in the Gallup Poll and another one about the ABC poll. And my newspaper is considerated moderate.

You can bet they will be deluged with letters to the editor about this glaring absence of viewers' perception that Kerry won.

[indef]

20. An optimistic possibility

This is my first post here (discovered DU when looking for post-debate stuff), so bear with me when I say this: from where I am (I'm from NY but I work in and vote from Japan), a headline in the news that talks about a draw can only keep expectations about Kerry as low as possible for the second and third debates. We're still a month from the election, and a five point Kerry margin right now isn't going to do any good for us if it doesn't hold by election day.

What's important is that WE know who won on Thursday, and who will win in the next two debates.

[DeepModem Mom]

21. Interesting take, indef -- thanks for posting, and welcome to DU!

[newyawker99]

27. Hi indef!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Skinner]

22. They are afraid of being labelled liberal.

Never mind that they will be labelled liberal regardless of what they do.

The purpose of the media is no longer to be a skeptical reporter, the purpose of the media is no longer to hold the powerful accountable. The purpose of the media is to perpetuate itself by reinforcing the viewpoints of their audience. That's all.

[suegeo]

23. Anthrax, death threats

[Tyranikal]

24. October Surpirse - a theory

noticed how OBL was not mentioned in the past 2 years but Zarqawi was built up to be the most active in Iraq - even accused him of beheading (like they can tell behind the masks)

I think They'll produce Zarqawi before the election -

[oregon_dem1]

26. My paper is already labeled liberal

In a liberal town. So what do they have to lose in places like this? Personally, I think that the front page headline should have been "Smackdown!" or something to that effect. I would have bought a paper if it said something like that...