CNN: Edwards' lack of media coverage killed campaign

[balantz]

"Earlier, an Edwards aide said the candidate was not getting the media attention he needed to get his message out and win delegates, especially with races coming up in 22 states next Tuesday."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/30/edwards/index.html

[Prefer]

1. First they ignore him

then it's "he couldn't get his message out"

[havocmom]

3. Makes on tend to ponder that HE is the one status quo puppets really fear

[FlyingSquirrel]

5. Then they laugh at him, then they fight him...

Then he wins.

[Occam Bandage]

7. He didn't really get past stage one.

[FlyingSquirrel]

9. Yet. n/t

[Hieronymus]

2. The corporate media was against John Edwards from the start. He

would have rained on their parade .. big time.

[NJSecularist]

4. If they had won Iowa, media coverage would have been a moot point

Because Edwards would have gotten plenty of it.

[spooky3]

14. that would be convincing, except that studies show PRE-Iowa

he received far less coverage as well.

Go to Mediamatters.org for one of the studies.

[Binka]

28. He Beat Hillary But They Never Framed It That Way

They IGNORED his second place finish. Hill should be out on her ass now.

[balantz]

33. EXACTLY!

THAT is a prime and blatant example of how the media controls the elections and public opinion.

I heard next to nothing on any station about John's second placing in Iowa.

[blm]

35. Same thing happened in 2004 - Though Kerry and Edwards both won Iowa by convincing

margins, the corpmedia ignored HOW they did and WHY they did so well with voters to push the storyline that Dean imploded and used the trumped up scream to back them up. All dog and pony show by media who never did discuss the real analysis of why Kerry and Edwards came out ahead.

Corpmedia covered their own lies and false analysis with a completely manufactured Dean controversy.

[Tarc]

6. sour grapes

Edwards had media coverage, just like the others did. Don't turn this into another Kucinich-like conspiracy.

[balantz]

8. Whatever

Look at the link and CNN confirms what his aides said.

It should have been obvious to anyone that the media at best ignored Edwards.

[Tarc]

11. If the general public didn't know by now who John Edwards was

then they're either morons or simply not paying attention to any of this.

He had his shot, didn't make it, time to move on. Making it out to be some grand plot beyond that is ludicrous.

[balantz]

12. Who is trying to make it into a plot?

Look at the corporations that own the media, like G.E.. They own our media and our politicians. That corporate control is what Edwards was fighting against.

[Tarc]

15. Um, you?

[Hawkowl]

13. You are naive

That is the best that I can say about your post. It used to be that candidates were required to get equal time. Now the media hosts debates and only lets its favorite lapdogs speak more than two minutes.

I think you may be singing a different tune when it is your preferred candidate that is thrown into the rethuglican/corporate/defense contractor owned media meat grinder

[Tarc]

17. Naive? That's be you.

There's really little else to be said. It is sad that this happens every time someone's favorite candidate drops out, going something like... "it MUST be someone else's fault because MY candidate is the BEST and if he/she loses, then there is CERTAINLY something wrong with the system." It doesn't mean Edwards is bad, it just means that not enough people agreed with him as you think there should have been.

Not everyone gets to win. This isn't a :grouphug: kindergarten here.

[DemBones DemBones]

10. It was the same for Kucinich, Biden, Richardson, Dodd.

The media decided it would be Clinton v. Obama and now they'll start pimping for one or the other.

After the conventions, they'll start pimping for the Republican if they follow the script they've been following for many years.

The media show far too much bias and have far too much influence over our politics.

Everyone should read the Daily Howler because he has done a great job of showing the media's bias since 1998, with all his columns archived on the site.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

[redqueen]

16. Ya think?

:banghead:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

18. It's like a freaking confession...

Because we never covered Edwards, he's now out of the race.

Frigging Cause. Frigging Effect.

[redqueen]

25. What harm is there now in admitting it?

If people were so lemming-like that they'd dump him before because they alrady got the "he can't win" meme... what chance is there now of any harm?

Remember those focus groups, after the debates? 'I like Edwards more, but I'm voting for so and so, cause Edwards can't win."

*sigh*

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

36. Works every time...

Make Howard Dean look like a kook.
Ignore John Edwards.

Another victory for the Corporate Agenda!

[KamaAina]

19. They oughta know

Who's this "Edwards" guy everyone's talking about all of a sudden? wher's he been the past few months?

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Fox Mulder]

20. No kidding?

:eyes:

[long_green]

21. And that is why I don't think I can support a party that submits

its nomination process to the corporations.

[Yukari Yakumo]

22. Bullshit

He got media coverage, not as much as Obama or Clinton though. But he did get media coverage and he was always portrayed as the underdog, and people love to root for the underdog. And he wasn't shying away from the other outlets too; Countdown, Real Time, Letterman, etc.

It was when people saw him, they just didn't like what they saw.

What killed the Edwards campaign was his one-state-strategy. He bet it all on Iowa and lost. He didn't have the infrastructure, the resources, or the support like Hillary had to carry him past the Iowa loss.

[redqueen]

27. People admitted as much. You may not like it, but it's just a simple fact.

People came out and said that though they preferred Edwards, they were voting for someone else... in their frickin primary... becuase Edwards "couldn't win" the nomination.

People are easily influenced. It's just a fact.

[OzarkDem]

23. CNN: your lack of integrity says you're a liar

and a shill for your corporate masters.

[Seabiscuit]

24. Oh that's rich. They ignore him throughout his campaign and then cite media coverage as the reason

for Edwards dropping out of the campaign. The MSM really think we are that stupid. Incredible! :mad:

[knight_of_the_star]

26. Naw shit!

What a shocker! Tell me something I didn't know!

[balantz]

29. It astounds me that people don't see the truth of the conspiracy here.

The public have been consistantly told about Clinton and Obama again and again, but hardly a mention of Edwards. Many DUers argue this is not the case, but there are also many of us who have been watching this happen for months now.

Who owns the media? Who was John going to fight?

[balantz]

30. The media most certainly doesn't give liberal-progressives a voice.

When we write the media to complain they are deaf to our concerns.

And why would media parents like G.E. want to listen to a bunch of liberal progressives?

They make untold bundles by keeping themselves out of regulation, keeping the middle-class and lower-class concerns out of money and that money into their pockets, and by profiting from controlling the resources of the world with the war machine created on the backs of the poor, killing anyone who gets in their way?

Why would they listen to us? They haven't been yet.

[totodeinhere]

31. Edwards was going up against two historic candidacies.

He was running against the first African American to have a realistic chance to win the presidency and the first woman to have a realistic chance. Compared to them, he was just another rich white man. I know that's not the way Edwards supporters saw it, but that's how the media framed it and the public bought it.

[rucky]

32. Did they say it like they were proud of themselves?

fuckers.

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. That's the truth. The smug little talking heads are probably high-fiving all over the place today.

fuckers. Ignore Edwards and attack Hillary. That's their agenda.