John Lorenz makes a good case for mainstream media bias against John Edwards in a post on Op-Ed News. For months, the corporate media have been making every effort to narrow the Democratic Presidential nomination contest to a Clinton-Obama race. The real news from Iowa is that Hillary Clinton finished third despite a tremendous investment of time and campaign money.
by John Lorenz
Outspent 6 to 1, John Edwards' populist message still beat out the Hillary Clinton-Establishment-Status-Quo party and money machine in Iowa.
In another slap at corporate power and greed, Edwards delivered his concession speech for having come in second to Barak Obama as a defiant challenge to the status quo corporatocracy which is depriving decent Americans of healthcare, jobs and their democracy. "The status quo lost and change won," Edwards told the Iowa crowd.
In another slap at corporate power and greed, Edwards delivered his concession speech for having come in second to Barak Obama as a defiant challenge to the status quo corporatocracy which is depriving decent Americans of healthcare, jobs and their democracy. "The status quo lost and change won," Edwards told the Iowa crowd.
While Barack Obama may seem to some like JFK, because of his inspiring words of change and hope in a historic moment for the country, Edwards, in his rhetoric might be compared to Bobby Kennedy for the passion and anger he feels as he witnesses the problems caused by a grinding lack of needed reform, in a 'bought' system run by corporate-greed that relegates the majority of Americans to two-tiered economic and social inequality between haves and have-nots.
So you'd think Edwards would get kudos for finishing so unexpectedly well against the status-quo's darling, Hillary Clinton. But nope. Not a word.
The media moguls are just sure Edwards will not make it out of January. And he may not because he doesn't have Obama or Clinton's $100 million campaign war chests that seem necessary for the waging of a national campaign.
What the corporate media don't like is that Edwards has a message of democratic populism: rewarding work, supporting sustained growth and full employment, providing universal health care, repairing ravaged pensions, calling for public investment and working for an end to poverty.
Edwards' campaign has put the central issue of our time center stage: Who controls our country--corporations or the people? He's the only candidate who says, fearlessly : "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." We haven't heard words like that in our campaigns in a while, at least not from anyone near top of the polls.
What Edwards brings that Obama and Clinton so far haven’t is a fighting spirit to take back our government from corporate powers and interests. Obama and Clinton speak lots of populist fluff--and, yes, they’re more moderate in tone—but they both have avoided being specifics and substance on the issues of economic fairness, justice and dignity. The only one who has done so, and has a chance at winning, is John Edwards.
The status quo is scared of him because he not only can drive that message home into the next primaries and election is John Edwards, but he could carry the 'solid South,' being a self-made southern boy who earned his way to where he is and didn't get it from the pockets of lobbyists. .
Now, that said: One day after the Iowa caucuses, something seems queer to me about the media coverage of the Iowa results.
Has anyone else noticed that the “lamestream” news media, even in their very early hours of reporting, seemed to already act as if John Edwards no longer mattered at all?
What I see in the reporting so far is Edwards’s second place finish being 'dissed' by a deafening silence of coverage. It is as if Edwards were not even relevant and had lost big! If these media talking-heads mention Edwards at all, they lump him into the ‘loser’ category with Hillary in Iowa and then continue to treat Hillary and Obama as the two main players going forward into the next primaries. I noticed in the wee morning hours of Friday after the Iowa caucuses, for example, that ABC News had hardly mentioned Edwards at all, scarcely even once in a whole night of reporting on the results of the caucus. And when they did mention Edwards’ for just a nano-second, they dismissed him as a loser basically, now, out of the running.
If this is not an example of mainstream media bias, I don't know what is. The reporting has just simply glossed over what should be announced as an absolute shocker: John Edwards actually BEAT Hillary Clinton, who was expected to be a shoe-in.
That’s pretty impressive, even if Edwards didn't come in first.
All the corporate media shills can do is to repeat the mantra of Obama vs. Hillary, over and over, still framing everything in terms of a Clinton-Obama horse race.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john_lor_080104_deafening_corporate_.htm
Despite polls showing Edwards as the strongest Democratic Presidential contender in a general election http://www.jedreport.com/2007/12/john-edwards-is.html, the mainstream media continues to downplay Edwards' viablity as a candidate. In face The Jed Report points out, the corporate media blackout of Edwards is getting worse. http://www.jedreport.com/2008/01/the-corporate-1.html
12 comments:
I've been very upset by this as well. Edwards can come back still, but it's going to be a tough battle, especially when the media is against us. The good news is, volunteers are hitting NH harder than ever for Edwards--I had a friend call and update me that every precinct in Southern NH (where he is volunteering) is being covered today.
If we don't win this, it won't be for lack of campaigning.
I don't not mean to disagree and ask this question with no discontent; what is the difference between a multimillion dollar corporation and multimilliondollar law firm besides the fact that law firms must be PA's or LLP's and cannot be incorporated?
We all know Edwards' father worked in a mill but he spends more on a hair cut than I spent on rent not too long ago ($400). I'll give him benefit of the doubt but this seems contradictory. Mr. Edwards is fighting against himself. He wants to fight the millionares heading large companies but he is one himself.
The American corporate media's close friend (for so it is), the BBC, ignored Edwards's second place in Iowa completely, and just banged on about Clinton instead.
Stuff on that, Obama, and the New Hmapshire results over on my blog.
Hello,
You don't have a "Contact Me" link on your blog. I have a question for you. I always considered myself a conservative but as I get older I'm recognizing that I am very socially conservative and more liberal on fiscal issues. Does this make me a Right Democrat? Or a Left Republican? The social issues are very important to me especially abortion and gay marriage. Where do I fit in?
Thanks for your time.
Jen V
Thanks for your question, Jennifer. My guess is that you are populist. A populist is often traditionalist on social issues and progressive concerning economic matters. Many of us are populists and don't even know it. Check out this link to a Pew Research Center study of political ideologies. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/17/in-search-of-ideologues-in-america
I campaigned for Senator John Edwards in New Hampshire and in my home state of New York in 2004 and have proudly supported him for the last four years. As a populist, I look at him as the potential Bobby Kennedy we never had in the White House. That is why I was so profoundly disappointed when I discovered that, a few days ago at a rally in South Carolina, Senator Edwards injected himself in the racial nonsense between Obama and Clinton. He was clearly taking Obama's side and referred to President Lyndon Johnson as a "Washington insider." In 1964, President Johnson gave countless poor Americans Medicare and Medicaid under President Franklin Roosevelt's Social Security Act. Also in 1964, President Johnson, while working with Congress, passed the Economic Opportunity Act as part of his War on Poverty, which was the only measure of its kind to simultaneously reduce taxes and help the needy. If that is what a "Washington insider" can do, then let's hope we will have another one in the White House. As a champion of the poorest Americans, Senator Edwards should praise, not chide, both President Frankin Roosevelt and President Johnson as two of the best populist presidents this country has ever had. Shame on Senator Edwards for denigrating President Johnson's monumental accomplishments for poor Americans simply to wrongly and ill-advisedly involve himself in a foolish political debate that he would do well to avoid.
Paul Casali
http://demstrat101.livejournal.com/
Paul, I agree with you. Edwards should have stayed out. In my view, all candidates involved have insulted the intelligence of voters.
This is so frustrating.
John is the candidate of choice among conservative populist Democrats (you) and progressive populist Democrats (me). He polls well among independents and he consistently beats the Republicans in all hypothetical election scenarios. He's the most popular Democrat among evangelical Christian voters and he has also earned praise from prominent leftists like Ralph Nader and Tom Hayden. John can unite our party around a substantive agenda for change by revitalizing the New Deal Coalition that made us great.
Of course, that's part of the reason that the corporate media doesn't give him fair coverage.
That and he's a white dude.
By the way, awesome blog. I've added you to my blogroll at newerleft.wordpress.com.
I agree - they much prefer the fight between Obama and Hillary. Still - ever consider how much John Edwards resembles Andy Griffith's "Lonesome Rhodes" character in the movie "A Face In The Crowd"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8PECQDBr2w
Found this on the YouTubes...thought you all might find it amusing.
I am deeply sadden by Caroline's endorsement of Senator Obama. I understand that she feels he is inspiring, but what we need now is more than just inspiration.
I have to wonder if Caroline would have endorsed Senator Obama, if Jackie Kennedy Onassis was still alive. Jackie was very fond of the Clinton's stating how Bill and his visions reminded her of her husband. Jackie was a friend to Hillary often sharing stories of raising children in such a public eye.
Upon her death, John F Kennedy,Jr. sent the Clinton's a hand written letter that said " I wanted you both to understand how much your burgeoning friendship with my mother meant to her. Since she left Washington I believe she resisted ever connecting with it emotionally-or the institutional demands of being a former First Lady. It had much to do with the memories stirred and her desires to resist being cast in a lifelong role that didn't quite fit. However, she seemed pro fondly happy and relived to allow herself to reconnect with it through you. It helped her in a profound way- whether it was discussing the perils of raising children in those circumstances or perhaps it was the many similarities between your presidency and my fathers".
It appears that the Clinton's not only inspired a nation, but also a former First Lady. Though I respect Caroline's decision to talk of Obama's inspiration and his great work in Chicago. It still does not take away from the facts, that his "resume" comes up short!!! Americans need more than inspiration after the Bush administration.
Americans need a proven leader who has traveled the "World" building relationships with foreign leaders. We need someone who has dedicated their entire adult life to helping the under privileged in our Country. Someone who has fought for civil, human and yes, woman's rights. Not only here in America but across the globe. We need a proven voice that can reach out across party lines. We need someone who is battle tested. We need change for our failing economy. We need universal heathcare. We need jobs. We need to focus on our energy crisis. We need "our" men and woman home. Americans need a leader. Americans need Hillary Clinton!
Though Obama is a beautifully spoken and inspiring gentleman. I am inspired by the years of hard work and dedication that Hillary brings to the table. Kitchen table at that! I am inspired by her ability to stand strong during the media's continuous bias. I am inspired by a woman who has been fighting for American since before I was born. I am inspired by her continued wiliness to make America better to help make Martin Luther King Jr. dreams a reality. The speeches she heard LIVE all those years ago when segregation was thought to be impossible there stood in Chicago a very young white girl, on a mission to learn and help. Hillary has dedicate her life to a cause so great it has empowered her during some of the toughest times. When most would have given in, she stands to fight for us again and again. That to me, is inspiration. Hillary Rodham Clinton is an inspiration to many Americans and Many Woman all over the WORLD!!!
Today I am endorsing Hillary Clinton. My voice is only one and I am not famous. I will not be on front pages of the dailies across the Country. I am not a Kennedy who swam along side of Chelsea, with her Mom and Bill and Hillary at Menemsha Harbor. I am not
"a perceptive friend and role model to Chelsea", as Caroline Kennedy was regarded.
I am an American endorsing the only other American running who is qualified to lead and passionate enough to never forget us.
I am an Inspired American from Kentucky and I am proud to endorse, support and volunteer for the 44th President of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
My name is Robin Davidson and I not only approve this message, but I wrote it.
I need a leader I can trust, I don't feel I can trust Hillary. Inspiration is a personal thing, I am insprired by Edwards. He has the means to sit and home and live well, he chose to serve others. I find that inspiring. I feel I can trust him which is something sorely missing in the Clinton equation.
Post a Comment