Information Reported by Associated Press/ABC
A Washington Post article from
December 2003 shows a poll with John Kerry being chosen by only six
percent of Democrats likely to vote. He trailed even Joe Lieberman and Al
Sharpton at the time. Howard Dean led the all other Democratic
candidates by 20 percentage points. How is it that things
changed so quickly? The two articles below (shortened for your
convenience) are very informative. And just to be clear, I am non-partisan and feel this issue has nothing to do with political party affiliations and everything to do with undemocratic manipulation of our elections. I invite us all to pay attention to what
is happening around us.
With best wishes,
Fred Burks for PEERS and WantToKnow.info
Former language interpreter
for Presidents Bush and Clinton
http://www.abcactionnews.com/entertainment/stories/0402/040209cnn.shtml (Excerpts below)
Fallout from Dean's
scream on news networks
NEW YORK (AP) — It probably means little now to Howard Dean, but CNN's
top executive believes his network overplayed the infamous clip of Dean's
"scream" after the Iowa caucuses. "It was a big
story, but the challenge in a 24-hour news network is that you try to keep
all of your different viewers throughout the day informed without overdoing
it," said Princell Hair, CNN's general manager. The media explosion
turned the former Democratic presidential front-runner into a punch line and
arguably hastened his campaign's free fall. It's also an instructive look at
how television news and entertainment works today.
"It was totally unfair," said Joe Trippi, who lost his job as
Dean's campaign manager in the fallout. "I don't think there was any
question about it." Trippi accepts that the footage was newsworthy, but
he figured it was a one-day story. Instead, CNN cable and broadcast
news networks aired Dean's Iowa exclamation 633 times — and
that doesn't include local news or talk shows — in the four
days after it was made, according to the Hotline, a Washington-based
newsletter. "It shouldn't be an anvil that you keep hammering to destroy
his candidacy," Trippi said.
The cable news networks ran and reran the video. They analyzed it. They ran
footage of the late-night comedians joking about it. They played the instant
Internet songs that sampled Dean's shout. Virtually overnight, the "I
Have a Scream" speech became legend. It took on such a life,
said Paul Slavin, senior vice president of ABC News, that "the amount of
attention it was receiving necessitated more attention."
Neither Slavin nor Mark Lukasiewicz, NBC News executive producer in charge of
political coverage, believe the coverage was overdone. Roger Ailes, Fox News
chairman, told ABC News it was "overplayed a bit."
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/podvin/media/040201_TheScream.htm (Excerpts below)
On December 1, 2003, Howard Dean was ahead by twenty points
in the polls when he appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews and said, "We're
going to break up the giant media enterprises." This
pronouncement went far beyond the governor's previous public musings about
possibly re-regulating the communications industry. It amounted to a
declaration of war on the corporations that administer the flow of
information in the United States.
The media giants quickly responded by crushing his high-flying campaign with
the greatest of ease. This time, they didn't even have to invent a scandal in
order to achieve the desired result; merely by chanting the word
"unelectable" at maximum volume, the mainstream media maneuvered
democratic voters into switching their support to someone who poses no threat
to the status quo.
John Kerry is a member of a group of politicians whose disagreements with the
mercantile elite tend to be merely rhetorical. Any doubts about Kerry's level
of commitment to his stated progressive beliefs were answered in 1994 when he
proclaimed himself "delighted" with the Republican takeover of
Congress (Boston Globe, New York Times). The media oligarchy knows that a general election race between
Kerry and George W. Bush will insure a continuation of its monopoly,
regardless of who wins.
The news cartel had always been hostile to Dean. Independent surveys revealed
that he had received the most negative coverage of any candidate except
Dennis Kucinich (the only other contender who strongly favors mandatory media
divestment). But after his statement on Hardball, reporting about Dean
abruptly came to an end and was replaced by supposition.
By mid-December, the news divisions of the four major television
networks were reporting as fact that Dean was unelectable. The print
media echoed the theme; on December 17, the Washington Post printed
a front-page story that posited Dean could not win the presidency. The Post
quickly followed up with an onslaught of articles and editorials reasserting
that claim. Before the month was over, Dean's lack of electability had been
highlighted in The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal,
the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles
Times, and every other major paper in the United States.
As 2004 began, Time and Newsweek simultaneously ran cover
stories emphasizing that Dean was unelectable. In the weeks before the Iowa
caucus, the ongoing topic of discussion on the political panel shows was that
Dean was unelectable. National talk radio shows repeatedly stressed that Dean
was unelectable. The corporate Internet declared that Dean was unelectable.
And the mainstream media continued with the storyline that Dean was
unelectable right up until Iowans attended their caucuses. Iowa
Democrats could not watch a television or listen to a radio or read a
newspaper or go online without learning that Howard Dean was unelectable.
On January 19, Democratic caucus goers in Iowa - who were the initial
intended audience for this propaganda disguised as reportage - overwhelmingly
repudiated Dean, telling pollsters they believed he was unelectable. Later
that evening, Dean yelled encouragement to his supporters at a pep rally, an
incident that provided the pretext for the coup de grâce.
During the week leading up to the New Hampshire primary, the media
obsessed about Dean's "bizarre" rally incident, adding
"un-presidential" and "emotionally unstable" to its
descriptions of the governor. The unified message was that Dean had
self-destructed. When he finished a distant second in New Hampshire,
journalists and pundits hailed the defeat as confirmation of their premise
that Dean had always been unelectable.
Yet there had been no tangible basis for that assertion. At the beginning of
2004, a poll conducted by Time magazine showed that Dean trailed
Bush by only six points. That was a smaller deficit than Gore faced shortly
before the general election in 2000, and he wound up getting the most popular
votes. Undaunted by this evidence to the contrary, reporters adhered to the
motif that Dean had absolutely no chance.
It is not what a politician does that creates a scandal. It is
whether the television networks and major metropolitan newspapers respond to
the incident with saturation coverage. When a presidential candidate
who was committed to deregulating the corporate media got caught lying
about breaking the law, the importance of the event was minimized. When a
presidential candidate who was committed to breaking up the corporate media
got caught shouting at a pep rally, the importance of the event was
Howard Dean's campaign now lies in ruins because he chose to confront
the multinational conglomerates that run this country. If Dean
is so resilient that he fights his way back into contention, the Fourth
Estate will be ready to batter him again. In the United States of America,
people who pose a threat to the reigning corporate establishment are
destroyed. Or, as the Soviets used to put it, emotionally unstable
individuals who deviate from the party line are guilty of engaging in