Why does the media hate John Edwards?

There is a great post over at Huffington talking about John Edwards and the media. I'll post the conclusion here, because I think it gets to the heart of the matter about why we are hearing so much negative press about John Edwards.

What seems to worry pundits -- whether centrist or rightist -- is that Edwards is leading in polls in Iowa, where the first caucuses vote next January.

Indeed, current media coverage of Edwards bears an eerie resemblance to the scary reporting on the Democratic frontrunner four years ago, Howard Dean. If Edwards is still ahead as the Iowa balloting nears, expect coverage to get far nastier. The media barrage against Dean in the weeks before Iowa -- "too far left" and "unelectable" with a high "unfavorable" rating -- helped defeat him. (I write those words as someone who was with Kucinich at the time.)

...

After years of pontificating about how Southern white candidates are the most electable Democrats for president, it'd be ironic for even nimble Beltway pundits to flip-flop and declare that this particular white Southerner is a bad bet simply because he talks about class issues.

Edwards not only leads in Iowa, but he is our best candidate against EVERY single Republic candidate. Remember, who owns the media? Republics. Who do you think they want to see in charge, a moderate like Clinton or Obama, or a man who has made his living standing up to large corporations and looking out for the little guy? Do you think they want a guy that stands up for universal health care? For easy union access? No, I don't think so either.

Get on board.


Fight the powers that be.

Comments

YOU could be next.

Or, you, or you, or you.

One man with courage makes a majority.
- Andrew Jackson

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Yeah.

There seems to be a strategy here. Edwards does the best against Republics, with the highest approval among Indys, so they go after him but lay off Clinton. She does the worst against Republics, with the highest negatives among Indys, so they hope to lay into her during the general.

One man with courage makes a majority.
- Andrew Jackson

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

What burns me up...

Is not when they say bad things about Edwards. It is when they say nothing at all. Many, many news stories about the "top Democratic contenders" act as if they have never heard the name John Edwards.

Yeah, I remember one interview where they asked...

if his plan was to sit back as a second-tier candidate until they Obama and Clinton ate each other up, then become "Plan B". He was flabbergasted and asked something like "Are you kidding me? I am a front-runner."

One man with courage makes a majority.
- Andrew Jackson

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

I recall hearing these stories about Dean.

He was from a small state, he was a crazy liberal that wanted socialized medicine, he was from a wealthy, Park Avenue family and was only pretending to be "one of the people".

One man with courage makes a majority.
- Andrew Jackson

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

All the negative stuff....

Isn't coming from the media. It is all being discovered by the Clinton people. with her negatives, she has to make your opponents look even worse and the best way to do that is to feed dirt to the media. This is just simple campaign stuff right now.

I was going

to say I doubted that, but then I remembered that Clinton is still great friends with Murdoch.

Draft Brad Miller-- NC Sen ActBlue

"Keep the Faith"

I doubt that it's all coming from Clinton.

I don't doubt she's getting her digs in, but I think there are plenty of others who want to shoot Edwards down because he polls the best against all the Repugs. Why is it, when Giuliani or McCain makes a speech the N&O tells us what he said, but when Edwards makes a speech, the N&O tells us what his opponents said about it? Just a few days ago the headline was, "Critics heap scorn on Edwards." And that article was all the coverage there was of what Edwards had to say.

He was marginalized

by the media in 04. They just don't like him. I think it's because he looks really good in comparison to any Republican and Republicans own the presses . . .
 
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,

I agree DQ...

...just ask Al Gore. I can't stand the OPERATION IGNORE that's been launched on Edwards and while I think voters are more aware of the damage done by voting for the media's preferred fun guy, I'll be damned if I know how to combat the unfair treatment.

Conscious evolution, it's what turns me on. There's got to be a difference between right and wrong.-DTB

Conscious evolution, it's what turns me on. There's got to be a difference between right and wrong.-DTB

I didn't mean "looks really good"

as in physically looks good. His policies and his broad appeal, not his looks. LOL! Can't help avoiding the issue, I guess, even subconsciously . . .
 
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,

Not fair, SPLib

He's an investor in a company that recovered a sunken ship. He's not stealing gold from Spain. Talk about spin!
_____________
The Den
It's your democracy; use it.

Sorry

Sometimes,(maybe most of the time) my sense of humor doesn't translate well to others. Of course he is not stealing gold from Spain. I just thought it was a perfect link for thread about the media hating Edwards.

Sigh. I understood your joke.

Viva la libertarian!

One man with courage makes a majority.
- Andrew Jackson

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Perfect

I've turned you into a libertarian. That's one step closer to a neocon. This is way easier than I thought.

Ok - I didn't get it.

But I remember what first brought you here.

And in all honesty - I'm not feeling too well today, so I'm somewhat humor challenged.

Sorry.

_____________
The Den
It's your democracy; use it.

But I remember what first

But I remember what first brought you here

My not supporting Edwards because he was a personal injury lawyer who sued someone I know was not really what brought me here. It was just one of the first things I posted. Technically, what brought me here was Momo's blog at the Pilot. I stayed because of the quality of the core bloggers and how the discourse here has helped me in my self-evaluation/classification of my political beliefs.

See....actually

Robert's turning you into a flaming liberal. :)

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

MSM vs Net Roots

I think Edwards is being margenalised by the main stream media because they fear a serious loss of power and money. The Internet is empowering people to campaign successfully and raise significant amounts of money for presidential candidates. This makes TV ads less important and big media punditry even less so. Joe Trippy and Dean got screwed over this. Lets hope Edwards doesn't.

Also we shouldn't forget the power of the Democrat Leadership Council that Clinton is a leader of. Here are some interesting info about the DLC. source: NNDB

The right wing current of the Democratic party, characterized by its neoliberal economic policies, support of Israel, desire to increase defense spending, and links to heavy donors and fundraisers.

Believes that “left-wing” positions are not politically viable. Describes itself as “moderate and pro-growth”. Probably responsible for erosion of the Democratic Party’s historical labor and minority base due to support of treaties like NAFTA, lack of support for affirmative action and poverty programs, and their siphoning away of campaign funds from minority groups.

“I’m from the democratic wing of the Democrat Party” –Paul Wellstone, progressive Democrat, criticizing the New Democrat Movement.

“Democrats for the Leadership Class” –Jesse Jackson, progressive black Democrat, describing the DLC.

I don't think the DLC supports a populist candidate like Edwards...

I think you've got a point there.

We need to keep hammering home, just like we have to here in NC, that just being "Democrats" is not good enough. You have to be progressive. You have to believe in labor, in equality, in equity.

One man with courage makes a majority.
- Andrew Jackson

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Blah, Blah, Blah, Ginger...blah, blah, blah...

Believes that “left-wing” positions are not politically viable.

I cheerfully disagree with them. I'm the most middle of the road person I know. I can agree with anyone if they make a lick of sense. YMMV

Before this leaves the front page ...

Instead of conspiracy theories, it could be as simple as Obama being a
fresh face, Hillary being hot celeb-politico gossip fodder (and the
wife of the greatest president since Truman), and the media
considering Edwards an also-ran compared to those two. Riddle me this
- is a positive John Edwards story as good for ratings as Obama or
Hillary? Not outside of states that end in "Carolina." Am I saying
that it's a good thing that much of the coverage on Edwards is bad
(but not to the point that the media "hates John Edwards")? No. But is
it a conspiracy?

I spent all last semester researching media coverage of presidential
candidates, and there's nothing significant to suggest that
conglomerates on the whole influence candidate indexing in their media
departments. The fact of the matter is that media producers don't
believe that Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Gravel, Denny, and Edwards are
as exciting enough this time around to modify their "Obama vs.
Clinton" frame. But claiming active hatred is a stretch, even if he is
being ignored (though I have more than enough data to show that he's
still light years ahead of the other 5 candidates in coverage). The
media is doing a fairly good job indexing the "top 6" Democratic
candidates, but the focus is on Obama/Clinton because that is the
story, not because of a coordinated effort. Now, if One Corps groups
sold gas at $1.22 a gallon at gas stations across the country ;),
maybe Edwards would break out, but aside from his media peak in late
March, he's not doing anything to stand out (POLICY DOESN'T COUNT WITH
THE MEDIA). That being said, his UHC plan got a surprising amount of
coverage for a policy story, and his "I was wrong" article got quite a
few cycles, but you can't run a policy story like that over and over.

I know this reply is going to tick some people off, but I have spent
way too much time with this topic to not speak up. Is the media
perfect? Do I need to answer that last question? Do I think the four
candidates below the top two merit more coverage, even if it isn't
good for ratings? Of course. And yes, I like Edwards about as much as
I like Frankenstein and Dr. No, but I strive for neutrality in my
research, and my honest opinion is that when a person runs for
president and then vice-president, and goes through the gauntlet, and
goes through all the personal stories (good and bad), it's hard to
inspire a new wave a press at full power just by changing part of the
policy tune. And many of you know that even through the first quarter,
I was of the opinion that Edwards would win the nomination.

Also, veritably, the Edwards/Dean comparison is weak at best. What
defeated Howard Dean? A horrible ground organization that was outdone
by Kerry and Edwards both, and spending all of that money in Iowa with
low efficacy. There's also a major difference between Dean and
Edwards: Dean was THE frontrunner. You can make a good case that
Edwards is a top-tier candidate instead of a tier 1.5 candidate, but
the stand-alone front-runner? No.

There are worse stories they could be running on Edwards (but I'm not
going to get into which if any have merit). If there were a conspiracy
to destroy him, they wouldn't run stories that are more gossip than
attack, and they wouldn't let his campaign build momentum.

I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks

I think you misunderstood.

If you look at the Google News numbers, for instance, Edwards gets nearly as many mentions as Obama and Hillary. Actually, if you take out the AP stories, he gets almost exactly as many mentions as the other two. However, the focus with Edwards is never the same as with Obama or Clinton when it comes to MSNBC, CBS, CNN, etc. They only cover him when they have something BAD to say.

One man with courage makes a majority.
- Andrew Jackson

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Read it again, I do mention that

I won't start on the trouble with using Google News for a serious study, but I do ask

is a positive John Edwards story as good for ratings as Obama or
Hillary? Not outside of states that end in "Carolina."

I propose that ratings are the reason for running only negative Edwards stories (I apologize for not clearly stating the assumption that negative stories do better for ratings/readership than positive ones).

Others in the thread brought up Edwards being ignored. I'm not counting blogs as "media," which inflates the hits for Edwards on Google News.

I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks

Frankly, I'm not sure

if being a little below the radar (for now) is a bad thing for the Edwards campaign. Hil and Bar seem to be working on America as a whole, and spreading themselves kinda thin in the process. You have to win the delegates first before you move on to the election, and if John can stay focused on health care, poverty and Iraq, he might just surprise a lot of people at the convention.