The (Howard) Dean Scream - Page 2

Motorboat Cruiser · 02-23-2005, 01:28 PM

eh, I have a problem buying into the concept that the dems were behind the medias actions. But you knew that, didn't you?

SacTown Chronic · 02-23-2005, 01:33 PM

Yeah, scaeagles is almost as paranoid as I am.

blueerica · 02-23-2005, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

Ever since Nixon's sweaty upperlip may have lost him the election to Kennedy, Candidates have had to be more media savvy. They must be aware of how they look in a crowd, how they look on TV, and how they might sound on radio - all of these images impact their potential electability. Right or wrong it's the political reality.

Dean could have recovered from the scream, but at the time it happend his campaign was already running out of steam and it became a symbol of that fact. The media siezed on that, as they should - capturing the alegoric images to tell the tale in 30 seconds or less.

Reagen and Clinton were experts on managing their image, both took some embarrassing hits in their tenure but managed to ride them out and see their approval ratings soar. Dean just failed at having a proper comeback.

Exactly true!

If one looks at the evolution of presidential campaigns, it's been a downward spiral almost since the start. Once the US got out of the habit of choosing their own candidates (as opposed to the current method of candidates choosing themselves, and then gaining support)... Well... There ya go!

The Nixon-Kennedy debates was the elevator up to the next level, and anyone who is seriously considering being a contender for anything above freshman class president has to keep an eye on their backside. It pays to have the best staff and to keep the cool.

mousepod · 02-23-2005, 02:37 PM

While I agree with €uro and blueerica on Dean's inability to bounce back, I also have to really take issue with the press.
I don't consider myself paranoid, even if there is a vast [fill in your own damn agenda] conspiracy. Political bent or not, I believe that the biggest problem with the mainstream press is laziness. I remember taking Journalism 101 with Ed Diamond @ NYU back in the '80s and we spent a lot of time on press releases. Even 20 years ago, it was clear that a well-written release was all you needed to make sure the story got the spin you were looking for. With few exceptions, mostly in print journalism, the news is less of a presentation or (God forbid) an interpretation, but is pretty much pure regurgitation, or as John Stewart called it on Crossfire, "partisan hackery."
For me, serious coverage of the US Presidential campaigns ended on board "The Monkey Business."

But that's just my opinion.

Gemini Cricket · 02-23-2005, 04:55 PM

I think it's a very interesting article. Like the Janet 'scandal', I wondered why this one was taken so far. It made no sense. I wasn't a big Dean fan, I was more in the Kerry camp, but I thought the whole thing portrayed him unfairly. Oh well.

Lately, I guess after seeing Harry Shearer in person speak about media responsibility in Monterey, I have been questioning all sides of the media spectrum. I don't believe a damn thing the left and right media has to say. I've turned off CNN, Fox 'News' and all TV news. It's all bunk. I've been enjoying surfing Google News and reading things from all sorts of perspectives.

I'm concerned about ownership rules. When one person can control several media outlets, I question that. It means someone rich can mold our country based on their own beliefs. Yikes.

I'm not sure which side assassinated Dean's chances at the presidency. One could say it was the liberal media, but Dean was the strongest voice for causes liberals support. One could say it was the right, but wasn't the Bush team expecting a Dean win and molding their campaign fights facing him?

I dunno.

Kill your TV. Read your news.

Ghoulish Delight · 02-23-2005, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

...things from all sorts of perspectives.

That's the most important thing. I never trust a single source.

wendybeth · 02-23-2005, 07:37 PM

I agree wholeheartedly, GC. I stopped watching tv news several years ago, and don't miss it at all. I scour the various news outlets, and also the news feeds, and I compare and contrast to see the angle they seem to slant it. Then, I try and settle somewhere in the middle.

Gemini Cricket · 02-23-2005, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

I agree wholeheartedly, GC. I stopped watching tv news several years ago, and don't miss it at all. I scour the various news outlets, and also the news feeds, and I compare and contrast to see the angle they seem to slant it. Then, I try and settle somewhere in the middle.

I think that's awesome. Problem is, I think most of our country doesn't do that. They don't want to take the time to sort things out. They want black and white answers right now from some place quick. They want quick sound bytes and pictures. That's what happened to Dean, one clip played over and over. That's what caught the nation's short short attention span.

I blame Starbucks.

SacTown Chronic · 02-23-2005, 09:11 PM

I get some of my info the old fashioned way: the op-ed page of my local paper. I don't do a damn thing in the morning until I've had my coffee and read the entire newspaper. The Sacramento Bee is pretty fair when it comes to providing equal time to both sides of the aisle. I read 'em all too. Liberals such as Molly Ivins as well as the whacko conservatives like George Will. I prefer to get both sides of the story before siding with the liberals.

The article that inspired this thread ran in The Bee today.

scaeagles · 02-23-2005, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Liberals such as Molly Ivins as well as the whacko conservatives like George Will.

Hold on....George Will is whacko? Ivins is as psycho as they get! There are some liberals I'll read, but Ivins isn't one of them.

02-23-2005, 01:28 PM	#11
Motorboat Cruiser Cruiser of Motorboats Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: So Cal Posts: 3,665	eh, I have a problem buying into the concept that the dems were behind the medias actions. But you knew that, didn't you?
	Submit to Quotes

02-23-2005, 01:33 PM	#12
SacTown Chronic the myth of the dream Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,217	Yeah, scaeagles is almost as paranoid as I am. __________________ Is it the fingers, or the brain that you're teaching a lesson?
	Submit to Quotes

02-23-2005, 02:37 PM	#14
mousepod You broke your Ramadar! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,635	While I agree with €uro and blueerica on Dean's inability to bounce back, I also have to really take issue with the press. I don't consider myself paranoid, even if there is a vast [fill in your own damn agenda] conspiracy. Political bent or not, I believe that the biggest problem with the mainstream press is laziness. I remember taking Journalism 101 with Ed Diamond @ NYU back in the '80s and we spent a lot of time on press releases. Even 20 years ago, it was clear that a well-written release was all you needed to make sure the story got the spin you were looking for. With few exceptions, mostly in print journalism, the news is less of a presentation or (God forbid) an interpretation, but is pretty much pure regurgitation, or as John Stewart called it on Crossfire, "partisan hackery." For me, serious coverage of the US Presidential campaigns ended on board "The Monkey Business." But that's just my opinion. __________________ "Give the public everything you can give them, keep the place as clean as you can keep it, keep it friendly" - Walt Disney
	Submit to Quotes

02-23-2005, 04:55 PM	#15
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	I think it's a very interesting article. Like the Janet 'scandal', I wondered why this one was taken so far. It made no sense. I wasn't a big Dean fan, I was more in the Kerry camp, but I thought the whole thing portrayed him unfairly. Oh well. Lately, I guess after seeing Harry Shearer in person speak about media responsibility in Monterey, I have been questioning all sides of the media spectrum. I don't believe a damn thing the left and right media has to say. I've turned off CNN, Fox 'News' and all TV news. It's all bunk. I've been enjoying surfing Google News and reading things from all sorts of perspectives. I'm concerned about ownership rules. When one person can control several media outlets, I question that. It means someone rich can mold our country based on their own beliefs. Yikes. I'm not sure which side assassinated Dean's chances at the presidency. One could say it was the liberal media, but Dean was the strongest voice for causes liberals support. One could say it was the right, but wasn't the Bush team expecting a Dean win and molding their campaign fights facing him? I dunno. Kill your TV. Read your news.
	Submit to Quotes

02-23-2005, 07:37 PM	#17
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	I agree wholeheartedly, GC. I stopped watching tv news several years ago, and don't miss it at all. I scour the various news outlets, and also the news feeds, and I compare and contrast to see the angle they seem to slant it. Then, I try and settle somewhere in the middle. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

02-23-2005, 09:11 PM	#19
SacTown Chronic the myth of the dream Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,217	I get some of my info the old fashioned way: the op-ed page of my local paper. I don't do a damn thing in the morning until I've had my coffee and read the entire newspaper. The Sacramento Bee is pretty fair when it comes to providing equal time to both sides of the aisle. I read 'em all too. Liberals such as Molly Ivins as well as the whacko conservatives like George Will. I prefer to get both sides of the story before siding with the liberals. The article that inspired this thread ran in The Bee today. __________________ Is it the fingers, or the brain that you're teaching a lesson?
	Submit to Quotes