In today's "Another Election Winner: The Mainstream Media," the Washingtonian's Harry Jaffe begins:
"Except in a few races, the outcome of last week’s midterm election was determined in large part by the Mainstream Media."
To support his contention, he then cites evidence. A major campaign issue was corruption, which was detailed by the Washington Post, the San Diego Union-Tribune and Copley News Service.
The New York Times tapped into voter unease by reporting on "the government’s intrusion into private conversations by secret wiretapping of calls in the name of combatting terrorism."
The Mark Foley scandal broke on ABC News' Web site, but "then other mainstream media outlets advanced it."
Then there was Iraq: "Here the mainstream media—from newspapers to magazines to television—was doing the tough job of reporting the news: the relentless accounts of dead soldiers, bombed buildings, wasted millions."
I have to agree with much of what Mr. Jaffe asserts. The mainstream media did have a major impact on last week's elections. Voters were paying attention to what the MSM served up, day after day, week after week, and month after month.
And that's a reason why the Democrats seized control of both houses of Congress. Like it or not - and I don't - the mainstream media chalked up a major victory on November 7.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Mike,That about says it all.
November 16, 2006 - 12:19 ET by BlondeMike,
That about says it all.
MSM
November 16, 2006 - 12:22 ET by iveseenitallNo question about the MSM. However, the Republicans sure didn't help themselves. They whimped out.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
It's not just what the MSM co
November 16, 2006 - 12:51 ET by GalvanicIt's not just what the MSM covered, but what they didn't cover, like persistent economic growth. The DP knew that they couldn't hit Bush on the economy, so the MSM glossed over significant data like 4.4% unemployment --- the lowest in 5 years.
Even NBC, which had begun telling us the avarege price of a gallon of gas each night while prices were rising, skipped the subject as prices were dropping, except to suggest (contrary to the analysis of industry experts they themselves aired) that there just might be some 'Big Oil conspiracy' to drop prices in order to garner votes for Reps.
Then there are numerous examples of MSM bvias toward or against invididual candidates.
They ought to team up with BO
November 16, 2006 - 15:37 ET by FastEdThey ought to team up with BOR and try to find the guy who is setting the price of gas. But did you notice that the once the demo-libs won the price has been going up? - Can that be a protent of things to come?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
FastEd -- who the hell is t
November 16, 2006 - 15:39 ET by Jack BauerFastEd -- who the hell is the person who sets the price of donuts.
That's what I want to know! Is it Homer?
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
out box messages
November 16, 2006 - 13:38 ET by acumenI recall sitting back observing the wailing and gnashing of teeth by "unbiased" (but of course) pundits at the alphabets and CNN on the prior election eve of 2004 bemoaning that they just had not gotten their message out. Now we have a vivid illustration of just what 'getting the message out' meant.
Dem message - Iraq = not part of the war on terror, unwinnable, American body counts, torture. No issues put forth by Dems, just finger pointing - not a Dem plan to fight terrorism, make America better nor even the mention of the devestating economical effect associated with the Dem intentions to raise taxes. Dems honorable people.
Repub message - not a peep about the current government's success at providing the financial incentives (read lowering taxes) to build our current robust economy in the middle of a war. Not a mention of no terrorist attacks on our homeland in five years. Not a peep about new allied governments such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya in the volatile Middle East. No, Repubs just want to eavesdrop on American phone calls. Repubs corrupt.
In short, nothing bad about the Dems coupled by doom and gloom about the Repubs. The "message" sure sounded like news but was no more than a long-running political add for the Dems wreaking of desperation - Republicans suck, vote Democratic.
On this election eve I have to ask myself who is more at fault for the obvious estab media success of 'getting the message out? Those who relentlessly publish this lopsided political message or those that buy it hook, line and sinker making it possible to do so? I guess I will have to wait until 2008 to find out.
You burn me once shame on you, you burn me twice shame on me - Some old saying by somebody
acumen --who is responsible??
November 16, 2006 - 13:56 ET by misterbillacumen --who is responsible?? I say both parties are reponsible. Analyze some of your friends and acquaintances. See how many of them are willing to spend any time to determine the truths of what they see and hear. They are guilty through passive acceptance. Let me give you an example. My son and his girl friend watch Stewart and Colbert regularly. Ask them and they will tell you it is only comedy. Then ask them a question about any issue, war, economy,etc. They reply with whatever they heard on those shows. They believe that American collateral damage in Iraq is the major source of deaths there. While they don't malign the troops (I get quite heated at even a hint of that) they still believe that if we pull the troops out tomorrow, all the deaths and destruction will cease.
I said it years ago and I still say it, television's lies and evil outweigh it's contributions.
Its the Liberal Political Cor
November 16, 2006 - 14:51 ET by Ten7sIts the Liberal Political Correctness, Multiculturalism mantra that they've learned in school, and it doesn't take any more than a couple of Bozos like Stewart and Colbert to reinforce the Leftist Boilerplate that they have seared in their minds. They were taught not to think, reason, and carefully examine facts, but to reflexively blame any and every problem on the nearest American, Western, and/or White element in the equation.
Ugly Americans
November 16, 2006 - 15:11 ET by misterbillIt was easy to get caught up in that thought process somewhere around the start of the 60s. They even made a movie with that name. The book was written in 1958 and the movie was released in 1963. We had made a lot of mistakes in SE Asia. I was almost ready to jump on the band wagon and then I thought about the Marshall Plan and all the good and kind things America was doing to help those who would have conquered us, if they could. Maybe one had to be as old as I am to recognize those facts. Sure, we were a little arrogant. What the hell, we didn't start the fight but we damned well finished it! And then America being what it is, we turned theother cheek and helped the world to rebuild. Almost all of the resources came from us. Then these little girly men came along and looked at those heroes of WW2 and didn't like what they saw. They chose, like a bad political campaign , to malign those who came before them and to try to build a new America much in the image of a vanquished Europe. Why? You tell me! It is still going on and is even stronger. They have infected our school with their teachings. We are turning out students who hate America. We have populated the teaching ranks of our colleges with spewers of lies, hate and animosity about and for America. There should be a law that hatred for America is a crime that is punishable by exile or deportation to a country they will love. (I challenge you to find one, that is, excluding Canada). We will wind up fighting our last war of a United States right here in America.
The MsM was the beneficiary of some bad leadership...
November 16, 2006 - 19:21 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasI don't fully agree that the MsM won on this one, at least not to the tune that they were the ones that moved the voters in the most significant way. The pendulum swings and historically this is inevitable. No one stays on top forever and every dog has his day. The MsM has been functioning as the cheerleader of the libs and super-libs for years and no matter the all out assualt often had dismal results. This time they had the help of the failure of some significant conservative leaders. Give it some time...and we'll see where the MsM in two years.
I am a member of LSCA (Lazy Spell Checkers Anonymous).
It's the Media stupid!
November 16, 2006 - 20:14 ET by 25yrvetAbsolutely the MSM won the election for the Dems. Unfortunately the GOP is not getting it and until they all treat the media like Lynn Chaney does, 2008 will be another disaster. Lewisky wasn't about sexual harassment laws or perjury, it was a private matter. This year wasn't about the booming economy, wage increases, home ownership, numerous thwarted terrorist attacks, etc. No, it was about a quagmire in Iraq. Sadly the GOP let them get away with it. They need to learn to spend 30 seconds answering the MSM's loaded & biased questions and then get across their own message. Challenge the media on it's bias, put them on the defensive, pull away the curtain for the public to see. Had they done this, they'd still be in the majority. How many republicans were asked about Bush's low poll numbers for the economy? Dozens and they all said the same thing, "oh, folks are focused on Iraq". Wrong answer! The only answer is "well, since the economy is obviously booming for everyone, clearly, this poll reflects the media's very poor performance in reporting how great the economy is". Then follow it up with how the MSM covered the Clinton economy. Is that too much to ask? They need to get off the talking points and stop regurgitating the same line (think "stay the course") and start making the news, not responding to the media's spin of the news