Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just finished reading the book Reality Show which, despite its stupid title, is about the national news anchors (Gibson, Couric, Williams) on ABC, CBS and NBC. The book was written by Howard Kurtz who is the media reporter for the Washington Post and the host of some CNN show called Reliable Sources.
Something in the book bothered me (and I only watch cable news so I'm not sure why I even read this book) a lot but I think this is important.
It says the media makes a deliberate attempt to narrow the presidential race to only two candidates on each side because it's better FOR THEM. It says they don't have the inclination or the attention span to deal with 20 candidates and that a two person race is easier to package and cheaper to cover so they attempt to perform a "classic winnowing function" and they do this by providing airtime to their preferred contenders and as the author says, depriving others of oxygen. It's on page 367 if you need to check.
And they wonder why we hate them and don't trust them? This is a Democrat AND Republican issue. This book is saying ABC, NBC and CBS decide who the top two candidates in each party will be and stiff all of the other candidates. Who the heck are they to decide who the two candidates will be in each party in order to put on a better show? This totally disgusts me!
I'm also thinking because the 3 cable news networks have 24 hours to fill, they don't play these same games but I could be wrong.
Last edited by LauraC; 11-12-2007 at 10:19 AM..
Reason: grammar
Welcome to Big Business and Corrupted Politicians... its no wonder that the two politicians they choose are the most easily corrupted. If anything, there should be warning bells when the media "over-publicized" a candidate, its NO accident. Its a wonder when a candidate trips and falls that they get more press coverage then a candidate who receives record-breaking donations... you have to wonder..
This sounds like a good book. Occasionally, I read Howard Kurtz's columns. I believe I saw him on MSNBC pushing the book. The media also likes to promote close races. I'm paying less and less attention to all the cable news shows because they just keep repeating the same story over and over again. I'd rather read it via newspaper or internet.
In reality, television news has no business trying to decide who should get the most air time, that is, if they are trying to be objective and balanced. But they aren't. They push the puppets to the front and push everyone else back until eventually they fade away. A lot of people have not even heard of any candidates outside of Guiliani, Romney, McCain, Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. I'm amazed anytime I mention a different candidate and people are like "who's that?" and have zero clue who I'm talking about.
I just finished reading the book Reality Show which, despite its stupid title, is about the national news anchors (Gibson, Couric, Williams) on ABC, CBS and NBC. The book was written by Howard Kurtz who is the media reporter for the Washington Post and the host of some CNN show called Reliable Sources.
Something in the book bothered me (and I only watch cable news so I'm not sure why I even read this book) a lot but I think this is important.
It says the media makes a deliberate attempt to narrow the presidential race to only two candidates on each side because it's better FOR THEM. It says they don't have the inclination or the attention span to deal with 20 candidates and that a two person race is easier to package and cheaper to cover so they attempt to perform a "classic winnowing function" and they do this by providing airtime to their preferred contenders and as the author says, depriving others of oxygen. It's on page 367 if you need to check.
And they wonder why we hate them and don't trust them? This is a Democrat AND Republican issue. This book is saying ABC, NBC and CBS decide who the top two candidates in each party will be and stiff all of the other candidates. Who the heck are they to decide who the two candidates will be in each party in order to put on a better show? This totally disgusts me!
I'm also thinking because the 3 cable news networks have 24 hours to fill, they don't play these same games but I could be wrong.
Keep in mind that ABC, NBC and CBS are LIBERAL and ELITIST and therefore they feel like they can "decide" who the top two candidates in each party will be.
What the elite media does is to hammer every candidate that they don't "choose" and praise whatever candidate they like.
This goes to show you ho corrupt the liberal establishment media is. That is why I only watch Fox News.
Ron paul has a chance. I wouldn't write him off if I were you. Look at history and will show you even recently, the underdog can come out the champion. Howard Dean was the chosen one for 2004 and kerry was forgotten about...
I'm still voting for ron paul, I encourage everyone that agree's with ron paul does the same.
I see many of the second tier candidates and wonder why they are not as popular. Like Chris Dodd or Joe Biden, they seem as impressive as anyone else and have alot of experience. For some reason the media likes minorities and women this time.
Keep in mind that ABC, NBC and CBS are LIBERAL and ELITIST and therefore they feel like they can "decide" who the top two candidates in each party will be.
What the elite media does is to hammer every candidate that they don't "choose" and praise whatever candidate they like.
This goes to show you ho corrupt the liberal establishment media is. That is why I only watch Fox News.
See. I didn't come away with that conclusion. I came away with the conclusion that they "select" the two candidates from each party who will put on a better show (are the most entertaining) for their crappy biased half hour national newscasts that are really only 18 minutes long sans commercials.
You know, a woman and an African American are exciting competition so Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich get shut out. If they think a Mormon and America's mayor might put on the best show, then they give Rudy and Mitt all of the attention. It doesn't matter if another Republican might make a better President, if THEY find him dull to cover or the competition between candidates to be dull to cover.
I have a feeling that's why Fred Thompson and John Edwards are getting the bum's rush from them. They're looking for Mr/Mrs Excitement FOR THEIR NEWSCASTS. John McCain was their best bud in the other election and now they're selling him as old and dull (nothing to do with his stance on issues). Ask yourself - "Fire in the belly" is a term of whose making? As long as Elizabeth Edwards was out there slugging away, John Edwards had some appeal. Now they've kissed him off. They've already pronounced Huckabee as the VP in waiting.
Well, the amount of news time allocated by the three networks is very limited, so I can see the focus on major candidates. Regarding their "selecting" the candidates, I don't think that really works. Had that been the case, they would need to cooperate to do this, and I doubt that occurs. The owners of the networks don't exactly get along with each other.
If this was the case, don't you think that John McCain would be one of the top two candidates on the Republican side? If you look at the Republican Party, we really have four competitive candidates, Rudy, Fred, Mitt and McCain. It hasn't narrowed to two even after all of this time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.