Will The Media Matter In The 2008 Election?

I am on record as saying the Media is basically irrelevant on how the American People perceive the Iraq Debacle. That Beltway Dems do not fully appreciate this is true but I think they listen to them a lot less than they used to. But is this true for the 2008 election? Let's hope so, because otherwise, we are hostage to this type of mindset, as digby documents:

If anyone thought that it would be possible to re-run the flip-flop campaign against the Massachusetts politician in the race this time, think again:
STODDARD: You know, I really think this is not a big deal. I think that he is entitled to his quirky tastes. I think that he is a habitual flip-flopper, and has religious conversions on everything that comes out of his mouth, and he changes his mind so much now that people don’t even notice.

. . . The reporter who made those comments, A.B.Stoddard, is often on MSNBC these days. . . . Call me crazy but this sounds like a person we can depend on to keep us apprised of all the latest beltway CW. Mitt's flip-flopping is not going to be an issue.


But never fear that the political press is going to get carried away and stop with the tabloid, armchair psychoanalysis and character semiotics.

STODDARD: No, and I also think that this is just one of those stories that people remember. I don`t think that they are going to remember Battlefield Earth as much as you and Peter [Fenn] think. But I actually think that 400 dollar haircuts and having too many airplanes waiting for you on the tarmac and preferring one cabin configuration over the other is excessive, and people remember it. It’s really, really hard to explain.
Changing your position on the right to abortion and gay rights is easily understood, but a millionaire getting an expensive haircut and a constantly travelling politician having a preference of cabin is really hard to explain.

God help us if this type of idiocy matters in 2008. The Media is so terrible, so incompetent that I trust they will have a very diminished influence. I remember Stoddard being very pessimistic about Dems' chances in 2006 so I think there is hope.

< Paris Hilton Sentenced to 45 Days in Jail | From Pet Food to Chicken >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    BTD, whence this new-found (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:21:36 AM EST

    I'd like to think most likely voters will ignore the type of media the DKers and LeftWingers abhor, but even the DKers and LeftWingers diligently watch TV news and news programs. As a juror reminded me yet again recently, people today like short segments and with plenty of stuff to look at.  

    Actually, I'm hoping you will join the op-ed writers to get your excellent points to a wider audience.  

    Replace "LeftWingers" with (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:40:51 AM EST

    To Big Tent (none / 0) (#1)
    by Green26 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:13:04 AM EST
    For the readers like me who are not nearly as smart as you (as you have pointed out in a different thread today), could you explain your point in this thread in a sentence or two?

    Previous Experience (none / 0) (#4)
    by koshembos on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:55:04 AM EST
    Your hypothesis that the media doesn't matter in presidential election is strongly supported by the 2000 presidential election.

    The country was in a delicious state; Clinton's popularity was close to 70%. Yet, the media claimed that Clinton is a liability to Gore; they stick to that nonsense even today. Gore and his advisers strongly believed the media, i.e. Clinton is a liability and, in effect, Gore was running away from Clinton.

    Gore lost all of the 20% Clinton had, since the majority of voters liked Clinton. Gore's media driven thinking let Bush get very close, enough for Scalia to make a difference.

    (Gore is not running anymore, but his former advisers still work and continue to damage other Democratic campaigns.)

    Probably, the nature of a story will matter. (none / 0) (#5)
    by walt on Sat May 05, 2007 at 03:51:55 AM EST
    Exaggerated for effect: if any candidate is found or caught or outed in connection with a dead blonde female or a live male consort, then the media sharks will draw blood, bigtime.  A bribery or corruption story could hit a nerve, also.

    Wonkery? not so much except on one issue--the Iraq debacle, disaster, failed occupation, crude oil theft, etc.  If enterprising reporters can develop ledes on Iraq, they will have "legs" with the USA voters.  Also, if a huge snafu takes place, ("somebody" sinks a ship or downs a C-17), then the party-specific fallout could be a total wipe-out for candidates with stupid comments or false responses, etc.

    Economics/financials? possibly for that percentage of the voters who are tied to stocks & bonds, personally, for their retirements (read IRA, 401k & Keogh plan participants).  These folks follow their own specific news closely.  It is unfortunate that Lou Dobbs gets a following out of this group & peddles his other mis-information to them.

    BigTentDemocrat is right-on except for a big, juicy scandal story that can drag out.  There are some meaningful percentages of the voters that may be affected by other very specific issues.  Mostly, though, the media are non-starters.  The lame stream media has lower poll ratings than Shooter Cheney.

    Hope (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 05, 2007 at 08:56:53 AM EST
    Well, we can always hope some media type will suck up a fake memo and be pushed out to pasture...