The Media’s Soft Censorship of Edwards

Ignoring is a practical way to censor without the messy legal issues, and usually allows one to avoid inviting ethical criticism.  But the media’s censorship of Edwards is unmistakable (The Crone Speaks):

The Edwards campaign is coming close to drowning in a media black-out. Greg Sargent has the breakdown and analysis here.

Comes now some statistical evidence of this fact. The Project for Excellence in Journalism has released its latest campaign coverage index for January 6-11, a study that does its damndest to try to quantify which political figures are sucking up the most media oxygen and why.

It found that Edwards only got 7% of political coverage during those days — less than one-fifth of what Hillary earned, and less than one-forth of that accorded to Obama. Edwards even got less attention than Mike Huckabee, even though he, like Edwards, finished third in the New Hampshire primary.

The media has been trumpeting this as a Clinton Obama campaign from day one, and that has sculpted the terms of engagement and the nature of the game.  Cautious political investors who only pick “safe” stocks chose to send their money to Clinton or Obama depending on how much risk (aka “change”) they were willing to take.  Of course you have to have some opposition, or even Obama wouldn’t have garnered as much attention as he did (although part of that is likely due to someone on his team, perhaps the Senator, being quite media savvy).

So as hard as Edwards runs, and as well as he does in the debates, none of it matters, because the press won’t cover it, and voters won’t hear about it.

Isn’t it funny, how a staunch anti-corporate oligarchy candidate gets so little coverage?  Voters may not hear about Edwards himself much, but we are plenty aware of the corporatist mediaopoly.

Advertisements

3 Responses

  1. It would appear that we have something in common politically after all. Our chosen candidates have been deleted from memory by the people who really run the country. The media proves my point that there is no difference between the parties.

    One thing Edwards has in the media over Ron Paul is at least when he is sparsely mentioned it isn’t followed immediately with “he can’t win”.

  2. More on Edwards, Rupert Murdoch and media policy here:

    http://acropolisreview.com/2008/01/john-edwards-for-president_18.html

  3. The media censoring candidates does not prove there is no difference between them.

    Jake,
    You are a Rudy ” Giuliani fan. That link you’ve provided points to nothing of substance. In addition, it has nothing to do with Rupert Murdoch or media policy. Its just a lazy attempt to grab hits for an anti-Edwards anti-Democrats website.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: