As I was watching the 'Super Tuesday' results on MSNBC, and about to watch John Kerry make his speech, they announced at about 6pm p.s.t, that John Edwards was gonna quit the race tomorrow afternoon. The thought then crossed my mind; Is making announcements like this, before all the polls have closed, having a good or bad effect on the voters and the race in general? I mean granted, Kerry was the favorite going into today's primaries, but what if there was no lock for the nomination? What if (forgive me for plugging my state) California was gonna decide the nomination? The polls close here at 8pm p.s.t. Chris Matthews made the announcement at 6pm. Wouldn't that effect the way some would vote?

Also, look at the general elections in November (mind you the electoral college has a hand in here as well). By the time people are getting off work to vote at aboy 5:30, 6pm, the media is already touting who won. And as 2000 showed us, they can screw up, too. What if the tout one person as winning, when it's not the case? Then, people on the west coast, Alaska and Hawaii are like, 'damn, guess my vote is useless'.

Long story short, do you think that the media can influence or dare I say, sway an election? Do situations have a negative effect on the voter turnout, there by having an effect on the race?

Your thoughts, gripes, complaints.....

I don't think it's that big a deal as it relates to elections for national office. We only vote for the President and Vice-President and, historically, I've found the broadcast media to be fairly circumspect in declaring state results from exit poles. Remember the "too close to call" states in prior national elections?

The problem that I see is that if a voter's primary reason for making it to the poles is to vote for a presidential candidate and hears that it's "all over" he or she may stay home.

It's almost impossible to see this affecting the national outcome but what about things that should really matter? Like, statewide and local candidates and issues. A vote for city councilman may well have more real impact for the voter. The voter may be cutting off his foot to save his little toe by note showing up!

The real problem is the leftwing bias in the elite media in the months leading up to an election. Even democrats (rational ones that is) have to recognize that this does more to disenfranchise Middle America than any other single issue. If you were going to accept their rhetoric of last few months you'd already be planning a vacation on November 2nd rather than planning to vote!

Youre right about the bias offwind, and I suppose Im offering the worst case scenario, but I feel (and I imagine a lot on the west coast feel the same) that the media can negatively effect the election, at least for us, by announcing things before the polls have closed here.

Now I could do a contrast on voter turnout from east to west, but I don't think anything would be conclusive enough to pin a chunk of blame on the media. But I will go on a limb and say that a lot of folks on the west coast probably think about this.

The media does affect the voter turnout because it will discourage people from voting if the voters believe their vote will not count. Unfortunately, in the era of competing news channels, this cannot be avoided. Every news channel has to try to provide news BEFORE the other news stations. Because of that, they have to work faster and make judgements before they probably should. This is something that really cannot be helped unless the news is regulated by the government.

I don't believe the media has a left wing bias. There are plenty of conservative channels, FOX News, and conservative news reporters, Jim O'Brien (I think), who provide both sides of the issue.

Just speaking of television will you argue that NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, AND PBS do not lean laughably far to the left? So that leaves FOX on the conservative side and even there they go further in the effort to provide balance than any of the others. And I haven't even mentioned the print media and won't!

Spend an hour looking at the Media Research Center website! Here's just one example of "self admission"

BTW, Welcome Aboard!

Manipulate media and election

Poll is a tool used to control American's mind. Intelligence(Feds) play the figure as they pleased because media is in their stronghold.

What good has Bush done? He started an injustice war in Iraq. He created a lot of enemies for US. He has a historical dificit in economy. He eroded civil liberty by "Patriot Act". Yet they still award him an approvement about 50% while actually should be below 30%. Because insider group need more war in Mid-east, and Bush follow their policy.

When American people realized war is not for the interest of US and choose Howard Dean as their candidate. The insider group throw out W. Clark to weaken Dean. As many people still don't know who Clark is, CNN has a poll said Clark could beat Bush and that his support leaded over other Demo candidates, just 2 days after Clark announced to join the campaign.

California recall started only 3 months after formal election while Governor G. Davis made no serious offense. When they want to steal the post of Governor to prepare for election 2004, they have Arnold to be their patsy. (There is one common character of Arnold and Clark: no politic experience, so they become perfect puppet) And this time CNN throw out a poll that Arnold has an approvement of 40% leading over Bustamante's 28%. (A sudden change from previous: Arnold 26%, Bustamante 28%) It's because McClintock will not pull out the campaign, to make the recall result reasonable, they gave a sudden boost poll result to justify Arnold's winning. (It is a fixed one)

American people are naive. When poll said so, they believe it. And seldom people tracking if there were cheating in election.(which is popular, people only noticed it when the result is too close such like what happened in florida.) That's why insider group could pick up Bush in 2000, and win mid-election in Minnisota. They will steal the post of California Governor this year and the election of 2004 as well.

This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligent covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.

Not sure whether this article belongs in this thread or not, but it does apply to the candidates' exposure to the voters via media communication...and sometimes too much of the wrong exposure is just as bad as not enough good exposure which can turn off the voters.

The article responds to the very much heated campaign rhetoric of Bush and Kerry and party members are growing concerned that it is getting so ugly that voters are going to protest by not voting which could be a disaster for the candidates. IMO, Election 2004 is going to require a record voter turnout.

Worries About Campaign's Tone Are Voiced on Both Sides
By NAT IVES

Published: March 21, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/21/politics...;partner=GOOGLE

What? I think the news truly is fair and balanced. Yes, even NBC, ABC, CBS... The election coverage has been overly fair. News segments focus on the primaries and then about a Bush policy. Back and forth, fifty-fifty.

You can read all you want from the Media Research Center about some blown-up ridculous left-wing scheme.

But, someone has still failed to convince me what the motive is for the media to lean left...I just don't see it. Please. Aren't the news channels just reporting what people want to see? And not trying to sway the public opinion of a nation?

Seriously? What motive would the media have to do this? Do you honestly think Peter Jennings wants to mold America into legions of liberal followers.

Give me a break. I am tired of this right-wing nonsense.

I believe the media definitely sways public opinion. Few Americans research political activities themselves; they consume virtually all of their information from the media. If the Times would write that George Bush punched an elderly women the day before the election, it is hard to argue that could completely change the results of the election. Of course it is a ridiculous idea that would never actually happen, but I think it shows how much power media elites enjoy.

ARTICLE ABOUT MEDIA AND ELECTIONS This gets pretty long in the tooth, but I found it to be somewhat interesting.

Titus, because of the Election 2000 debacle, I was under the impression that the media collectively agreed to suspend their winner projections and actual results charts for each state until that state's polls closed. How the moderators could suspend all projections and percentage tallies until all polls are closed nationwide...what would they talk about other than rehashing the past year's blistering campaign rhetoric! Now that's dangerous and more than enough to motivate voters to stay home or change their vote.

Could be that because it was a one party primary election...they eased up on their standard of conduct? The media better be in pristine form for the 2004 Election or there will be HELL-O to pay!

How could you not think that people with no political concern that see the images and stories in the LIBERAL media will not have the votes affected. Especially the .000001% of whats going on in Iraq.

I believe they can, but I honestly believe that they have never done so intentionally. In 2000, you had republicans who complained about the networks declaring Gore the winner early on and as a result, people staying home. You also had democrats who felt likewise, that they had been cheated as well. I don't see the media as being one large, monolithic creature. In the case of the above cited example(as well as Titus's remarks) the media merely tries to beat their opponents to the punch. The folks who listen and choose not to vote have no reason to blame the media-they should blame themselves.

I can't help but think of 2000 a lot while reading the beginning thread. I checked out books on the 2000 election by Jake Tapper, Bill Salmon, as well as some other guy. Tapper is somewhat liberal, Salmon whined and whined about how the other reporters didn't respect him(he works for the Washington Times & was the guy who broke the story about Gore canoeing down a river that was flooded intentionally to create a photo-op for him) The point?--even if you had a cabal of reporters who hate Bush, there will be more than one will pounce on Kerry and strengthen their credentials if they got the chance at a real news breaking story.

Media blocked Howard Dean

The tactic inside group used to pull down Howard Dean.

1. A negative propaganda against Dean before Primary. Dean got more criticism than any other Democratical candidates did.

2. Control Primary election. Justify the result by fake poll. (see message "Manipulate poll")

3. Media censorship. They decided to terminate Dean's campaign right from the begining of Primary by created an "Iowa surprise". After a short period of "hopeless" comment about Dean, Media censored the news of Dean and put the focus on Kerry. There is no reason for Kerry's sudden leap up. It's only the result of manipulation of media - the decision of inside group. When Dean announced his pull out, he was still the second leading candidate of Demo.

Quote, "Study: Network news criticizes Dean most
- - - - - - - - - - - -
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Jan. 16, 2004 | LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Howard Dean received significantly more criticism on network newscasts than the other Democratical contenders, who were the subjects of more favorable coverage, according to a study released Thursday.
The study found that 49 percent of the coverage of former Vermont Gov. Dean was positive, compared to 78 percent of the rest of the Democratic field, collectively.

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/01/16/dean_media/

The media has a major affect on elections. The media only talk to and about the candidates that they think will create a "horserace". They also can use either a very positive or negative slant when they do discuss a candidate. If the candidate is not in the top 2 or 3 of the running (by their opinion), then they don't discuss them at all. This has been going on for years.

In 1992, I was an election judge. On the ballot (Colorado), there were 8 presidential candidates. I had only seen/read about 3 of the candidates on a regular basis (Bush, Clinton, Perot). The other 5 candidates I had seen a PBS show (half hour or hour long) that discussed these third party candidate about a month before the election Think about the amount of air time the Republicans and Democrats get before an election.

The media has a strong influence on the primaries, especially since the primaries for individual states are on different days. Many times the primaries will have 5-10 candidates at the start of the first state's primary, but will have less than 3 candidates by the time the 10th state has its primary. (It occurs to both the Democrat or Republican parties.) It irritates me because when I've watch some of the early debates, there usually is one or two candidates that I feel would be a strong president. By the time I get a chance to vote, they are no longer on the ballot, because they weren't covered equally or fairly by the media. Maybe its just I like the candidates are not professional politician (10+ years as a politician).

What I mean by "equally or fairly" is reports based on facts, including the candidate's stance/opinion/plans on an issue, candidate's political history (voting record), and areas of potential political influence (PAC money), and covered equally over time or lines in written media.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if there wasn't an electoral college and the media covered all of the candidates on the ballot equally and fairly. A third party could win if Americans are tired of politics as usual.

I came to believe that the media can affect the outcome of an election when Jimmy Carter conceded before the California polls had even closed. It's best not to totally buy into what the election reporters are saying with their "projected" wins. As long as voters are human, there will be some surprises.

I agree that it is unfair the way Howard Dean was treated after the Iowa caucus decided for Kerry. Ideally, voters should read the newspapers and listen to the speeches without the editorializing in order to make up their minds. There will never be a shortage of people who are willing to tell others what to think and do.

I disagree with the statement that the news media necessarily has a liberal bias. Perhaps the majority of journalists do, but the big bosses like Rupert Murdoch don't, with the notable exception of Ted Turner. And in nearly any corporation middle and upper management is pretty conservative.

There are networks that do try harder to present an unbiased picture. Then there's the Fox Network...

I suppose that those who feel that television especially is too biased towards the left can always tune into talk radio as an antidote.

Media control goes both ways. Consider that tonight, high-paying donors in the media will be able to make a decision for the people as to whether or not they will hear Nightline's tribute to the fallen of Iraq. No, the people can't determine themselves as to whether or not they will watch Nightline(it regularly loses out to Letterman) we can't have that. We must have big-wigs determine what the rest of us poor peasants see and hear. So much for the first amendment.

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.a...t2000=Y&Order=N

Titus

I believe there is a federal law on the books (since before the 2000 election) That forbids news outlets from reporting Exit polls and voting results until election polls are closed through out the nation.

In either the 1992 or 19996 election presidential election, the results of East Coast voting and Network projections vertually ended voting on the West coast hours before the polls closed.

So yes the networks can and have had an effect on voting.

1SG

Media deception

How media issued polls to manipulate the sentiment of American people?

To block Howard Dean to become a real rival to Bush, inside group has thrown out Wesley Clark and John Kerry one after another. To help these puppets to win over Dean in Democrate's primary, CNN-USA Today Gallop in early October, 2003, had a poll (49% vs 46%) said Clark was the only one who could beat Bush. Then in January, it gave a similar poll said Kerry was the only one who could beat Bush.

And it's interesting to reveiew other media's poll at that time when they tried to justify Kerry's victory over Dean.

Re: "Kerry's standing has strengthened not only against his Democratic rivals but also against Bush. For the first time, he clearly defeats the president in a head-to-head matchup, 53% to 46%. By 63% to 24%, those surveyed say Kerry would be a good president.(USA TODAY, 2/2/2004)

Re: 52 Percent of Voters Don't Want to See Bush Re-Elected (44% Do), 37 Percent Strongly Want to See Him Re-Elected, 47 Percent Strongly Do Not. (Newsweek Poll , Saturday January 24,)

Now watch the dramatic change of the poll. They were done after Howard Dean was pulled down from Demo's primary.

Fox's Last-night poll says: "45% Bush to 45% Kerry" (2/21)

Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows George W. Bush attracting 47% of the nation's likely voters while John F. Kerry is the choice for 45%. (2/21)

Same USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll said in April that "The survey, taken Friday through Sunday, shows Bush ahead 50% to 44% among likely voters......The president's job-approval rating was steady at 52%."

What happened from February to April which boost Bush's approve rate?

Paul O'Neill, Richard A. Clarke, revealed Bush from the beginning decided to invade Iraq. WMD, "democracy" is only an excuse.

The insurgence of Fallujah, and insurgence of Shiite revealed Bush's "war on Iraq" is becoming a quagmire for US.

All these proved Bush is a dishonest man, an incompetent president. Yet all these nagative things boost his rate. Please tell me I may missed something Bush did good in this period. Otherwise review what media said and polled and to see how inside group control the mind of American people.

They control US by media and intelligence. They justify rigged election (through intelligence) by fake poll (media). They even turn negative things into positive. To maintain the approve rate of a patsy president always around 50%. Despite how notorious he is. All to make sure they will have him a second term.