Edwards running against the Media

While Hillary Clinton quietly acknowledges the huge problem of most of the So-Called-Liberal-Media being in reality a Republican-Noise-Machine, Edwards campaign has made this issue a fund-raising strength on the Internet.

All of the Democratic candidates have come in for their share of biased media articles that translate into silly talking points for conservative radio and TV clowns. Even Obama has the false AP story putting Drudge and fellow travelers on his case today for stating the obvious, using nuclear weapons to go after terrorists is insane and not on the table. The idiotic clowns will play this up creating a false story that "Obama will never use nuclear weapons."

The Republicans use this tactic of attention getting headlines with a lack of substance behind it counting on half the people only getting the headlines. Then these false headline talking points are transformed into a narrative that reporters or the right-wing pundits will continue when similar stories come up. So on a basis of false stories in the media Al Gore was transformed into a habitual liar for the 2000 campaign.

It is Edwards who now has made the attacks on him a campaign issue and takes this campaign mostly to the Internet where the new alternatives to mass media reside. In addition to his Hair video created for the YouTube debate, the campaign has also responded to attacks from The New York Times reporters and other main stream media.

Under the heading "Haircuts and hatchet jobs," Edwards aide Jonathan Prince wrote supporters about the threat the "Washington establishment" feels from Edwards and added a cutting postscript about an article the campaign found unfair.

"Last week, The New York Times ran a story suggesting that it was wrong for John to have spent the last three years raising awareness of poverty and advocating for solutions. As if there's any way to draw attention to poverty without publicity! And to make matters worse, the reporter just refused to even talk with any of the people who benefited," he wrote. "So we really need your help to get our message out; please, give what you can today."

Elizabeth Edwards has delivered her own criticism of mainstream media outlets, most recently differing strongly with a Slate story in that site's comments section.

John Edwards isn't the only Democrat using perceived media transgressions to raise money. Clinton's top adviser on women's issues, Ann Lewis, last week sent an e-mail to supporters in response to a Washington Post article examining the issue of Clinton's chest.

"Would you believe that The Washington Post wrote a 746-word article on Hillary's cleavage?" she asked. "Now, I've seen some off-topic press coverage, but talking about body parts? That is grossly inappropriate."

The e-mail asked supporters to "take a stand" by giving money.

Media criticism by Democratic campaigns fits neatly with the current focus among some influential liberal thinkers on criticizing the establishment media.

So bloggers who point out that the mass mainstream media is now often a Republican dominated corporate protection racket are "influential liberal thinkers." Wow, it must be true, even the National Review is bleating over our vast power over Democratic politicians, while the right Internet and pundits are directed and coordinated from DC and the White House. I can live with my and fellow left bloggers vast influence, are conservatives happy that everything they see and hear is coordinated in secret meetings and daily faxes and emails out of Washington?

Way to go Edwards, let's try to knock the wheels off of the Noise Machine train.

Tags: SCLM, MSM, RNM, Edwards