--- John Thornton <jthorn65 at mchsi.com> wrote:
> Can you document that peoples "huge negatives, more
> so than other
> candidates" (your words about Dean) preceded the
> negative publicity in the
> national media? How many voters saw him up close?
> From 120 feet away
> listening to a speech and seeing him on TeeVee
> hardly seem like up close. I
> don't know exactly why the media seemed to turn on
> Dean. Probably a slow
> week and the "Dean Hothead" story requires no effort
> to write. Most people
> don't have really strong opinions about these
> candidates so swaying people
> a little more or less in one direction hardly seems
> a monumental task. It
> isn't as if anyone claimed with the right
> advertising one could turn a nun
> into an axe murderer. I think, but I could be quite
> mistaken, that you're
> projecting your opinion of Dean on others. Just like
> you, they now see him
> for what he is and dislike him, thus reinforcing
> your opinion of the
> rightness of your decision.
> The idea that the media works mainly by keeping
> people from accessing info
> is laughable. The media defines what is acceptable
> for debate and what is
> not keeping the range within a narrow window. Maybe
> you don't think it's
> the medias job to drum up support for war in other
> lands and on crime, and
> on the poor but that's one of its main job, not
> suppressing info. I must be
> out of touch, I thought this was a pretty well
> accepted description, within
> progressive circles, of the function of media in the
> late 20th century.
> Maybe I need to get out more.
>
> John Thornton
>
> >But my point in specific was about Dean. This
> wasn't a
> >generic advertising effect. People saw him up
> close,
> >he got much higher negatives than other candidates
> --
> >he abnnoyed people -- and he lost. I don't think
> this
> >can be attributed mainly to media brainwashing. I
> >think he lost in IA and NH because he failed
> impress
> >the voters who saw him close up. In my view. the
> media
> >effect mainly works by keeping info from people who
> >otherwise lack cheap or free access to ot (not
> >includinf just money costs, but also effort). But
> with
> >Dean. the caucus voters had the indormation/ They
> just
> >didn't like what they saw. jks
> >
> >--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> > > andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> > >
> > > >But I once again note that the assumption that
> most
> > > >people are pliable fools
> > >
> > > What is it with this binarist maximalism lately?
> > > People can be
> > > influenced by advertising and not be pliable
> fools.
> > > We're influenced
> > > by all kinds of things - why not ads, which are
> > > ubiquitous and often
> > > very cleverly done?
> > >
> > > Doug
> > > ___________________________________
> > >
>
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> >
> >__________________________________
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing
> online.
> >http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
> >___________________________________
>
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html