Has the media's attacks on Dean been over the top?

If you think for so much as a second that there was anything unpresidential about Dean's clip, go here...

http://www.idiomstudio.com/

This is the unfiltered version of the clip. The clip aired on tv is one where the audiences sounds were deliberately muted. Considering the context of the speech and the environment, there was NOTHING wrong with it.



I vote yes... here is why...

Over the past few weeks, the media has vehemently and insidiously attacked Dean.

They repeatedly stated that what was nothing more than a cheery pep rally was a display of anger. When Dean left the Martin Luther King rally saying that all the reporters hounding him with questions were disrupting it, he was repeatedly portrayed as the bad guy. When Dean tried to drown out the heckler by singing the national anthem, he was never portrayed positively for this by the media. Instead it was portrayed as though he was the only one singing when the whole auditorium was up in the air singing. When Dean said that he can't balance the budget, offer up healthcare, reform education and still keep the tax cuts intact, he was repeatedly criticized for it while no mention was made of how the other candidates were promising things they couldn't possibly deliver.

Dean's pep rally was not a display of anger, it was a display of enthusiasm meant to raise the spirits of dejected volunteers. The world was not made any safer by Saddam's capture. All candidates try to appeal to the south by talking more openly about their religious beliefs. The reporters knew that Dean was not being rude by leaving the Martin Luther King rally stating that the media hounding him was disrupting the rally. The Iowa caucuses ARE dominated by special interests. Dean simply states outright what politicans and journalists already know to be true.

But the media (both conservative and liberal) has consistently failed to present both sides of the story in all these cases. They repeatedly attacked Dean for these statements when they had an obligation to present both sides of the story and knew in their hearts that Dean was right.

Dean was forced on the defensive by these blatant media attacks. He said that he does intend to reform the tax system. He amended his statement to say that while the world is better off with Saddam gone, the US isn't safer because of it. After repeatedly being attacked for it days before the Iowa caucus, Dean said that was a long time ago and that he intends to make sure the caucuses start in Iowa in 2008 as well. And for this, the media portrayed him as a flip flopper that can't be trusted.

If anything it is Kerry, Clark and Edwards that now say they disagreed with a war that they spoke and voted in favor of. It was them that started out as moderate mini versions of Bush until Dean became popular and they were forced to coopt his stances and make them into their own.

I am not saying that the media was wrong to cover these stories so extensiverly. I am saying it was wrong to consistently fail to present both sides when Dean's reasons for his statements were so obvious. Whatever happened to journalistic integrity.

there are a great many reasons why all of the mainstream media would be hurt by a Dean presidency. He has promised to break up the media conglomerations. He has accused the media of failing to do it's job of presenting the complete truth about Iraq and the WMDs. And the people on the DNC that Dean is criticizing made most of the few liberal hosts on the media what they are. Whether the influence of this is concious or subconcious, it's never the less present.