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.
Quote:The Phony Dean 'Meltdown'
New York-based Russ Baker is an award-winning journalist who covers politics and media.
The so-called Dean "meltdown," the claims that his campaign is finished, and his forced contrition are all symptoms of how debased the political dialogue has become.
It's true that Dean yelled at his Monday night rally in Iowa. And so what? Basically, at a pep rally, he yelled like a football coach. This is described as being "unpresidential." But says who? Besides, what's the definition of 'presidential?' Isn't giving insulting nicknames to world leaders unpresidential? Isn't sending hundreds of American soldiers to die for uncertain and misrepresented ends in Iraq unpresidential?-or worth considering as such? Isn't having an incredibly poor grasp of essential world facts and an aversion to detail and active decision making unpresidential?
As far as I can tell, the worst Howard Dean has done is to try to be himself. (And, when criticized for that, to show some willingness to alter his demeanor.) But neither of those is good enough for a media that smells a good story?-allegedly about personality, much more interesting than issues.
We saw and see nearly every news outlet playing the footage of the rally again and again. We see headlines in the less-cautious papers about Dean "imploding," and gleeful spin from Republican strategists that Dean is "finished."
From Slate magazine ("Mean Dean Loses Steam") to The New York Post ("Dean's Ballot-Box Conspiracy Theory"), it's all about painting him as unseemly, unstable and irrationally angry, rather than focusing on his ideas. And yet, carefully scrutinized, virtually everything the man has said accords with the beliefs and understanding of a significant portion of the American populace, and, significantly, of what has been reported in the media.
But once something like this "meltdown" story gets started, the media go into a kind of inexorable black hole, and the pull is so great it becomes hard for thinking journalists and editors to resist. And not just journalists. It takes extraordinary mettle for anyone in the limelight to resist this. Once the howl of the pack gets loud enough, questioning the seriousness of Dean's so-called 'problems' becomes tantamount to downplaying allegations against Michael Jackson.
Sometimes it's hard to remember, but presidents aren't primarily dinner party hosts or recruiting posters for perfection. They're supposed to be smart people who can make intelligent choices, mostly in private, that serve our interests. And they're supposed to be human.
Ed Muskie probably wouldn't have been a bad president, nor would George Romney or John McCain, all of whom got slammed for showing quintessentially human traits on the campaign trail. Muskie didn't like his wife being attacked; Romney admitted to having been "brainwashed" on Vietnam (obviously less so than those fellow GOPsters who couldn't admit their mistakes), and McCain was charmingly blunt if occasionally brutish. As each could attest, candor isn't a priority in this society. People want to hear what makes them feel good and safe and strong, no matter the reality.
As for Dean, one doesn't need to take sides to see that the treatment of this man is unbecoming of the media. It's also going to be seen in retrospect as colossally one-sided, not in any way balanced by comparable scrutiny or criticism of his rivals.
If anything, this affair is a kind of test. Dean seems too tough a customer to back out after such a setback. And the fact remains that he essentially still holds exactly the same constituency he did before. If his supporters keep their eye on the ball, if Dean refuses to be distracted or rattled, and if the media somehow manage to restrain their headlong rush into tabloid-land, this country may yet have a meaningful conversation on what really matters.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/98...9815/view/print
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.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace