Say a candidate made a statement that hurt their campaign. If the candidate ran again how could they

[BigJerr]

deflect from that statement?

I'm thinking specifically of Dean's statement that he would re-regulate the media. How could he ameliorate that statement? If he is asked again he could say that "the media has greatly improved since the end of the Bush Administration so it's not necessary now and it's off the table; or words to those effects.

Are there any other examples from other candidates?

[dgdavisjr]

Perhaps Dean could remind people of this:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

And talk about how far the media has strayed from it's roots and meaning, particularly in some aspects of the broadcast media.

[RoseVann]

If he is asked again he could say that "the media has greatly improved since the end of the Bush Administration so it's not necessary now and it's off the table; or words to those effects.

Has it? If he says that it's changed, he'll have to explain why in a way that doesn't sound partisan. IOW, he couldn't come out and say the media didn't ask the hard questions under Bush but they are under Obama without sounding like he's whining. As it stands, that explanation could hold for the Democratic primaries. But should he win, he would have to appeal to the general population, and certainly the topic would come up again.

[BigJerr]

Has it? If he says that it's changed, he'll have to explain why in a way that doesn't sound partisan. IOW, he couldn't come out and say the media didn't ask the hard questions under Bush but they are under Obama without sounding like he's whining. As it stands, that explanation could hold for the Democratic primaries. But should he win, he would have to appeal to the general population, and certainly the topic would come up again.

I agree. But, the question is should he lie. With a wink and a nod?

[N.U.]

I wouldn't step back from the statement. It's much easier to "redefine" a statement than amend/change it in the current political atmosphere.

[webhead]

deflect from that statement?

I'm thinking specifically of Dean's statement that he would re-regulate the media. How could he ameliorate that statement? If he is asked again he could say that "the media has greatly improved since the end of the Bush Administration so it's not necessary now and it's off the table; or words to those effects.

Are there any other examples from other candidates?

The media, as a whole, has not improved since the end of the Bush administration. When I read the word "re-regulate", I think of the need to weed out those "new generation" programs and newsman. "New Generation" represents a shift in credibility from those news anchors of the 1960's and 1970's such as Huntley & Brinkley and Walter Cronkite.

Limbuagh, FOX, Beck, Hannity and the others are not "NEWS ANCHORS"! They comment on the news, they do not report without bias what has happened in the news day.

If there is a need for re-regulation, it is to properly name the program as a news program or a commentary program.

[BigJerr]

I wouldn't step back from the statement. It's much easier to "redefine" a statement than amend/change it in the current political atmosphere.

Thank you. I'm trying to figure out the best way to Dean could get around that statement on re-regulating the media he made in 2003 on Hardball. There's got to be a way to soften it up rather than backtracking. Yours is a good idea.


The media, as a whole, has not improved since the end of the Bush administration. When I read the word "re-regulate", I think of the need to weed out those "new generation" programs and newsman. "New Generation" represents a shift in credibility from those news anchors of the 1960's and 1970's such as Huntley & Brinkley and Walter Cronkite.

Limbuagh, FOX, Beck, Hannity and the others are not "NEWS ANCHORS"! They comment on the news, they do not report without bias what has happened in the news day.

If there is a need for re-regulation, it is to properly name the program as a news program or a commentary program.

I do agree with you. The problem is that statement Dean made that many feel sank his campaign on re-regulating the media. The reason why I say "it's not needed", with a wink-wink, is maybe the media might forgive him. :loco: Say "they've been better about questioning, etc." It's just for the purposes of getting elected. Then get him.

[webhead]

Thank you. I'm trying to figure out the best way to Dean could get around that statement on re-regulating the media he made in 2003 on Hardball. There's got to be a way to soften it up rather than backtracking. Yours is a good idea.



I do agree with you. The problem is that statement Dean made that many feel sank his campaign on re-regulating the media. The reason why I say "it's not needed", with a wink-wink, is maybe the media might forgive him. :loco: Say "they've been better about questioning, etc." It's just for the purposes of getting elected. Then get him.

I think the media stressed Dean's scream, and negatively categorized his scream. This moment in the Dean campaign, and how the news media reported his scream was the catalyst that ended Dean's run.

At the time, I thought the media were grossly exaggerating the scream. It was unfair. Dean certainly has a more complete understanding of the issues than Palin, yet Palin is the darling of the news media because the news media believes Palin can draw viewers better than Dean.

This leads to the point that in yesterday's corporate world, the news departments were not required to be a profit center. News departments consistently were operating at a loss at a time when the news departments held credibility. Once the news departments were forced to make a profit, they became less news and more entertainment in order to draw higher ratings.

If one wishes news to be more honest and truthful, then the news departments must be operated as not-for-profit businesses. like NPR & PBS!

[BigJerr]

I think the media stressed Dean's scream, and negatively categorized his scream. This moment in the Dean campaign, and how the news media reported his scream was the catalyst that ended Dean's run.

At the time, I thought the media were grossly exaggerating the scream. It was unfair. Dean certainly has a more complete understanding of the issues than Palin, yet Palin is the darling of the news media because the news media believes Palin can draw viewers better than Dean.

This leads to the point that in yesterday's corporate world, the news departments were not required to be a profit center. News departments consistently were operating at a loss at a time when the news departments held credibility. Once the news departments were forced to make a profit, they became less news and more entertainment in order to draw higher ratings.

If one wishes news to be more honest and truthful, then the news departments must be operated as not-for-profit businesses. like NPR & PBS!

Thanks.