There still seems to be some confusion as to what type of media coverage Howard Dean has received compared to John Kerry. It is true that Dean received far more coverage than Kerry, but it was far more negative.
The latest numbers from the Center for Media and Public Affairs, (a group that noted that W received considerably better coverage than Gore), are as follows:
Positive coverage from the 3 major networks:
In 2003
Dean 49%
Other Democrats 78%
in January up to Iowa
Dean 58%
Kerry 96%
Edwards 100%
in the One Week after Iowa
Dean 39%
Kerry 71%
Edwards 86%
For Democrats to say this simply didn't happen, after the same thing was done to Al Gore is incredible and dangerous. If Kerry supporters think that his positive coverage will be consistent until November they are dreaming. Regardless of which candidate you are for we need to be aware of the power of the media, and not just when it hurts our candidate.
The major news networks showed portions of Dean's I have a scream speech 633 times during the first four days after Iowa. Can anyone doubt that if the video of Kerry recently pretending to smoke pot would have been shown 633 times the race might be different right now? Can anyone doubt that if Dean had pretended to smoke a joint and Kerry had been strangely exuberant that the networks would have changed their priorities?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040208/ap_on_en_tv/ap_on_tv_dean_s_scream_1