ABC News says Dean messages hurt Dems

and fit the propaganda line of the the Repubs.

The June 18th story, labeled as 'analysis', is titled Frame Up? Dems, Dean Hit in Message War.  

Here's some snips from the story, which is almost unrelently negative regarding Dean's recent comments.

"We need to be blunt and clear about the things that we're going to fight for," he told Iowa Democratic leaders Saturday, according to the Des Moines Register. "People have criticized me for being blunt. I do that on purpose. I am tired of lying down."

So is it a strategy?

If so, it's misguided, said analysts contacted by ABCNEWS.com -- unless it's part of a Republican strategy.

[more in extended entry]

"The Republicans are attacking Howard Dean more than Howard Dean is attacking Republicans -- but the way the stories are being handled in the news media, everybody is assuming the opposite," said Anthony Pratkanis, co-author of "Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion," and a psychology professor at the University of California-Santa Cruz.

Experts on propaganda and political branding declared Republicans the winners of the dust-up over Dean's comments, calling Dean's attacks imprecise, poorly targeted and open to mischaracterization (Dean was forced to clarify several remarks once they were reported).

"The reason for this [Dean flap] is that you have Republican media people putting this stuff out -- combing through the speeches, taking out a quote and taking them out of context," said Lakoff, a self-styled "progressive" Democrat who was in the audience for Dean's "honest living" remark and feels it got mischaracterized in the media.

Whether the Dean controversy was fueled by Republicans framing Dean's comments or by the comments themselves, the attention paid to it may have revived a media portrayal of Howard Dean as a loose cannon, at a time of falling poll numbers for President Bush and the Republican agenda.

In other words, Pratkanis said, just as they stumbled, Republicans may have pitched a psychological message to future voters that, "We're all that keeps you from Howard Dean."

On the other hand, New York Post columnist John Podhoretz wrote June 14 that "it's not quite clear Republicans should be gleeful." The volatile Dean, he speculated, might be just the person to keep the most partisan, angry Democrats fired up for coming election cycles. Plus, he could prove valuable to moderate Democrats who scold him, "by defining the outer limit of his party."

"By talking crazy, he makes everybody else seem sane," Podhoretz wrote.

ABC's analyst apparently couldn't find a single person to defend Dean's comments and effectiveness.  Surprised?

•  Podvin explains

  ready or not, here comes the truth

  http://makethemaccountable.com/podvin/more/050617_Realpolitik.htm

  by Alice Marshall on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 08:58:53 AM PDT

  •  Podvin

    Just wanted to thank you for the link to an excellent article - I will have to read more of Podvin.

    by anotherCt Dem on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:06:04 AM PDT

  •  A great intro quote from Podvin:

    "The game of American politics is played by inverting reality. Dean knows it, as do the millions of fringe people who support him, so the chairman and his fans have decided that the sick little game is over. In its place is a different game called "Ready Or Not Here Comes The Truth". The introduction of this exciting new contest has dismayed conservatives and corporate journalists and establishment liberals alike. Right wingers and their sycophants despise being confronted with truth, which is understandable given that it reflects so negatively upon them."

    by TX Unmuzzled on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:14:43 AM PDT

    •  Which of course

      explains why the corporate press is once again on the attack. They thought they killed him in Iowa, and are none to pleased to see him rise again. The continual attacks are the best sign that Dean is doing a great job, and they are freaking out.

      by PLS on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:43:44 AM PDT

      •  if we wind up with the White House

        and Congress in 2008, one of the things that needs to be done early is undoing the various laws that have permitted the concentration of media ownership we see now that makes it so easy for them to speak with a united pro-GOP/DLC voice.

        It was said that concentration of media ownership is bad for democracy, and the people who said it were right.

        by alizard on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 02:49:59 PM PDT

  •  Another Winning Podvin Quote:

    [The "postmodern" Dem angles are so enraging.]

    "But taking an approach that foreshadowed his doom, Kerry reacted to the Drudge libel in the postmodern Democratic way, which involves expressing sorrow rather than outrage. After lamenting the lowered level of American discourse, the senator stated his confidence that the public would always repudiate gutter level politics. This common misperception on the part of establishment Democratic politicians remains as inexplicable as it is irrational."

    by TX Unmuzzled on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:19:41 AM PDT

•  Surprised?

  No, not really.

  sigh...

  by ssundstoel on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 08:59:00 AM PDT

•  Gosh, it's good to know...

  ...that our old friend Grima Wormtongue is alive and well and working at ABC News.
  

  by grunmann on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:08:55 AM PDT

•  MSNBC Pat B--

  tried to suggest that Bush's high dissaproval (59% against) on Iraq was a Bad Sign for AMERICA! Not Bush.  Bush just need to explain it better, apparently - just Social Security.  Hmm, Usually when a sales pitch stops working, the ad agency gets dumped.

  by David in Burbank on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:18:17 AM PDT

  •  the MSM

    would be attacking him even if he hadn't said that. It's open season on any effective Democratic leader who doesn't champion corporate rule just as it always has been in the last generation, which is why Dean and not Feinstein or Biden get targeted.

    If the media were praising Dean, I think it would be time to start asking serious questions of him and looking into whether or not he's really doing his job.

    by alizard on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 02:53:56 PM PDT

•  I Heart Howard

  Howard Dean is one of the few Democrats we really like.  Sure he's stirring things up and putting Repthuglicans on the attack.  Isn't that his job??

  by bincbom on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:20:30 AM PDT

•  fuck abc

  any network that would give that shiteating pig stossel a job doing anything, let alone being on-air and speaking, is not worth watching or acknowledging.

  fuck abc.
  fuck abc.
  fuck abc.

  by RabidNation on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:22:31 AM PDT

  •  I will not comment.

    I will not comment. I will not comment. Oh hell, you're right; fuck abc.

    by oysterface on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:44:09 AM PDT

•  Never forget

  that inDecember of 03 Dean declared that as president he would move to break up the corporate mega media monopolies. He immediately started getting a lot of bad press, culminating in the screamfest pile-on. ABC is owned by Disney, one of the 5 media giants. They have a vested interest in keeping Dean down and out.

  by drewfromct on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:25:35 AM PDT

•  yeah right

  So let me get that straight. The rethugs' polling numbers keep falling, but these, uhm, "experts" declare the rethugs the winner? Sounds to me like we have a bunch of faith-based "experts" here. Does anybody notice how much of the recent attacks on Dean is generated within the caste of consultants and lobbyists?

  by brainwave on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:25:45 AM PDT

  •  yes

    because the Democrats must be in the "last throes" of their "insurgency."  Home Front, Foreign Front--The Freepers seem to be losing on both.

    by greatbasin2 on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:29:59 AM PDT

•  Somewhat true

  I've said it many times. If Dean had tweaked his message, Dobson/Terry for "white Christians," it would be much easier to point to things like Jebbies attack on Michael Schiavo. Instead, more than two weeks later, we are still talking about Dean.

  by Mike S on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:34:57 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, when it's about the Messenger,

    versus The Message, something's amiss -- what message, one may query?

    How Do I Hate Thee Republicans?
    Let Me Count the Ways

    [if I were more poetic, I'd write a sonnet ;)]

    But, I largely agree w/the conclusion of this article:

    "The key time period is the mid-term in 2006," Pitney said. "If Dean is still talking like this a year from now, then the Democrats are going to have some real problems. ... If he minds his tongue starting today, then the whole issue recedes."

    by PhillyGal on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:56:02 AM PDT

  •  if Howard Dean had a

    time machine that would have enabled him to know about Terri Schiavo redux weeks in advance, he'd already be in the White House with a Democratic Congress behind him.

    I think your expectations of him are a trifle unreasonable.

    by alizard on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 03:04:26 PM PDT

    •  WTF are you

      talking about? I don't even have a clue how to respond to this.

      by Mike S on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 04:44:03 PM PDT

•  what a crock of shit

  check out this quote:

  "...said Lakoff, a self-styled "progressive" Democrat who..."

  can you imagine that kind of styling being applied to a conservative?

  "...said Podheretz, a self-styled "neo-conservative" Republican who..."

  the quotes around the word "progressive" imply that the word itself is somehow illegitimate. The editor or writer decided that the word must be surrounded by quotes because, from the editor's point of view, this is a strange, alien and potentally dishonest term that only this bizarre "Lakoff" man uses. (Lakoff is bizarre because, with respect to this "Howard Dean problem", he disagrees with the MSM conventional wisdom) Perhaps Lakoff uses the word "progressive" as a disguise for something nefarious and unamerican! isolate that goddamned word in the hygienic forceps of "quotes"! for gods sake, don't touch it!! shall I poke it with a sharp stick, sir?!?

  or do i read to much into the mix?

  "..said Lakoff, a self-styled "liberal" Democrat who.."

  "...said Lakoff, a self-styled "conservative" Democrat who..."

  "...said Lakoff, a self-styled "fed up" Democrat who..."
  

  by maskling11 on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:35:19 AM PDT

•  ABC News

    ought to do some actual thinking before they "print."  
  Statements like this, haven't *hurt the republicans?

     "The only way to talk to a liberal is with a
     baseball bat."

  Any one who thinks statements* like this are harmless, are kidding themselves.
     Say you said this to your next door neighbor tomorrow morning, as he/she is getting into their car.
       Within minutes you'd be wearing a pair of handcuffs, wouldn't you?
       Death-threats are illegal.  Always have been, always will be.
       Working for, or speaking on behalf of, a major political party does not make anyone an exception to the law.
       You live in this country, you live by the laws here.
        No one is an exception.
  ABC News needs to do some homework, on who it is that makes problematical remarks.
        Big difference between remarks that are "perceived" as problematical, and remarks that are outright "illegal."
        I personally like Dr. Dean. I have no problem with his perceptions. In my book, they are accurate.

  by lyvwyr101 on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:36:18 AM PDT

•  Sigh

  I guess I better get the flame suit on.

  I support Dean, and support his comments, but I also think ABC News' report is right. I don't think Dean's comments have had the impact we would like, and I think they may be turning off some moderates.

  Yes, it's true that those effects are the result of the media twisting his words and engaging in a thinly veiled campaign of attack against him. But that doesn't change the outcome, and doesn't mean we can continue to pretend that in some sense, Dean's comments have not been a success.

  What this means for us is that tactics matter. Just because Dean says something that is right doesn't at all mean he's saying it in the right way. But moreover, it shows that we have to craft a true media strategy that unites all Democrats. If Dean wants to be the attack dog, that means that other Dems have to not criticize him when he does that - those other Dems can just change the subject. It means that when Dean levels a charge, that his making that charge is part of some overall strategy among Democrats, so that when they turn to Biden or Feinstein for reaction they say, "well, the Republicans ARE flawed on that issue" and explain it in their own way.

  Whatever the solution, it doesn't help us if we deny that there is a problem. Because denial would lead to the worst possible outcome, which is that when Dean opens his mouth, moderates simply tune him out. That would be a disaster, and we're headed right for that outcome.

  by eugene on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:36:33 AM PDT

  •  Totally agree.

    This could be a good tactic if we had everyone on the same page. If it worked like this:

    Russert: Sen Biden, do you agree with Dr. Dean that the GOP is a white Christian party?"

    Biden: "As I understand his words, the GOP has been taken over by people like Randall Terry. He, you may recall, has been quoted as saying that he wants to "conquer" this country. And all the evidence you need to prove that is the fact that the one and only time President Bush cut short a vacation is when Terry forced the GOP to interfeer in the Terry Schiavo case. So in that sense I do agree with Dr. Dean."

    It could be an effective strategy. But they are not using it as an effective strategy. And it is hurting us.

    by Mike S on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 10:04:54 AM PDT

•  Surely not the same ABC

  which publishes the witty, insightful and never, ever cravenly Bush-fluffing The Note?

  by Septic Tank on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:38:05 AM PDT

•  Another quote from the story

  "The Republicans are attacking Howard Dean more than Howard Dean is attacking Republicans -- but the way the stories are being handled in the news media, everybody is assuming the opposite," said Anthony Pratkanis, co-author of "Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion," and a psychology professor at the University of California-Santa Cruz.

  So what's up with that news media, huh ABC? Care to comment on that? Either the media is dumber than a bag of hammers, it's scared silly by the Republicans, or it's being rewarded for being partisan. Or all three. I incline toward the last, because the media have to live right along with us in the violent, pillaged world this greedy, lying administration is creating.

  by Cowalker on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:38:08 AM PDT

•  Truth Hurts.

  America needs some tough love. We have become addicted to "reality" as presented on the "news," especially television news.

  It is time for an intervention. MSM is preventable. But you have to catch it in the developing stages or it develops into full-blown Aquired Apathy and Depression Syndrome. Early warning signs are; easy roll-over, silent acceptance, and paralysis of the left side of the mouth followed by sudden outbursts of Orwellian Talking Points.

  Dr. Dean has a prescription, and it don't come in no pill. If you don't get up and fix it, ain't nobody will.

  by Bill Section 147 on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:39:32 AM PDT

•  But the answer they fail to give

  Is to the question: Why should we give a shit?  I mean, really...why should we care if what Dean says makes us look bad to Republicans?  They already call us every name in the book, so if Cheney doesn't like me, should I give a rat's ass?

  by fabooj on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:51:47 AM PDT

•  A game of chicken

  I think the Republicans and their media allies are playing a game of reverse psychology.  They are trying to scare some of the establishment Dems into dumping and dissing Dean.

  by Unstable Isotope on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:53:36 AM PDT

  •  Well, it worked

    in Iowa, didn't it? So, they are trying again, and for the same reasons - Dean remains a threat. Check out comment from nattering nabob for the reasons why. His/her analysis is spot on, we are never going to find a leader to take the powers that be down whom they will not attack. In fact, press attacks should be our first requirement when we consider someone for leardership.

    Early in the Dean campaign there was a qoute attributed to Ghandi that I suggest still applies.

    "First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win".

    Getting Howard in as chair despite opposition from the Vichy dems, Repukes, and the press was the first victory in what will prove to be a long war.

    by PLS on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 10:23:11 AM PDT

  •  the DLC establishment doesn't

    need to be scared into attacking Dean, IMHO, they and their tame "experts" (you know, the guys who lose us elections) are the ones that are heading the Democratic side of the attack because personal power and perks are more important to them than the future of America, or even their own party.

    by alizard on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 03:00:14 PM PDT

•  Just Keep Reminding Yourself...

  There are but six mega-corporations which control roughly 90% of the information flow that Americans have access to - Disney/ABC obviously being one of them.

  To say that these six Media Medusas are sympathetic to the Republican agenda would of course be a gross understatement. It would be much more accurate to say that the Republican agenda is their agenda. There is really no space between them whatsoever.

  These soulless corporate whores have absolutely no hesitation when it comes to using their information monopoly to relentlessly propagandize the American public on behalf of policies that accrue to their benefit, and against policies or individuals they perceive as threatening the status quo.

  Anyone who believes we can have anything remotely resembling a functional democracy in America with control of the mass media so heavily concentrated in the hands of a few highly reactionary conglomerates is in my opinion living in a fantasy world.
  

  by nattering nabob on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 10:06:57 AM PDT

•  Exactly...

  like Michael Moore, Dean characterizes the outer boundaries of the party and I agree.  And I like it that way.  We need a counter-balance to the Pat Robertson's and Ann Coulters--and Dean and Moore aren't even close to them in that they lie, lie, lie.  I think we need to keep Dean high profile because he can act like a lightning rod.  When he makes a comment that needs to be reframed the discussion turns to us, not Republicans and even though we're being mischaracterized and reframed, we are in the news and people are discussing out positions.

  I no longer worry too much about public perception.  My daughter, who hated Kerry and loved Bush called me last night to discuss the DSM.  Now she is so mistrustful of Bush she thinks that the talk that Bush let the WTO attack happen could be true!  And she is not into conspiracy stuff, she just believes that a liar will do whatever they must to cover their own ass.  I take her as a barometer and if she is even a little accurate, Dean is not a problem for us...because we are looking more and more like we were right about Bush every day.

  by clb8 on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 10:36:57 AM PDT

  •  outer boundaries?

    I think Jon Stewart defined them better when he said "Calling the Republicans white Christians is 'over the top'? No, saying that Republicans drink [bleep] straight from [several expletives deleted] is over the top."

    Well, it is, a little bit. At least during "family viewing hours". I'm sure not all Republicans drink "[bleep] straight from [several expletives deleted]".

    by alizard on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 03:07:56 PM PDT

•  anyone who speaks the truth is dangerous...

  ...to the Repubs e.g. Dean and Michael Moore--so how to discredit them?

  Attack
  Scrutinize every word, twist, repeat ad nauseam, then get the press to do the same--finally get some Dems like Lieberman to echo the message.

  Then sum it all up by saying Dean is failing at:
  1 Fund-raising
  2 Message
  3 Helping the Dems

  Repeat ad nauseam, get the Press, then the Dems... then onto the next cycle.

  We will see/have seen this over and over again until Dean is driven out--

  They tried after Iowa (scream played 600 times), fortunately the state parties were smart and gave Dean this role...

  by skywalker on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 11:53:42 AM PDT