I've been suggesting this in broad strokes for years now, though I admit I've no inside view of the workings of the corporate media and can't confirm any of this. But let me simply outline some obsevations, and leave the rest to speculation:
- In 2000, the Mass Media was pushing the FCC limits of saturation. They'd either have to pull back, or change those limits.
- That Media appeared to heavily favor Bush in Election2000, and particularly in the recount battle. (With ClearChannel paying for the pro-Bush rallies in Florida!?)
- Bush treated the media to a very friendly FCC commission.
- That Media continued to support Bush, and prop up his approval ratings, until the FCC ruling in July increasing limits to audience share from 35% to 45%.
- Then the Media rapidly started turning on Bush, starting with the Plame affair and some negative reporting on Iraq.
- The Media began propping an emphatic Bush opponent, Howard Dean, by late summer/fall.
- The Media turned sharply against Dean when he (unwisely) declared in early December that he'd break up massive media conglomerates; this played a big role in destroying Dean as a candidate.
- Bush was unable to stop Congress from scaling back the FCC's 45% to 39% last month.
- The Media began a relentless attack of Bush, rehashing (important) issues it had completely ignored in the past, like the AWOL story.
- We (that is, I) don't know much about Kerry's relationship with the Media. However we do know he can be friendly to special interests, and I've gathered he can be no-holds-barred in his politics (fine by me in 2004).
- All of a sudden the Media's been relatively friendly to Kerry, setting him up as a strong opponent to Bush.
Now, I don't trust them for a moment, and this thing's far from over. But anyone else find the timing of these media attitude changes... suspicious?