Dennis Kucinich vs. ABC News

Posted by Remember 9/11
August 22, 2007

As we come close to another sad anniversary of the biggest deception of our times ... Ms. Tumulty, care to make at least ONE, sincere, logical, informed and honest comment about this? - h t t p : //video dot google dot com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145 ... Why is the MSM so terrified about even discussing this subject?
THE TRUTH & LIES OF 9/11 2 hr 18 min

Posted by Sean Brodrick
August 22, 2007

I like that Dennis Kucinich raises points that other candidates don't address. I think he would be a very viable candidate if not for the fact that the MSM decided early on he was a kook.

And If you watched the last debate, it was really weird how the ABC camera crew spent more time focusing on Dennis' hot wife than they did on him.

Full disclosure: I've given money to Edwards. I'm ticked off about how the media has treated him, too.

For me, this is an example of why the MSM is losing the trust of the American people. For whatever reason, the majority of mainstream editors and reporters simply don't do a good job as news filters. That's why more and more people are finding their news on blogs. Eventually, I hope the blogs become the Main-Stream Media, and TV's talking heads (from ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and CNN) become regulated to crank-at-the-end of the bar status where the Wall Street Journal editorial page has already ended up.

So keep dissing Dennis, MSM. Maybe people will start listening more to him and less to you.

Posted by think216
August 22, 2007

Whether or not the AP photo was cropped is a matter of semantics. The reality remains that Dennis Kucinich is NOT SHOWN in the photograph, and yet he is listed in the caption as though he were. He's not being marginalized. He's been vaporized!

The photo purports to represent all of the candidates present. Thus, if he's not in the photo, was he even present? It feels like ABC is now placing blame on the AP photographer, but for what?

Regarding the notion that since DK was given a bit of face time with GS earlier in the month his lack of exposure at the debate was legitimate:

Huh? That's your justification? Really!

Posted by grape_crush
August 22, 2007

Karen Tumulty: "I honestly don't know what the right balance is here when you are dealing with such a large field of candidates.."

Even worse if you are a third party candidate whose last name isn't Perot or Nader...

A solution would be to have round-robin-style debates; with the current crop of 8 Dem candidates, that could be two 60-minute debates between three candidates and one 45-minute debate with the two other candidates.

Save the remaining 15 minutes for the introductions, and adjust the timings and matchups as candidates drop out.

Posted by MIS, Philadelphia
August 22, 2007

I agree with grape_crush. I think the appropriate thing to do is some kind of randomizing so there is a smaller group where the Q&A could be more meaningful and the candidates would have a better chance to interact. Granted at the moment that might mean 45 minutes of Gravel with Clinton and Biden (just picking randomly) but since it would only be once, it would be interesting to see how they handled it. And, more challenging for a moderator!

Posted by p_lukasiak
August 22, 2007

I think that ABC's excuses were pretty weak... it should not have taken ABC 28 minutes to get a first question to Kucinich --- especially since he was the one candidate who offered detailed alternatives to the pre-digested talking points of the other candidates.

That being said, it does seem odd that Kucinich could have won the debate hands down according to the on-line poll if he was treated unfairly. Obviously, there was an organized effort by Kucinich supporters to "freep" the poll -- and for the Kucinich campaign to complain that ABC refused to provide prominent placement to a poll whose results are being manipulated by Kucinich supporters is kinda weak in itself.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience
August 22, 2007

Funny thing. Yeah, it is still there. They just pulled the links to it, so no one could find it. After all, I can believe Ambinder when he says that a lot of traditional media types hate Edwards. After all, we all know Joe Klein hates Noam Chomsky. He admitted as much on this blog. So we know traditional media types dislike someone who doesn't share their supposed political views.

Posted by the KOS KIDZ
August 22, 2007

Demand the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE for all Democratic candidates!

Posted by Kristin2
August 22, 2007

When Kucinich finally got a chance to answer a question, he got a one minute ovation from the audience. As I did not watch the debate but only read about it and do not have a link, I feel I should not state here the question and his answer. Anyone?

Posted by TLB
August 22, 2007

While Tumulty has ABC on the line, she might want to ask why there were no immigration questions in either of their debates. That's right: none at all. There was only one mention of "illegal aliens" in the first debate, and that's only because Tancredo briefly brought up the issue in relation to healthcare.

Well?

{{chirp... chirp... chirp...}}

On a related note, here's a debate format that would actually be a public service instead of the opposite:

petitiononline.com/debateit

Needless to say, that format would be opposed by partisan hacks of all kinds including the MSM, so the support for such a format is going to have to come from those who realize how dangerous it is to have the corrupt MSM choose which questions are asked.

Posted by squashua
August 22, 2007

It's easy for the ABC exec to say that the polls are online, but when I went to the site I couldn't find them. It's one thing to say that the information is available and another to make the information findable. Had it not been for you, Karen, following up I never would've known that Kucinich polled so well with viewers; albeit "unscientifically". Unscientific? Pfffffffft! Lame.

Posted by Anita
August 22, 2007

So far the only FAIR debate was the PBS one at Howard University when Tavis Smiley was the moderator and each candidate, "viable" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, or NOT, was given an EQUAL amount of time. Like Dennis said, that is like betting on horses, but you can't place a bet fairly unless you see ALL the horses. So what to do? Treat each debate the same, give the candidates an equal amount of air-time, when placing their photo on a webpage, make sure that if the name is in the caption, THE CANDIDATE IS IN THE PHOTO, and play fair. The American people cannot make an educated vote if they don't know about all of the candidates. The only reason the MSM wants to shut Dennis out is because they are bought and paid for by the same corporations that own the "top tier" candidates. Dennis is coming up! People are starting to find out that he is WAY AHEAD OF THE PACK, because he is moral and ethical, the others take bribes and are paid off. It is pretty bad when our country's government is run by people who consider raising millions of dollars more important than fairness, justice, peace, love, unity, healthcare for all, and stopping the war.

Posted by IT news
August 22, 2007

let's just be all fair and equal,everybody can do that.just focused on things that makes us comfortable to live.

Posted by Mr. Barnes
August 22, 2007

I can only hope enough of the uninformed people in this country figure out that Our gov't is out of control.they are the best gov't, ANYBODIES money can buy.ABC,there scared, paid off,or part of the group that do not want DENNIS in WASHINGTON,he is likely to clean that mess up.That would go against the wishes of the rich and powerful.WAKE UP AMERICA ,OUR GOVERNMENT IS UP TO REALLY BAD THINGS!

google-North American Union,Amero.

Posted by Brenda
August 22, 2007

Disney, the greatest of corrupt coporations, owns ABC,so why would they want to give a MAN of INTEGRITY airtime? Anyone who works for this company is, in my opinion, scum of the earth.
2008 DENNIE KUCINICH 2008, the ONLY HONEST politician in Washington and the man WHO WIll BE PRESIDENT, and won't have to steal the title either.

Posted by nicolas
August 22, 2007

Dennis clearly dominated each poll ABC set forth, and as such, deserves the recognition. Last time I checked, elections were supposed to be unforetold. If we hold this to be true, how can we use the label "viable" to describe candidates? Isn't that for us as a people to decide?
The media should exist to inform us of the canidates views on issues, and their obligation as a television station ends there.We are completely capable of deciding for ourselves which canidates are "viable", thank you very much, with or without their half-truths.

Posted by TLB
August 22, 2007

Anita: like the ABC debate, the PBS debate featured no questions about immigration, despite it being a top-tier issue and despite one of the questioners being mostly identified with the issue (good ol' RubenNavvarrete). In that respect I'd hardly call it "fair", even if it looked fair in other ways.

They aren't ignoring this topic because they're modern-day Victorians, but because they're corrupt.

Posted by eb in nyc
August 22, 2007

The top tier candidates of both parties pretty much spout their party's line. The most interesting parts of the debates is hearing what the outsider candidates have to say.

It looks to me (and lots of other people); that the corporate media has declared three candidates from each party with very mainstream views as the only "legitimate candidates". The only reason any of the other candidates aren't "legitimate" or "serious" as far as I can see is because the corporate media doesn't allow them time to express their views on topics.

Why don't our major media companies spare us the charade of these closed debates and just declare Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani the winners of their respective parties nominations?

Everyone knows that's all it's going to boil down to anyway.

Posted by Icky
August 22, 2007

A SHAME!!! A SHAM!!!

If ABC is going to conduct such a Poll... ABC Should be obligated to report upon its results!

This is a prime example of how Corporations and Big Money run the show.... and how "We The People" are walked upon!

What a SHAME! No more ABC in my house!

This should be a WAKE-UP Call to "The People" about how this Country is being bought and sold... about how their rights are being trampled... about how they are being LIED TO!

AND! It should be REPORTED WIDELY AND LOUDLY!!!

Posted by Dustin J. A. Owens
August 22, 2007

I ignore watching television as much as possible. Over the years I am coming to recognize it as an instrument of indirect control. One day these corperations and whomever else that lives beyond common honor and fairness especially in positions of power , will reap the despairative they fail to recognize now. It will happen, it's not a matter of if, but when. And nothing will be able to prevent it..I, like many am tired of sacred values, religions ,personal issues ,and gays and, all the things that should be a personal matter , being used as a sales pitch to get us, and I mite as well say" consumers "instead of americans , because that would better fit our circumstances(don't you agree).to follow the right path with our money and our G-d given choices. First to be lost is the public trust. Because the truth will always be present. Long after the lie has been rotten and dead.. I am not the only one who feels that we are being shaped as a country without our fair share of facts. I like many have been fooled long enough. And the more something is shoved in my face , the more I will ignore it, especially on the television, that used to be a friend of mine. Now it is a waste of my money and my time. No trust left.. Sorry..If you don't know who I support in this race for the white house, than you haven't seen much of the canidate, have you??...I encourage anyone who is an American and appreciates the sacrifices and time that many have put into this country and it's honor , to be responsible for what you know, study all the canidates learn how they vote and learn their history, 'don't let others tell you what the truth may be .. Go and find it yourself!!!!!!! '

Posted by Lauren Nail
August 22, 2007

i will agree with previous postings in several areas. i watched the abc-kucinich debacle unfold in real time, and saw the polls not get deleted, however they did move the original one to a hidden spot and posted a new one asking the same question. i guess they just didn't like the answers they got. also, there might be 20 or so pictures from the debate online, but the default photo that comes up every time the page is opened is the one where kucinich is listed in the caption, but is not in the photo.
the next statement is not to excuse the slanted view that we americans are getting, but it's what i think is going to have to happen.
i believe just how "you" were the person of the year, "you" will have to be the moderator of the debates this year. i have decided to find out the information i think is important for myself, and i'm not letting anyone, abc, nbc, xyz tell me who to vote for. i suggest you do the same.

Posted by Nathan Hetrick
August 22, 2007

Candidates are only unelectable if enough people think and believe so. So, at least the people who voted for him think Kucinich is electable. In a similar vein, even though these polls were not scientific, they clearly show that at least among those who heard about the survey that Dennis is the favorite choice. He has been winning surveys and polls all over the internet. I hope that the corporate media isn't as influential as they seem and that Dennis can win the Democrat primaries. I think after this debate a lot of people have given up on corporate media and maybe that will make them wake up. I certainly watch much less TV these days. So many good books out there, and interesting people with whom I can talk to on the internet.

Posted by Alison Ross
August 22, 2007

This is basically a piece of pathetic puffery, like everything else put out by corporate media. It says nothing of substance, and then ends anti-climatically and insultingly:

"I honestly don't know what the right balance is here when you are dealing with such a large field of candidates, most of whom don't have a prayer of winning. What do you think? Was Kucinich treated unfairly? Or should he be included at all?"

OF COURSE DENNIS KUCINICH WAS TREATED UNFAIRLY AND HE SHOULD BE INCLUDED. It's called D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y. I realize you probably didn't advance past the first grade, and so grasping the basic tenets of Democracy is beyond your reach. But then again, we learn in KINDERGARTEN to treat people equitably - but you probably flunked that grade too.

Pseudo-journalism like this makes my head spin in bewilderment that someone gets paid to write it.

PS They fear Dennis Kucinich because he represents PEOPLE not PROFITS

Posted by gordon kobayashi
August 22, 2007

Have you also noticed how Kucinich has always been placed at the end of the stage in the debates and camera angles are used to keep him out of the picture frame?
The networks are becoming more brazen and there isn't even any attempt to show fairness. Some of the smaller debates are more fair and the big networks need to adopt their approach: 1) use of random draw to position candidates on stage 2) asking the same question of every candidate and going down the line in a staggered format so that everyone gets the same amount of time, more or less(Planned Parenthood uses that in their debates) 3. Treating the debates more like forums with NO rebuttal time, so that the moderator cannot cheat and give almost all the rebuttal time to the perceived frontrunners.
It will take a bottom-up movement to transform the corruption in debates run by the current powers that be.

Posted by Gabriel M. Jones
August 22, 2007

Corporate news is based on shareholder profit, not the best interests of the public. Clearly, ABC and the other news media have their agenda. Therefore, they are in direct opposition to progressive candidates like Kucinich. Certainly, corporate media is wrong and individually, they will all go bankrupt one day when they can't squeeze enough profits out of their often souless stories presented to just entertain the masses.

Posted by Cheryl Emmons
August 23, 2007

Yes, the debate was grossly unfair. The candidates should be given equal time, and they should all be allowed to answer each question. If there's not enough time for that, then they should have equal television time during the televised debate, and additional questions should be posted online later (also with equal coverage). As for the Kucinich interviews with George Stephanopoulos, I only saw one, but on that Sunday morning, it seemed that every question and comment George made was geared toward trying to discredit Mr. Kucinich and his campaign. Mr. Kucinich did an amazing job, though, of handling the jabs with patience and grace and turning things around so that he could express his positions about some very important issues. It wasn't easy to do, and I was impressed with the way he handled the situation. Concerning ABC's declaration that online polls aren't scientific, it should be understood that telephone polls are technically not scientific, either. I don't know how many times I have been "polled" by a caller that tried to change my mind about something. If online polls are too unreliable to report, then debates shouldn't begin with a report of poll numbers. There is only one really accurate way of finding out who is ahead, and that's by measuring what the voters have decided at the voting booth, and only then, if there's a paper trail. That being said, I still think ABC should report the results of their online poll(on the evening news)as a way of compensating for their obvious attempt to manipulate this election by beginning a debate with an announcement of poll numbers.

Posted by Cheryl Emmons
August 23, 2007

Yes, the debate was grossly unfair. The candidates should be given equal time, and they should all be allowed to answer each question. If there's not enough time for that, then they should have equal television time during the televised debate, and additional questions should be posted online later (also with equal coverage). As for the Kucinich interviews with George Stephanopoulos, I only saw one, but on that Sunday morning, it seemed that every question and comment George made was geared toward trying to discredit Mr. Kucinich and his campaign. Mr. Kucinich did an amazing job, though, of handling the jabs with patience and grace and turning things around so that he could express his positions about some very important issues. It wasn't easy to do, and I was impressed with the way he handled the situation. Concerning ABC's declaration that online polls aren't scientific, it should be understood that telephone polls are technically not scientific, either. I don't know how many times I have been "polled" by a caller that tried to change my mind about something. If online polls are too unreliable to report, then debates shouldn't begin with a report of poll numbers. There is only one really accurate way of finding out who is ahead, and that's by measuring what the voters have decided at the voting booth, and only then, if there's a paper trail. That being said, I still think ABC should report the results of their online poll(on the evening news)as a way of compensating for their obvious attempt to manipulate this election by beginning a debate with an announcement of poll numbers.

Posted by Patrick Hom
August 23, 2007

ABC needs to get Goofey and Mickey out of the News business, and George Stephonapolus is a pretty faced joke! The corporate News are telling us who to vote for two unelectable people Hillary Clinton who too many Hate, and Obama who doesnt stand a chance at this time in history. The Republican Corporations will again if we continue to be brainwashed by their choices, not that of We the people. I Pray Gore steps foreward and he with Kucinich turn this country right side up!

Posted by had enough
August 23, 2007

I listen to a lot of talk radio and what I hear from the people is much different as compared to what MSM is pushing at us. The favorite on liberal talk shows is Kucinich - no question. But it seems we hear MSM pushing for Hilliary and quite frankly I have not heard one talk show host or caller actually choose her to be their favorite. In fact, they do not like her as she does lean towards corporate way of life.. I have to conclude MSM is choosing Hilliary for us as she is the most corporate friendly democrat candidate running for '08 and it is a known fact the democrats will most likely win. Kucinich is the least corporate friendly and to see MSM ignore him is more than just a conspiracy. What happened to the abc poll... Why is it not made available to us - because Kucinch overwhelmingly won?

Posted by George M
August 23, 2007

We need to try to keep standards in journalism that embrace 'impartiality'. There is a world of difference betweeen the following two questions on health-care.

'Congressman Kucinich tell us about your plans for improving health-care in the United States.'

'Congressman Kucinich, many have said that single payer universal not for profit health-care is clearly not the answer for the United States. Wouldn't your plan in fact put thousands of Americans out of work?

Viewers aren't idiots. They can tell when a candidate is being slammed, polarized, and outright ignored. We know why large media outlets do it. Pressure...or they feel there may be restricted access...from the frontrunners. Plus they may not get the campaign advertising money for their networks. They favor the money. That pays the networks bills and makes them profitable and viable. It's a built in bias.

At election time, it is important to concentrate on impartiality and providing information. Networks straddle between these two forces. Some are more slanted and obviously biased than others.

That's why I watch Bill Moyer's on PBS. He has less Network editorial/station pressure.

ABC/Disney is just another example of how are mainstream media culture has sold out to money. An obviously higher force than any American or Democratic principle. Too bad for us.

Posted by Tantalo
August 23, 2007

ABC lie.

http://www.spudart.org/blogs/randomthoughts_comments/4243_0_3_0_C/

As you can see, Yahoo and ABC are THE SAME PHOTO, although ABC is digitally cropped.

Posted by Tom Windelborn
August 23, 2007

The only straight answers I get are from Kucinich or Gravel. I think that it's very important that they be in the field. As there are more and more debates (if time is fairly shared), Dennis Kucinich will start coming out ahead, more and more.

Posted by Mykul
August 23, 2007

Kucinich IS being marginalized by the mainstream media, and it isn't just limited to not being included in a particular photo or the limited amount of time given to him in the debates, if you listen to the commentary after each debate - there is no question about the bias of the journalists and analysts in favor of the "top tier" candidates. They and their bosses know, just like their advertisers, the power of repeating an idea to people over and over and over again. If they say that Dennis Kucinich isn't a viable candidate enough times, people will begin to believe it. It is an obvious and sadly familiar tactic in US politics.

Posted by Amy
August 23, 2007

That photo was clearly cropped and that survey did prove that Kucinich has a very important voice on our country, whether or not ABC chooses to be fair.... all I know is that I will never watch ABC ever again.

Posted by nate
August 23, 2007

"Viable candidates"? Viable for who? ABC? Clearly ABC is against freedom and prosperity... The "top-tier" candidates are one in the same... they're all purchased. I see little difference having a Clinton/Obama/Edwards president over a Republican... If they take big money and read the script they become "viable" *pukes*

Posted by Jordan
August 23, 2007

I agree with Nate here completely. If the prescription drug companies and the health insurance companies own the top candidates on either side of the aisle, then what is the difference? I also do not understand why more people do not know about Dennis. I think the american people are lazy to the point to where the only people who watch the news and especially the debates are the ones who already know who they are voting for when they are really meant for the people who dont. I just don't want liberals complaining when we have a republican president if they did not go out and vote. no one has the right to complain if they did not vote.

Posted by p.w.
August 27, 2007

The reason Kucinich can dominate a poll like this even with unfair time is because when he speaks he actually says something and answers the questions he is asked. Unlike his opponents who just spit out the tired old speeches written for them, over and over again. Most of what Kucinich says he would do are things he is already working on in congress, not just election promises.

Posted by Eric in Seattle
August 28, 2007

A slipshod job overall, Ms. Tumulty, that speaks poorly of you and your employer's journalistic integrity. What's the old adage that says "If you're not part of the solution ..."?

Anyone interested in reading a real investigative report on the heavyhanded behavior of ABC-Disney should consult:

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93100&page=6

Posted by Dr Rick
August 29, 2007

In yet another effort to distinguish Ms Tumulty's impressive stenography skills (ie. "dutifully" posting someone else's falsehoods without first making any attempt to verify or refute her claims) from actual journalism, see Media Bloodhound http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2007/08/special-report.html

"Had Tumulty - Time magazine's National Political Correspondent and former member of the White House press corps - simply located the original AP photo (which, at most, should've taken a few minutes online), she would've found Kucinich in it and realized the following version ABC News prominently displayed online after the debate had, indeed, been cropped...

So Jones either lied when she said "clearly nothing was cropped" or was misinformed by someone on her staff. Since Tumulty seems to think her job ends with receiving answers from an ABC News spokesperson, she doesn't question the veracity of Jones' assertion, which is clearly false.

Adding to its duplicity, ABC News has now completely replaced the original photograph in question. If you click on the link in Tumulty's post (which is supposed to bring you to that photo), you are now taken to a wholly different shot that includes Dennis Kucinich and is currently the default debate photo sitting on the ABC News website.

So, in case your keeping score, first ABC disappears Kucinich from a photo by cropping him out, then denies it, then later disappears the original cropped photo, replacing it with a separate photo that includes Kucinich, making it appear as if nothing improper ever occurred.

Eat your heart out Fox News.

Tumulty does later post an update after she manages (she doesn't say how) to find her way to a page on the site Pinkraygun that shows the original AP photo and the doctored ABC photo side-by-side. This compels Tumulty to gingerly concede "there does in fact appear to have been some cropping." First, it was either cropped or it wasn't. "Some cropping" gives the impression a whole cropping didn't occur, which it did. Second, if there was "some cropping," then logic follows that Jones either did some lying or some misinforming. That, in turn, means Tumulty should be doing some follow up with Jones. She does not. Third, a question for Tumulty and her editors over at Time: How did you fail to bring this simple fact to light yourselves? You had three main points to investigate - whether a photo was cropped, whether a poll was manipulated and whether Kucinich was allotted a fair amount of time. Arguably, the cropped photo was the most simple and quick of the three to verify. Did you attempt to find this on your own? If so, what's your excuse for initially failing to obtain such readily available evidence? If not, what's your excuse for failing to pursue this evidence in the first place?..."

Posted by Westclox
August 29, 2007

Y'all GO, lil' steno-girl Karen Tumulty!

You certainly know which side of your crumpet has been buttered, and by whom, Ace!

"TIME", as in: out of, not in, waste of.

Posted by Brie
August 29, 2007

"I honestly don't know what the right balance is here when you are dealing with such a large field of candidates..."

You're not being serious, are you? The right balance would not be to focus on some of the candidates while (literally) trying to make the others disappear, wouldn't you agree?

"Was Kucinich treated unfairly? Or should he be included at all?"

I hope that first one was a rhetorical question and I sincerely hope your second question was not a serious one as last time I checked, Congressman Kucinich was qualified to run for President and thus deserves the same treatment as the other candidates.

The Constitution's definition of who should be included trumps that of the MSM, including ABC caught with its pants on fire and you, Ms. Some Candidates Don't Have a Prayer (according to the MSM), So Why Pay Them Any Attention.

Posted by Robert Powell
September 1, 2007

Tumulty asks, "Still, having decided to include them, should they be given the same amount of time and attention as the leaders in the race?"

You're damn right he should.

You ask, "Was Kucinich treated unfairly? Or should he be included at all?"

Yes, unfairly! Who are you to even ask the question of should he be included "at all"? It's despicable that you ask this.

The corporate media has failed America. Media consolidation has gone so far that we're living in an Orwellian America based on lies and deception. It should be broken up ... that is, unconsolicated.