Sorry guys the MSM controls all access to information for most of the populace. Sure we read a lot and get information from lots of sources but most americans don't. Most americans go by what's on TV and a few, the newspapers. A very small percentage of the populace relies on much else to shape their opinions. We're different as an example one need only look at nationwide surveys.
Hillary consistently polls at about 5% in the blogosphere but somewhere between 30 and 40% in nationwides "polls".. Sure these people may not turn out in Iowa in 5 degree weather to vote for her but still. Sure this may only be name recognition at this point but free media access and framing matter.
An example of just how much the MSM controls information flow is by looking at this poll for Newsweek (a corporate partner with MSNBC).
MSNBC's own website has this recent poll on their site.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
NEWSWEEK Poll
Jan. 17-18, 2007. Conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International
This poll is only mentioned for one candidate: HIllary. The ticker says "Hillary in dead heat with Giuliani".
A couple things to notice about this framing is Hillary is behind Giuliani (while within the margin of error) and other candidates in their own poll do much better than Hillary on the democratic side.
Why for instance doesn't MSNBC reveal more information on this poll than one sentence about it only talking about Hillary? Are the American people that incapable of handling the data?
Here's the data:
Edwards 48% McCain 43%
Hillary 48 McCain 47
Obama 46 McCain 44
Edwards 48% Giulian 45%
Giuliani 48 Hillary 47
Giuliani 47 Obama 45
So Edwards is the only candidate to beat both McCain and Giuliani in this poll (1,003) yet it can't be mentioned by the corporation that conducted the poll.
Anyhow, good luck to the Clarkies and Richardsonians, I can tell you Edwards gets almost no MSM coverage despite leading in Iowa and looking like the best general election candidate the dems have. He has the ability to run a progressive agenda yet be perceived as moderate (southern drawl, white male???), while HIllary no matter what she does will always be perceived by the electorate as a northeastern liberal.
When the MSM discusses electability for Hillary in a general election, Buchanan says "yeah, if she does really well she might get 51/52%"... The framing of this alone greatly skews from the reality.. who wants to start with a candidate who at most can get 51/52%?
Pressbot Noron