[… this is a little bit old, but well worth thinking about. I couldn’t find an “original” posting site via Google, and found all sorts of copies reposted, so I think I’m o.k. in posting the full text. The theory espoused is provactive, at the very least, and the information included re: relative levels of positive/negative coverage is disturbing (although, admittedly, Dean’s campaign, in challenging conventional wisdom, was bound to provoke more reaction, positive and negative, than that of his opponents). —Thomas Leavitt]


By Carl Jensen

Howard Dean supporters across the country were surprised when they

woke up Tuesday morning, January 19, to read reports of Dean’s

unexpected third place finish in the Iowa caucuses.

What happened?

Gov. Dean started 2003 with little name recognition and even less

campaign funding. Through the summer he spread the old familiar theme

of power to the people, mostly through the Internet, and Americans by

the hundreds of thousands responded with their support and dollars. We

wanted to take our country and the Democratic Party back.

Then in late 2003, the media, which had anointed Dean as the front

runner, started to attack him. By the time of the Iowa caucuses, the

polls showed him plummeting and the media’s new darling, Senator John

Kerry, soaring.

Kerry’s remarkable overnight turnaround even surprised the candidate

himself who gleefully declared he was the “Comeback Kerry.”

Meanwhile, the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), a

nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization in Washington, DC, which

conducts scientific studies of the news media, was monitoring the

nightly network news broadcasts that are the source of news and

information for most Americans.

The results of the CMPA study, released January 15, 2004, revealed that

Gov. Dean received significantly more negative criticism on the

network broadcasts while his Democratic presidential competitors

received significantly more positive comments. The research examined

187 stories broadcast on the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news in 2003.

Only 49 percent of all on-air evaluations of Gov. Dean in 2003 were

positive while the other Democratic contenders received 78 percent

favorable coverage.

In a follow-up study by CMPA, of the network coverage of the

candidates from January 1 to January 18, the night before

the Iowa caucuses, revealed that the networks selected Kerry and Senator

John Edwards before the Iowa voters did. As you may recall, Kerry

finished first with 38% of the vote; Edwards ranked second, just below

Kerry, with 32%; and Dean managed only a poor third with 18% of the

vote. During the two-and-a-half week period leading up to the Iowa

caucuses, there had not been a single negative word uttered about

Edwards by the three networks (100% favorable coverage) while nearly

all, 96%, of the comments about Kerry were positive.

However, Gov. Dean’s coverage during those first 18 days of January

was significantly less glowing with 42% unfavorable on-air


What happened in the campaign that inspired the media to turn on Dean

and throw their support to uninspiring Kerry?

A clue may be found in a story published in the Washington Post on

November 19, 2003.

The Post reported that, “In an interview Monday night (11/17/03), Dean

unveiled his idea to ‘re-regulate’ utilities, large media companies

and businesses offering employee stock options. He also favors broad

protections for workers, including the right to unionize.”

Also on November 19, the Associated Press reported, “Dean, the

former Vermont governor, said Tuesday that if elected president, he

would move to re-regulate business sectors such as utilities and media

companies to restore faith after corporate scandals such as Enron and


Dean’s idea of re-regulating two out-of-control business sectors

produced criticism from some of his competitors and surely struck a

raw nerve within monopolistic utilities and mega-media companies.

I believe Dean’s progressive attack on monopolies helps explain why

the corporate media started piling on Dean, portraying him with the

pejorative term of the “angry candidate.”

But while this helps explain why the media went after Dean, it doesn’t

explain why they suddenly anointed Kerry as their Golden Boy.

However, it would appear that Kerry would not pose a threat to

corporate America while Dean would obviously challenge their

monopolistic control.

First, a search of Lexis Nexis, a comprehensive computer databank of

news and information, failed to find a single comment by Kerry

supporting re-regulation of media companies. In fact, Gov. Dean was

the only major candidate who ventured into no-man’s-land to criticize

media monopolies and even threaten to break them up when elected


We then discovered a newly published book by the Center for Public

Integrity(CPI), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that does investigative

reporting and research on public policy issues. The book is titled,

“The Buying of the President 2004: Who’s Really Bankrolling Bush and

his Democratic Challengers – and What They Expect in Return, (Harper

Collins, 2004)

According to CPI, the three largest fundraisers in the presidential

campaign at this time are Howard Dean with more than $25 million; John

Kerry with more than $20 million; and, of course, President George W.

Bush with $85.2 million (as of Sept. 30, 2003).

As has been reported, Bush plans to build a war chest of some $200

million for the election. His top major donors include financial firms

Merrill Lynch & Co., Credit Suisse First Boston, UBS Paine Webber, and

Goldman Sachs Group. The President’s top career donor is the

scandal-ridden Enron Corp.

Kerry’s top donors include Fleet Boston Financial Corp., Time Warner,

and a variety of major law firms. Time Warner, as we know, is the

world’s largest media conglomerate. Among a variety of media outlets,

it also owns Internet giant America On Line and CNN – a virtual

cheerleader for Kerry.

The research Center does not cite any major donors for Dean. As we

know, the majority of his contributors are ordinary citizens who

donate an average of $77 dollars. Dean’s “special interest group” is

the American people.

Finally, we come to a January 28, 2004, report from “The Campaign

Desk,” which produces a daily analysis of the 2004 campaign and is

sponsored by the Columbia Journalism Review at Columbia University.

The non-partisan “Campaign Desk” reported that it is concerned “when

the press singles out one candidate for the kind of mauling and piling

on by exaggeration and distortion that Dean has endured in the past


“On CNN last night, Judy Woodruff joined the mob at 10:42 p.m. when

she suggested that perhaps Dean’s lower-key post-election address in

New Hampshire means that he was ‘preparing his minions, all of his

supporters, for the fact that he may not win this nomination?’

“That’s neither fair nor journalism,” “The Campaign Desk” concluded.

There may be a limit to the piling on. When Wolf Blitzer polled his

CNN viewers on January 25, “Are the media unfairly characterizing

Howard Dean’s post-Iowa loss rally?” 89% said “Yes.”

Carl Jensen, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus,

Sonoma State University,

Founder of Project Censored