Elizabeth Edwards Attacks "Cliffnotes" Media Coverage In NYT Op-Ed

NY Times:

For the last month, news media attention was focused on Pennsylvania and its Democratic primary. Given the gargantuan effort, what did we learn?

Well, the rancor of the campaign was covered. The amount of money spent was covered. But in Pennsylvania, as in the rest of the country this political season, the information about the candidates' priorities, policies and principles -- information that voters will need to choose the next president -- too often did not make the cut. After having spent more than a year on the campaign trail with my husband, John Edwards, I'm not surprised.

Read the whole story: NY Times

Comments

[gwhizz]

Wow this got dumped off the front page quick enough!

[gwhizz]

And the last time I looked here, this article had 3 pages of comments. Huffpo not only buried the article but deleted 3 pages of comments!

[dukeitout]

Elizabeth Edwards article was correct that the media largely does not cover the real issues important to America. I'm sure the news media power brokers realize that the best news is the news that sells advertizing to the commercial community. This commercial attitude has prevailed for ages. The media wants to make money pure and simple but occasionally will do constructive things provided it doesn't affect the bottomline too much. These occasional positive societal outcomes are why an open media is essential. Americans either can't or won't do much about changing the "important" topics. Easy gossipy issues not only cost less but get a wider audience. Meanwhile the war goes on, the medical system performs way below par, the government passes on debt to future generations, and we personally continue doing our thing. I have no idea what to do about this politically. What we can do personally is continue to sort out things for ourselves, set high personal standards and vote for those candidates that most closely meet our expectations. -----The preceding comment is intended to inject some realism into the discussion.

[scire]

I think Elizabeth Edwards would have made a much better woman candidate for president than Hillary Clinton.

[TheAdviceWeAllNeed]

I agree. Smart / Strong and doesn't play the VICTIM

[RanTheMan]

Ms. Edwards is spot on.

The salacious, the controversial are the ONLY things the MSM is interested in, because it brings them ad revenue.

Fox News is not the only outlet that has totally shirked their responsibility to present balanced reporting.

[scire]

I am an Obama supporter, but I notice that a couple of people on here are critical of Elizabeth Edwards op-ed because it doesn't take Hillary Clinton to task. How ridiculous. They want her to do exactly what she is criticizing the media here for doing. Her op-ed is not about criticizing the political tactics of the politicians in the race, it's about the poor journalism on the part of the media that covers the unimportant questions. Obama supporters want her and her husband to come out to endorse Obama (as do Clinton supporters). This was not an endorsement or criticism of any of the candidates. It was a balanced and intelligent criticism of how the media is shaping and has shaped the 2008 political campaign by focusing on unimportant issues rather than on the solutions the candidates are actually proposing.

Good for her.

[mjc]

Having read "Bowling 1, Health Care 0" in the Times, and then the comments most recently here, my conclusion is we have a lot more to worry about than the media, the press, examining the issues and the candidates only shallowly at best. Edwards wasn't talking about foreign policy credentials or pushing her husband's candidacy at all. She was talking about a media that covers only those who they are truly interested in and then only in a very sketchy way. Actually, she talked more about Joe Biden, one of my favorites, and the fact that very few folks had any idea that Biden even had a health care plan. The Obamacons, especially on this site, don't like Edwards because she actually had the nerve to criticize the sainted one and his health care plan.

[snobama]

and since elizabeh knows of the substantial difference between clinton and obama's healthcare plans... maybe she will come out and explicitly endorse the candidate who is fighting for universal healthcare..

a tuesday endorsement would give clinton a weeks worth of advertising and campaigning with the edwards in NC and completely bursting the obama bubble...

[dajay]

Yes, wouldn't it be nice if the Edwards did endorse Hillary.

[TheAdviceWeAllNeed]

I agree with Elizabeth. My first choice was actually Senator Biden

Senator Biden
Senator Obama
Senatro Dobb
Governor Richardson'

When you hear them speak it's with compassion not with entitlement

[marc1antony]

Thank you Elizabeth Edwards!

[Countess]

I'm afraid Mrs. Edwards is in a state of denial about how scurilous Hillary Clinton's campaign has been. She has cozied up to the far right and expressed clearly her neocon foreign policy views so no matter what she proposes on the domestic front will be irrelevant because she will literally bankrupt the country with her recklessness overseas.

[Charmed]

I have to agree with her, the fact that the media took soundbites from a pastor and made him the most hated man in America is proof that the media is to blame, they never bothered to show the whole clip. Even after his interview on Friday night all they focused on was that Rev. Wright said that Obama was a politician, well they are all politician's so what's new about that.

At one time I was getting tired of the media but then I thought about it and realized if they had not done such a poor job of reporting the whole story I would have never done my own investigations. Because of this long process I admire even more Senator Obama's calmness in the mist of all the negativity. He has plenty of 10 point plans on his site but like he said all of them had them...it's a myth to think that he doesn't and laziness of not going to his site to view them but stick with the talking points of the hillary supporters.

BUT what the elephant in the room is (Elizabeth is saying if the media had paid more attention to her husband he could still be in the race and the white people would have a white man to vote for).....and she's probably right.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

While I agree with a lot of what you're saying, the fact that you frame it in the context of "having a white man to vote for" being the thrust of her article makes me wonder if you really got her point. It's great that the media caused you to do your research on Obama. Did you do your research on Biden and Dodd as well? Do you like Obama's healthcare plan better?
Some of us don't care if we vote for a white,black or female. We want the candidate who will best represent our interests. Some of us feel that the remaining candidates don't.

[ManInNC]

Now, check out the articles here on HuffPo and the comments attached to them.

THere's not much substance here either.

An honest debate where the moderators were required to discuss policies instead of politics would be welcome.

All you would need is moderstors from some organization like The League of Women voters instead of from the news media

[LittleSanityLeft]

Agreed.

[booksnmore4you]

Oh, she's right on. I swear, I think our U.S. media as lost any ability to think any deeper than a kiddie pool.

-------------------
Show you support for Trinity UCC!
http://www.cafepress.com/support_tucc

[speakingtruth2power]

Dear Elizabeth and John,

Thank you both for your good stewardship and your efforts to help America evolve.

I had hoped that our ticket would be Gore/Edwards but Al has had his fill of Bushit.

Though I liked Kucinich and Richardson too, I figured the best possible was JE/BO.

Our MSM selected Clinton/Obama except Hillary faltered & Barack Obama soared.

Populism is the cure for the cancer of corporatism but you'll never hear MSM say it.

[sweetme]

She's absolutely right.