Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Democrats Looking for Media Representation

Aired January 02, 2003 - 09:11   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: A list of Democrats lining up to run for president getting longer. Senator John Edwards preparing to jump into the fray today, take that first step -- forming an exploratory committee -- may, likely, lead to a bid for the White House. This morning on the "Today" show over there on the National Biscuit Company across the street, the Senator from North Carolina offered a small taste of his possible platform.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: This campaign should be about ideas. It should be about vision. I've been talking for the last several months about ideas about how to make America safer: by going after terrorists within our midst; how to keep our borders safe, how to make sure that we secure the most vulnerable targets here in this country; how to make sure that people know what to do if a terrorist attack occurs and be warned about it; how to make sure to get the economy going again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAFFERTY: The first-term senator thinks his experience outside politics as a trial lawyer is an asset, rater than a liability.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDWARDS: I spent most of my adult life, representing kids and families against very powerful opponents -- usually, big insurance companies. And my job was to give them a fair shake, to give them a fair chance. They were at difficult places in their lives. They needed somebody to be their fighter, to be their champion. In most cases, I was all they had. And I think what I was able to do for those kids and those families is something I'll be proud of the rest of my life. It's, by the way, exactly the same thing I've tried to do, since I've been in the Senate and it's exactly the same thing I'll do if I'm in the White House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAFFERTY: And as the Democrats go about map their political strategy, they are turning an eye toward the media. According to "The New York Times," Democrats trying to figure out what to do about what they see as effective conservative media outlets. The New York Times, of course, excluded.

There's even talk of trying to starting a liberal counterattack. Senior analyst Jeff Greenfield here with his take on that. Before we get to that -- Edwards, the answer to the Democrats' problems? Remember, Bill Clinton, nobody had ever heard of him back there a long time ago.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST: Last three Democrat presidents have all come from the south. That turns out to be very helpful -- we'll see. First-term senator running for president -- tricky. But that southern route is no liability these days.

CAFFERTY: Absolutely. All right. On to the question of this liberal media. Which, if you made a list of liberal media outlets, probably would include CNN, at least in the eyes of some.

GREENFIELD: Yes. Well, that's what makes this argument such a new twist and, yet, an old one because for decades, back in the '30s and '40s and '50s, Democrats used to complain about the one-party press, because most newspapers were owned by conservative publishers. They endorsed Republicans. "Time" magazine, one of the most important magazines in the country, clearly had a Republican bias.

But ever since the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam war, it's been conservatives who have complained about a liberal bias. Vice President Spiro Agnew, famously, in 1969 or '70, did that speech about the liberal media elite. And that's been a kind of article of faith among with conservatives.

What's happened lately is that the rise of things like talk radio, which is dominated by conservatives, Fox News, our competitor, which is seen by some as a conservative counterweight, if you will, it's owned by Rupert Murdoch, a conservative media baron, run by Roger Ailes, a long-time Republican operative. And Democrats, like Al Gore and Tom Daschle complained about this kind of conservative network that has been very effective in getting the message out. And they're saying, well, what do we do about this?

CAFFERTY: Well, what do they do about it? I mean, is -- do you go along and say, all right, we're going to start a liberal television network, a cable news network, like, to counter Fox?

GREENFIELD: Well, I know right now out there, there are lots of conservatives spitting their coffee out, saying, "Are you nuts? You got The Washington Post...

CAFFERTY: Sure.

GREENFIELD: ... The New York Times, CBS, ABC and you guys. But here's the difference, and it's important to understand it. Even conservative critics of the media, like Bernie Goldberg and his book "Bias," have argued that the bias is subtle. It's what stories you pick. It's the raised eyebrow. It terms of art. What conservatives had developed -- and it's no conspiracy, it's an old tradition that goes back to the revolutionary era, is they're dealing with the kind of pamphleteering network, its advocacy. It goes from the Drudge Report to talk radio, like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, Michael Regan -- Michael Reagan, I'm sorry, to, some people would say there's some many analysts on Fox News. And what it is, it's a very coherent, political message. Liberals have tried -- Jim Hightower and Mario Cuomo, former governor of New York had talk radio programs -- they didn't work. And that's what the problem has been. They have not yet found an alternative voice.

CAFFERTY: Why don't they work? Why, for example, is talk radio dominated by right wing or conservative hosts who seem to attract a big audience, and the ones who advocate the liberal position don't?

GREENFIELD: Well, Liberals will tell you it's because Liberals are more complicated. They have the full complexity, and that's not (inaudible). I think this is a somewhat different argument. Conservatives have, because of their view of the media, have had a sense of being aggrieved, of being victims of the media. And when they heard Rush Limbaugh, 10 or 12 years ago, begin to articulate their views in a very entertaining way, they regarded him not as another analyst, but as kind of a hero.

One thing I'm sure of, it's not going to work to start another network, because the -- you know, Rupert Murdoch could do it with Fox News because he owned a worldwide media empire. He could absorb the losses. There's no room on the cable outlets, till we all get digital. But one thing I do believe, which is beyond ideology, if there were a liberal or a left person out there, as entertaining and as effective in making the case his or her case, as Rush Limbaugh, there'd be room for him on that medium, because what broadcasters most want is audiences.

CAFFERTY: Isn't it also true that, you know, this is really a kind of an old discussion, that if you're looking for a liberal point of view, a moderate point of view or a conservative point of view in this day of satellite communications and digital technology, it's there. You can find it on television, in the newspapers, on the radio. Whatever view you're looking for, you can find. And if you don't agree with the Rush Limbaughs or the Sean Hannities, you probably don't listen to them anyway.

GREENFIELD: Well, a lot of people listen to people they disagree with to get their circulation going. They enjoy it. They sit there and they fume. But what I do think is that conservatism in these days is, frankly, a more coherent view than what passes for liberal leftism. And at least one of the things that's happened, and they also tend to regard their President Bush as their hero, which is very interesting. They were suspicious of him a couple of years ago in a way that even liberals never really saw Bill Clinton has a hero. They defended him against impeachment, but he wasn't exactly their guy.

CAFFERTY: Also speaks to that, perhaps, for more of a better way to phrase it, lack of definition that the Democratic Party is struggling with right now...

GREENFIELD: Yes, exactly.

CAFFERTY: ... that cost him dearly in the midterm election. Their message is not one that's easily identifiable, at least not at this point.

GREENFIELD: Right. You have a guy like Michael Moore who did "Bowling for Columbine", and "Stupid White Men," a book, and he's kind of a left-wing person whether he's the voice of the new left is a different question.

Always good to see you.

Happy new year.

You, too.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com






Aired January 2, 2003 - 09:11   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: A list of Democrats lining up to run for president getting longer. Senator John Edwards preparing to jump into the fray today, take that first step -- forming an exploratory committee -- may, likely, lead to a bid for the White House. This morning on the "Today" show over there on the National Biscuit Company across the street, the Senator from North Carolina offered a small taste of his possible platform.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: This campaign should be about ideas. It should be about vision. I've been talking for the last several months about ideas about how to make America safer: by going after terrorists within our midst; how to keep our borders safe, how to make sure that we secure the most vulnerable targets here in this country; how to make sure that people know what to do if a terrorist attack occurs and be warned about it; how to make sure to get the economy going again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAFFERTY: The first-term senator thinks his experience outside politics as a trial lawyer is an asset, rater than a liability.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDWARDS: I spent most of my adult life, representing kids and families against very powerful opponents -- usually, big insurance companies. And my job was to give them a fair shake, to give them a fair chance. They were at difficult places in their lives. They needed somebody to be their fighter, to be their champion. In most cases, I was all they had. And I think what I was able to do for those kids and those families is something I'll be proud of the rest of my life. It's, by the way, exactly the same thing I've tried to do, since I've been in the Senate and it's exactly the same thing I'll do if I'm in the White House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAFFERTY: And as the Democrats go about map their political strategy, they are turning an eye toward the media. According to "The New York Times," Democrats trying to figure out what to do about what they see as effective conservative media outlets. The New York Times, of course, excluded.

There's even talk of trying to starting a liberal counterattack. Senior analyst Jeff Greenfield here with his take on that. Before we get to that -- Edwards, the answer to the Democrats' problems? Remember, Bill Clinton, nobody had ever heard of him back there a long time ago.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST: Last three Democrat presidents have all come from the south. That turns out to be very helpful -- we'll see. First-term senator running for president -- tricky. But that southern route is no liability these days.

CAFFERTY: Absolutely. All right. On to the question of this liberal media. Which, if you made a list of liberal media outlets, probably would include CNN, at least in the eyes of some.

GREENFIELD: Yes. Well, that's what makes this argument such a new twist and, yet, an old one because for decades, back in the '30s and '40s and '50s, Democrats used to complain about the one-party press, because most newspapers were owned by conservative publishers. They endorsed Republicans. "Time" magazine, one of the most important magazines in the country, clearly had a Republican bias.

But ever since the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam war, it's been conservatives who have complained about a liberal bias. Vice President Spiro Agnew, famously, in 1969 or '70, did that speech about the liberal media elite. And that's been a kind of article of faith among with conservatives.

What's happened lately is that the rise of things like talk radio, which is dominated by conservatives, Fox News, our competitor, which is seen by some as a conservative counterweight, if you will, it's owned by Rupert Murdoch, a conservative media baron, run by Roger Ailes, a long-time Republican operative. And Democrats, like Al Gore and Tom Daschle complained about this kind of conservative network that has been very effective in getting the message out. And they're saying, well, what do we do about this?

CAFFERTY: Well, what do they do about it? I mean, is -- do you go along and say, all right, we're going to start a liberal television network, a cable news network, like, to counter Fox?

GREENFIELD: Well, I know right now out there, there are lots of conservatives spitting their coffee out, saying, "Are you nuts? You got The Washington Post...

CAFFERTY: Sure.

GREENFIELD: ... The New York Times, CBS, ABC and you guys. But here's the difference, and it's important to understand it. Even conservative critics of the media, like Bernie Goldberg and his book "Bias," have argued that the bias is subtle. It's what stories you pick. It's the raised eyebrow. It terms of art. What conservatives had developed -- and it's no conspiracy, it's an old tradition that goes back to the revolutionary era, is they're dealing with the kind of pamphleteering network, its advocacy. It goes from the Drudge Report to talk radio, like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, Michael Regan -- Michael Reagan, I'm sorry, to, some people would say there's some many analysts on Fox News. And what it is, it's a very coherent, political message. Liberals have tried -- Jim Hightower and Mario Cuomo, former governor of New York had talk radio programs -- they didn't work. And that's what the problem has been. They have not yet found an alternative voice.

CAFFERTY: Why don't they work? Why, for example, is talk radio dominated by right wing or conservative hosts who seem to attract a big audience, and the ones who advocate the liberal position don't?

GREENFIELD: Well, Liberals will tell you it's because Liberals are more complicated. They have the full complexity, and that's not (inaudible). I think this is a somewhat different argument. Conservatives have, because of their view of the media, have had a sense of being aggrieved, of being victims of the media. And when they heard Rush Limbaugh, 10 or 12 years ago, begin to articulate their views in a very entertaining way, they regarded him not as another analyst, but as kind of a hero.

One thing I'm sure of, it's not going to work to start another network, because the -- you know, Rupert Murdoch could do it with Fox News because he owned a worldwide media empire. He could absorb the losses. There's no room on the cable outlets, till we all get digital. But one thing I do believe, which is beyond ideology, if there were a liberal or a left person out there, as entertaining and as effective in making the case his or her case, as Rush Limbaugh, there'd be room for him on that medium, because what broadcasters most want is audiences.

CAFFERTY: Isn't it also true that, you know, this is really a kind of an old discussion, that if you're looking for a liberal point of view, a moderate point of view or a conservative point of view in this day of satellite communications and digital technology, it's there. You can find it on television, in the newspapers, on the radio. Whatever view you're looking for, you can find. And if you don't agree with the Rush Limbaughs or the Sean Hannities, you probably don't listen to them anyway.

GREENFIELD: Well, a lot of people listen to people they disagree with to get their circulation going. They enjoy it. They sit there and they fume. But what I do think is that conservatism in these days is, frankly, a more coherent view than what passes for liberal leftism. And at least one of the things that's happened, and they also tend to regard their President Bush as their hero, which is very interesting. They were suspicious of him a couple of years ago in a way that even liberals never really saw Bill Clinton has a hero. They defended him against impeachment, but he wasn't exactly their guy.

CAFFERTY: Also speaks to that, perhaps, for more of a better way to phrase it, lack of definition that the Democratic Party is struggling with right now...

GREENFIELD: Yes, exactly.

CAFFERTY: ... that cost him dearly in the midterm election. Their message is not one that's easily identifiable, at least not at this point.

GREENFIELD: Right. You have a guy like Michael Moore who did "Bowling for Columbine", and "Stupid White Men," a book, and he's kind of a left-wing person whether he's the voice of the new left is a different question.

Always good to see you.

Happy new year.

You, too.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com