Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

FROM THE FAIR AND BALANCE FILES.....

Posted by   + Show Post

Networks Target Romney’s Wealth 13 Times More Than Richer Sen. Kerry

2004 Democratic candidate married to Heinz heiress, far wealthier than his 2012 counterpart.
 
The nomination is several weeks away, but the party has its“inevitable” candidate. With hundreds of millions of dollars at his disposal, opponents raise concerns about whether that vast wealth had completely disconnected him from the reality that most Americans face every day.

The year was 2004 and the candidate Sen. John Kerry. But the major networks gave Kerry’s great wealth nowhere near the attention that they have given to Gov. Mitt Romney’s millions in 2012.

From January to April 2004, the ABC and CBS evening news shows only mentioned Kerry’s wealth once each. And NBC didn’t mention Kerry’s finances or his wife’s wealth at all. Those same three networks have discussed Romney’s wealth a total of 27 times during the same time period in 2012. That’s more than 13 times more than the coverage given Kerry’s wealth (27 stories to 2 stories).

In 2012, NBC News anchor Brian Williams described Mitt Romney’s wealth as “unimaginable,” the product of “vast investments after a successful career in business, much of it spent buying and selling companies,”during the Jan. 24, edition of “Nightly News.” In the first four months of 2004, NBC didn’t even note Kerry’s far more substantial wealth.

According to Forbes estimates from 2004, Kerry himself was worth about $240 million. Teresa Heinz Kerry, his wife, was heir to the Heinz empire and worth anywhere from $500 million to $1 billion more. Romney’s estimated net worth is $250 million – or one third to one-fifth the wealth Kerry and his wife had at the time.

Kerry’s GOP critics raised the issue during that time period, but the networks didn’t bite. Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican Party, argued that Teresa Heinz Kerry’s personal wealth was relevant to the campaign, according to a April 25, 2004, New York Times article, entitled “Privacy of Wife’s Fortune Casts a Shadow Over Kerry.” The article pointed out that “Mr. Kerry borrowed $6 million against the equity in a Boston town house they jointly own to keep his campaign afloat earlier in the year” and “Mrs. Heinz Kerry has said that she will dip into her personal fortune if she and her husband deem it necessary.”

Though even The New York Times considered the issue newsworthy, the broadcast networks did not. CBS correspondent John Dickerson admitted on the Jan. 17, 2012, edition of CBS Evening News that the tactic of using Romney’s wealth to make it look like he does not understand the plight of ordinary Americans was “a version of the attack that Republicans used against John Kerry in 2004.” The most notable difference there, however, was that the Republicans did not have the three major networks reporting their arguments.

ABC, CBS and NBC have echoed the Obama administration’s portrayal of Romney as “wealthy.” An ABC “World News with Diane Sawyer” report from Feb. 1, 2012, labeled Romney as a “wealthy businessman out of touch” with the needs of the common man.

The stories on Romney have covered everything from the push for him to reveal his income tax returns to discussion of his wife’s two Cadillacs. But the Kerrys’ wealth was also enormous. A March 22, 2005, USA Today article detailed a vacation the Kerrys took on Heinz-Kerry’s private jet to a ski resort where her late husband had a private cabin. (Her private jet, “The Flying Squirrel” was apparently named for a ski trail there). That story wasn’t covered on ABC, CBS or NBC.

by on May. 25, 2012 at 8:59 AM
Replies (21-25):
jaxTheMomm
by Gold Member on May. 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Mainstream news feeds us what we want to read, and what is relevant.  When we discuss Romney and Obama and their respective wealths, it is in the context of the Presidential election.  It is relevant to the election because of the recession, super pacs, etc.

It's big news.

Pelosi is not relevant in that context, so perhaps that's why she's not being covered as much.

And I have no idea what you mean by "liberal press".  CNN?  Reuters?  AP?

Your OP asks why Romney's wealth is mentioned more than Kerry's was during his run.  I think you have some pretty valid responses, and none of them much to do with "liberal" editors sitting around twirling their mustaches trying to figure out how to portray him in an unfair light.

His wealth, the creation of his wealth, is very relevant - we want to know if he can put himself in the average American's shoes.  We want to know how his creation of his wealth and his related business experience might convey to the role of President. 

Quoting pvtjokerus:

Yes, that is the obvious reason however, look at Pelosi.  She has been in the press because they are naming a street after her.  Now she has questionable wealth gain and she has been "known" to abuse her powers.  But no one talks about her wealth and she is one of the leading politicians that have gained wealth while in politics.  She is only one example of a democratic politician that gets a pass with the liberal press.

Quoting jaxTheMomm:

I guess because they aren't running for president?

Quoting pvtjokerus:

That is good analogy that I did not think of.  But question.....then why is the media or public not harping on some of the other "well off" democratic leaders such as Pelosi and others that have a lot of press lately?

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 The networks didn't bite with Senator Kerry's wealth because it was a better economy then.  It isn't so much that the media has a liberal bias as that they are in the job of promoting and sensationalizing conflict.  So, even though Kerry was by far richer, the economy was better in 2004 than it is now.  So people didn't care as much about the wealth gap between the candidates and the average American.  As the average American is feeling the pinch in her wallet, the candidates' wealth -- and his ability to relate to the financial struggles of average people -- becomes more of an issue.





pvtjokerus
by Gold Member on May. 27, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Fair enough.  However, yes, I would say that the liberal editors are doing exactly that......sitting around and trying to figure out how to bring him down.  They did it with many of the other conservatives and have turned a blind eye towards the opposite side.  Liberal press: New York Time, Chicago Tribune, LA Time, ABC, NBC, CBS, Washington Post, USA, Houston Chronicle, MSNBC, Rolling Stone Magazine, Times Mag, US Mag, NPR and these are only some of the biggies that I can think of off the top of my head.

Quoting jaxTheMomm:

Mainstream news feeds us what we want to read, and what is relevant.  When we discuss Romney and Obama and their respective wealths, it is in the context of the Presidential election.  It is relevant to the election because of the recession, super pacs, etc.

It's big news.

Pelosi is not relevant in that context, so perhaps that's why she's not being covered as much.

And I have no idea what you mean by "liberal press".  CNN?  Reuters?  AP?

Your OP asks why Romney's wealth is mentioned more than Kerry's was during his run.  I think you have some pretty valid responses, and none of them much to do with "liberal" editors sitting around twirling their mustaches trying to figure out how to portray him in an unfair light.

His wealth, the creation of his wealth, is very relevant - we want to know if he can put himself in the average American's shoes.  We want to know how his creation of his wealth and his related business experience might convey to the role of President. 

Quoting pvtjokerus:

Yes, that is the obvious reason however, look at Pelosi.  She has been in the press because they are naming a street after her.  Now she has questionable wealth gain and she has been "known" to abuse her powers.  But no one talks about her wealth and she is one of the leading politicians that have gained wealth while in politics.  She is only one example of a democratic politician that gets a pass with the liberal press.

Quoting jaxTheMomm:

I guess because they aren't running for president?

Quoting pvtjokerus:

That is good analogy that I did not think of.  But question.....then why is the media or public not harping on some of the other "well off" democratic leaders such as Pelosi and others that have a lot of press lately?

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 The networks didn't bite with Senator Kerry's wealth because it was a better economy then.  It isn't so much that the media has a liberal bias as that they are in the job of promoting and sensationalizing conflict.  So, even though Kerry was by far richer, the economy was better in 2004 than it is now.  So people didn't care as much about the wealth gap between the candidates and the average American.  As the average American is feeling the pinch in her wallet, the candidates' wealth -- and his ability to relate to the financial struggles of average people -- becomes more of an issue.

 

 

 

 


jaxTheMomm
by Gold Member on May. 27, 2012 at 11:46 AM

We'll just have to disagree on that.

Quoting pvtjokerus:

Fair enough.  However, yes, I would say that the liberal editors are doing exactly that......sitting around and trying to figure out how to bring him down.  They did it with many of the other conservatives and have turned a blind eye towards the opposite side.  Liberal press: New York Time, Chicago Tribune, LA Time, ABC, NBC, CBS, Washington Post, USA, Houston Chronicle, MSNBC, Rolling Stone Magazine, Times Mag, US Mag, NPR and these are only some of the biggies that I can think of off the top of my head.

Quoting jaxTheMomm:

Mainstream news feeds us what we want to read, and what is relevant.  When we discuss Romney and Obama and their respective wealths, it is in the context of the Presidential election.  It is relevant to the election because of the recession, super pacs, etc.

It's big news.

Pelosi is not relevant in that context, so perhaps that's why she's not being covered as much.

And I have no idea what you mean by "liberal press".  CNN?  Reuters?  AP?

Your OP asks why Romney's wealth is mentioned more than Kerry's was during his run.  I think you have some pretty valid responses, and none of them much to do with "liberal" editors sitting around twirling their mustaches trying to figure out how to portray him in an unfair light.

His wealth, the creation of his wealth, is very relevant - we want to know if he can put himself in the average American's shoes.  We want to know how his creation of his wealth and his related business experience might convey to the role of President. 

Quoting pvtjokerus:

Yes, that is the obvious reason however, look at Pelosi.  She has been in the press because they are naming a street after her.  Now she has questionable wealth gain and she has been "known" to abuse her powers.  But no one talks about her wealth and she is one of the leading politicians that have gained wealth while in politics.  She is only one example of a democratic politician that gets a pass with the liberal press.

Quoting jaxTheMomm:

I guess because they aren't running for president?

Quoting pvtjokerus:

That is good analogy that I did not think of.  But question.....then why is the media or public not harping on some of the other "well off" democratic leaders such as Pelosi and others that have a lot of press lately?

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 The networks didn't bite with Senator Kerry's wealth because it was a better economy then.  It isn't so much that the media has a liberal bias as that they are in the job of promoting and sensationalizing conflict.  So, even though Kerry was by far richer, the economy was better in 2004 than it is now.  So people didn't care as much about the wealth gap between the candidates and the average American.  As the average American is feeling the pinch in her wallet, the candidates' wealth -- and his ability to relate to the financial struggles of average people -- becomes more of an issue.







JakeandEmmasMom
by Gold Member on May. 27, 2012 at 12:55 PM
That's a good question. I'm afraid I don't know much about her personally. How much is she worth, and how did she make it? Did she grow up wealthy?

Quoting pvtjokerus:

That is good analogy that I did not think of.  But question.....then why is the media or public not harping on some of the other "well off" democratic leaders such as Pelosi and others that have a lot of press lately?


Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:


 The networks didn't bite with Senator Kerry's wealth because it was a better economy then.  It isn't so much that the media has a liberal bias as that they are in the job of promoting and sensationalizing conflict.  So, even though Kerry was by far richer, the economy was better in 2004 than it is now.  So people didn't care as much about the wealth gap between the candidates and the average American.  As the average American is feeling the pinch in her wallet, the candidates' wealth -- and his ability to relate to the financial struggles of average people -- becomes more of an issue.



Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Kate_Momof3
by Platinum Member on May. 28, 2012 at 8:23 AM

Kerry's extreme wealth was what cost him the election in 2004. Period. 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)