Unless we're *admitting* that Iowa deserves complete power over an election, Jason is wrong that all that matters is the pre-Iowa coverage.  Edwards got what, 1 out of every 4 votes in Iowa?  As opposed to 1 out of every 3 for Obama?  THAT justifies the media ignoring him and not presenting his case to New Hampshire and beyond?

I'm not surprised the media feels that way given the minute amount of time is spent covering policy (and yes, there are differences).  For shame.  This is an extreme analogy, but Ted Koppel once said on Nightline that the media has a duty to responsibly report certain stories and not JUST present "what the people are interested in" (he was talking about the 3million life-costing war in Congo).  

John Edwards is LUCKY the media doesn't actually look into a few easy leads and destroy him......

He got media coverage, for daring to have someone skilled cut his hair!  No one questioned Hillary's hair-maintenance bills, but I suspect that because whoever is doing it should pay HER.

I would have to agree that Edwards -- and in fact all of the "second tier" candidates -- were always diminished in favor of the rock stars, Clinton and Obama. Look at old hands like Biden. He's as experienced and as competent as they come. He got a tiny fraction of the press coverage afforded the two frontrunners. Was this ever fair?

Most notable was Elizabeth Edwards' interview with Chris Matthews a day or two after Iowa in which she was pummeled with questions that suggested that her husband had come to the end of the line. She turned to him -- rightfully so, I think --- and asked if a (surprising) second place finish didn't qualify Edwards to be a part of "the conversation," what did.

Like the whole primary mess itself, the media coverage needs to be examined and corrected before further damage is done to the system.

John Edwards is a lightweight and was never a credible candidate.

Does no one remember how he was rolled over by Cheney during the debates of '04?  What an international joke would Edwards be as president.

He does have an obvious opportunity to be a kingmaker, though.  Maybe, even at the convention.

Jason,

I wouldn't blame the media but I look at it differently.  The media coverage has mainly been dismissive in tone -- the NY Times Magazine piece really wasn't substantive and painted Edwards as not being all that excited about running.  Men's Vogue and Esquire are hardly serious news journals. And while the intention of media pundits and reporters has not been to screw Edwards, their overwhelming focus on handicapping the race rather than weighing positions has worked to his distinct disadvantage.

What has hurt Edwards is that Obama - an extremely talented and appealing cadidate - came into the race.  Obviously, Obama hurt Hillary too - but Edwards was the obvious anti-Hillary candidate, sans Obama.  Obama captured a lot of interest among the media, for understandable reasons, and Edwards supporters like myself should recognize the real reason our guy has been struggling.

Having said that, I am very disappointed in the media for the handicapping focus of their coverage of this campaign.  There were at least 4 high quality Democratic candidates, and clearly there are three or four serious contenders on the other side of the aisle.  Which of these candidates offers the nation the best choice in an important election, with so many critical issues before us?  

Rather than answer that question, the media has been all about sorting out who might be ahead in the race.  So guys like Joe Biden, and to some extent, John Edwards, have been hurt -- but in this process we have lost more than any would-be president ever does.  We get the media we deserve, I suppose - but we should aspire to something better.    

Media outlets, like those who write for them and read their output, can only balance 2 or 3 big memes in their heads at one time. Ditto for paying attention to candidates. If it's any kind of contest, political athletic or otherwise, the inevitable tendency will be to treat it as binary. Sharks vs Jets, Ali vs Frazier, US vs USSR, NYGiants vs GBPackers, Tom vs Jerry etc.

Our brains aren't wired for three-dimensional chess. We need black and white, Spy vs Spy. Edwards couldn't get past Obama, so he got next to zip from our binary-inclined cortexes. Ditto for poor Joe Biden, but Life isn't fair.

Yeah, for every primary/caucus, somebody "has to win" or else he's gone.  Then that guy doesn't win, and somehow refuses to drop out.  Makes me wonder why we pay the first bit of attention to the MSM/punditocracy.  How often do they get to be totally, completely WRONG before we just stop listening?

Jason -

You write, "If people want to argue that the media screwed Edwards, they'll need to show that they ignored him before Iowa."

Well, the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which is part of the Pew Research Center, did a comprehensive media monitoring study of the coverage of the election candidates during the first five months of 2007. They covered both print and broadcast media, and gathered a wealth of data that resulted in a publication in October last year. You can read more here: www.journalism.org/.../8187

What they found regarding Edwards versus Hillary and Obama was that

- Hillary had been the primary focus of 294 stories and the secondary focus of 240 stories (makes 534);

- Obama had been the primary focus of 148 stories and the secondary focus of 147 stories (makes 295);

- Edwards was way behind with only 71 primary and 49 secondary mentions (makes 120).

I.e., Edwards got just about 40% the coverage Obama received, and less than a fourth of Hillary. This despite the fact that during this time, Edwards was running at close to two-thirds of Obama's score in the polls, and at 40% of Hillary's scores, and was consistently polling in first place in Iowa.

Moreover, much of the coverage Edwards did get was not so much focused on him, but on his wife, after the news in March that her breast cancer had recurred.

And that's not all. As the Project's report concluded (see www.journalism.org/.../8196):

"While the tone of Edwards’ coverage was split (31% positive, 34% neutral, 35% negative), and thus more positive than Clinton’s and less positive than Obama’s, that is only part of the story.

The coverage began badly for him, with very little coverage in January, as his rivals were gearing up. And when the press did take more notice in February, the coverage was mostly negative (54%). He was largely invisible again in April. And in May, when he became a focus of attention again, 64% of the stories about him were negative and only 7% were favorable.

Elizabeth Edward’s illness made a measurable difference in how he was treated. March, when she announced her cancer’s return, was the only month of substantial media attention in which John Edwards’ favorable coverage outweighed his negative (45% vs. 12%). Elizabeth Edwards, in turn, got even more coverage than he did that month and none of it was negative.

Edwards’ coverage also varied noticeably by medium. On cable, negative stories outweighed positive by 2-to-1, thanks entirely to prime-time cable programming, both on Fox and MSNBC. It was evenly split in newspapers."

So yes, I think it's fair to say that, at least in those months, Edwards was screwed by the media, especially the broadcast media.