MSNBC and Bernie Sanders coverage

RAZD replies to NoNukes:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But let's turn your question around. Is what the Young Turks does all that different from what Fox does?

---

Other than being fact based? They regularly dismantle faux’s propaganda.

---

Yes, but they replace it with their own propaganda. Their Clinton Derangement Syndrome, for example, is of epic proportions and routinely runs into misogyny. That is one thing they share with Fox: They are still fighting the last election. While they don't have Fox's problem of acting like Clinton won the White House, they still think she's the boogeyman.Ed Schultz was dropped along with Krystal Ball, Abby Huntsman, and Tour of The Cycle. The show Now with Alex Wagner was canceled though Wagner stayed on to do political coverage of the 2016 election.The simple fact of the matter is that any source "controls what you see." There are more stories than there is time to report on them. It is an editorial decision which ones will be covered, how deeply, etc. This is why the claim that MSNBC is a "left-wing version of Fox" is so laughable. They host so many conservative voices and engage in the same suppression of liberal views as the rest of the popular media.But I notice you aren't mentioning a couple of things about Ed Schultz:Schultz has always been centrist, waffling between right- and left-of-center. He planned to run as a Republican in 1994 for the House against Earl Pomeroy. While his views evolved over time to become not quite as virulent as the Republicans, his opposition to them wasn't born so much out of liberalism as it was not liking the results of Republican policy.And let us not forget that during his stint as an MSNBC employee, he called Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut" and a "talk slut" on his radio show. He was suspended for a week without pay after he apologized. This was in 2011.Also in 2011, but this time on his MSNBC program, he engaged in deceptive reporting regarding Rick Perry, making it seem that he spouted racism against Barack Obama. Specifically, Perry said, "That big black cloud that hangs over America, that debt that is so monstrous."
Schultz cut the clip off after the word "America," saying, "That black cloud Perry is talking about is President Barack Obama."He attended CPAC last year and is signed on with RT America...you know, the Russian Television network...the same Russians who were interfering in our election. Whereas once he called out Trump on his racism, he now speaks highly of him and downplays any Russian interference in the election (like a loyal comrade...er...employee of RT).He is hardly a reliable source.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

Not illegal per se, but evidence of collusion between Clinton campaign, pac, DNC national campaign.

​

When does collusion become criminal?

---

You mean the same "collusion" that was offered to Sanders but of which he did not take advantage?It would seem that Sanders joined the Democrats simply because he knew that he had no hope of staging a significant campaign without their help but never followed through on what that entailed. Imagine what he could have done with the DNC had he stepped up.Your Clinton Derangement Syndrome is showing, RAZD.

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

The fact remains that no major station covered Bernie seriously.

---

And where did I say otherwise? After all, I have routinely pointed out that during the healthcare debate, not one single political talk show had on any advocate of single-payer. Sanders was certainly the champion of that (but there were others). The media's handling of the 2016 election was horrifically bad on multiple fronts (you'd almost think that they had taken the coverage due Sanders and given it to Trump.)That doesn't absolve Sanders' own failures in his campaign. If we're going to blame Clinton for her missteps and pretend that there wasn't any other reason for her loss than her own self, then it would be hypocritical to somehow let Sanders off the hook.Me? I'm of the opinion that it's all of the above. The external forces that worked against Sanders (and Clinton) combined with the internal ones. However, all of this is nothing but an evasion of the point:Sanders was given the opportunity to work with the DNC as Clinton was. He did not take advantage of that opportunity. To pull out the tin foil and fashion a chapeau is not the appropriate response. The problems of the DNC are many, but the idea that there was some Grand Conspiracy is ludicrous. No, the DNC wasn't that eager to work with Sanders. But he wasn't eager to work with them, either. He was the ultimate example of a "DINO."And people are surprised that the party wasn't exactly enamored? For all the people complaining about the corporatization of the DNC, how they are going after big money, how they are ignoring the policy decisions that would motivate the majority of the party, imagine how much better the DNC would be if Sanders had engaged with them. At the beginning of the campaign, both Sanders and Clinton were presenting a more united front against the Republicans saying that they may have some differences, but they are quite solidly on the right side of things. Rather than use that to create dialogue about how to achieve what they both wanted (we're back to my question you have yet to answer, RAZD: What did Clinton have to say about the minimum wage?) it devolved into demonizing. Imagine if Sanders had been a stronger voice for Clinton after the primaries were over. If he had gone to the DNC and told them that if they wanted to make sure that his followers stayed the course, they should listen to his message that motivated them and integrated it into their campaign.Yeah, most Sanders voters voted for Clinton. She won the election, after all. But as we can see, it was just a tiny number of people who threw the Electoral College. The DNC can't afford to let any vote go. The way our political system is structured, it can often come down to just a few votes. The Democrats need to fight for every single one of them. I rail against so called "liberals" who cut off their nose to spite their face...who vote to ensure that the person who stands against everything they claim to value gets elected rather than vote for the person who is the closest match, but that doesn't absolve the candidate and the machine behind it from paying attention to those idiotic voters and doing everything they can to get them on board.

quote:

---

Your bias is showing too

---

I'm sure it is.I'm also sure you have no idea what it is.

Phat writes:

quote:

---

I don't want a bunch of educated elitist science technocrats determining a global future where all of the masses have an opportunity at my personal expense.

---

Do you honestly not see how the latter part of that sentence directly contradicts the former?Are you not part of "the masses"? What makes you think that the opportunities being offered won't be allowed you?And then there's the sheer lunacy of your setup. There's something wrong with being educated? Science should have no place in determining our future? Technology is the devil? The future of billions of humans isn't global? Isn't that precisely what we want? People who are educated, cognizant of science, aware of technology, and thinking of everybody working on a plan that will benefit everybody? Because the counter to your scenario is feudalism.And you ain't the lord of the manor, Phat.Is there such a thing as "elitism"? Yep. I don't think you understand what that means, though. At least not in this context. The reason we have democracy and a deliberative governmental system is to work against that. That requires us as voters, however, from refusing to elect those who don't have our interest at heart. The problem is not educated people. It's people who use that education to profit themselves rather than "the masses." It isn't science. It's those who distort it. It isn't technology. It's those who wield it as a weapon. It isn't a "global future." It's those who think they have no connection to anybody else.It's those who think "the masses" are out to get them. That somehow helping others is "at their expense."Not very Christian of you, Phat.

PaulK writes:

quote:

---

Jones own lawyer said he was playing a character.

---

It's amazing what a lawsuit will do: Alex Jones, Backtracking, Now Says Sandy Hook Shooting Did HappenIt's always hard to tell with dedicated charlatans just how much of their own hype they believe. They so easily change their attitudes when their necks are on the line, and yet they have to be truly committed to their bull in order to sustain it for so long. After all, even though Jones is now admitting that Sandy Hook actually happened, he's claiming that the parents are being "used" by the Democratic Party.How much of that is him trying to save his business and how much of that his him trying to save face?

Phat writes:

quote:

---

It did appeal to me, playing on my fears of losing my God-given spot in society...which is why I started this rant.

---

And what about the rest of us, Phat? What about those of us who think they also have a "god-given spot in society"? What about those of us who don't think there is a god? Do they not get a spot in society?This goes back to my post which you didn't respond to: Are you not part of "the masses"? What makes you think that the opportunities being offered won't be allowed to you?You ain't the lord of the manor, Phat. Do you really think that if Trump has his way that you will reap any benefit? For all your talk of "populism," do you think the people you helped put into power are concerned about you? That they think you are part of that "populace" that you claim they are championing? Do you honestly think that the Republicans in general and Trump in particular are out to help, as your definition put it, "the interest of ordinary people"?Here's a simple example: The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. It is quite literally charged with protecting the interest of the ordinary people by acting on their behalf against corporations that would seek to swindle them. In the first half of 2017, it returned more than $14M to consumers.But now, under Trump's (arguably illegal) appointment of Mulvaney to lead the CPFB, they are doing away with those protections. There is the 1975 Home Mortgage Data Act. In 2015, the CPFB updated what information it wanted to collect. But under Mulvaney, there will now be no fines for those financial institutions who have errors in their reporting data. And the data being asked for (called "HMDA Plus") is not anything new to these financial institutions: They use that information themselves regarding mortgages, they just never had to report them. The policy is also contracting the data being collected, so that the oversight function of the CPFB will not be as able to carry out its job.It is this information and oversight that helps to prevent the mortgage crisis we had that led to the need for the CPFB in the first place. If you're concerned about predatory lending practices, discrimination in lending, or even just getting a handle on how the mortgage market is going so that you can make sure it is stable and robust, how can you support someone who seeks to blow it all up?And that's just the beginning. Mulvaney wants to rescind the rules on payday lending, to put the CFPB's funding under appropriation control in Congress, to have Congress approve any rule changes, etc., etc.None of that is for you, Phat. None of the policies being put forward are designed to help you. Take the tax bill just passed. Is $1.50 a week really much of a benefit? Especially when it's going to expire in a few years and in the process cost you more? While the corporate tax cuts are permanent?I understand that you are worried for your future.Do you understand that the people running the show right now do not care about your future?

Phat writes:

quote:

---

So much for the accusations of a liberal media.

---

Indeed. Conservatives like to whine all the time about how reporters, on the whole, tend to be Democrats, but they never seem to want to discuss the fact that the corporations that those reporters work for aren't nearly as liberal.Which leads into your next comment:

quote:

---

Perhaps there is a hint of a conspiracy in that the major networks only cover what Jones would say was a globalist agenda---Hillary having been a PC inner circle "liberal" in name only. They market the "products" and people whom they wish to advance. Or am I again being paranoid?

---

Yes.Rather than conspiracy, just follow the money: Perhaps the major networks cover things that they think will make them money. The CEO of CBS, Leslie Moonves, directly said it with regard to the 2016 election: "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS." They aren't in it to score political points as their primary concern.They're in it for the money and if they don't think you and your issues will sell, then they don't care. Sanders wasn't covered because they didn't think he was going to be the candidate. They're interested in the horse race because the horse race sells ads. That's why Trump sucked up all the air in the room both for the Republicans and for the race in general: His actions got people to watch.But more to speak to Jones: If there is no "liberal media," then if that said media finds him to be a laughing stock, what could possibly be their motivation?And by the way: You do know that "globalist" is nothing but an alt-right euphemism for "Jewish," yes?Are you really willing to go down the road of anti-Semitism, Phat?

Phat responds to RAZD:

quote:

---

I've heard that "conspiracy theory" before. Is it really true? Do oligarchs control global media?

---

It's not a "conspiracy theory." It's simple reality: Major media in this country is owned by a handful of companies. For the US, it's 6 companies:GE owns Comcast, NBC, Universal, Focus Pictures, Dreamworks, Fandango, Illumination, Hulu (with Time Warner), Grammercy, Bravo, Chiller, E, Esquire, Sprout, USA, Telemundo, The Weather Channel, SyFy, MLB Network, TiVo, Flipboard, and DocuSign.News-Corp owns Fox, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, myTV, Barrons, HarperCollins, Financial News, and Harlequin.Disney owns ABC, ESPN, Pixar, Miramax, Marvel, Lifetime, Lucasfilm, A&E, History Channel, Vice, Touchstone, and Hyperion.Time Warner owns CNN, HBO, Time, Warner Bros., Cartoon Network, Hulu (with GE), Mad, TCM, the CW, TruTV, Cinemax, Castle Rock, and DC.National Amusements owns CBS, Paramount, Viacom, MTV, Nickelodeon, BET, Comedy Central, Showtime, the Smithsonian Channel, Pocket Books, Simon and Schuster, TV Guide, c|net, and Gamespot.Sony owns Crackle, Screen Gems, Imageworks, Game Show Network, Destination Films, TriStar, EMI, Legacy, Epic, Syco, Olympus, and have their own financial institutions Sony Bank, Sony Financial Holdings, and Sony Life.And that's just the tip of the iceberg regarding what they own. Those 6 companies own 90% of media. Looking only at TV, they own 70% with the other 30% split across more than 3,000 other companies. Despite the fact that the FCC forbids companies from owning more than 40 radio stations, Clear Channel owns 1200 with some cities having every single radio station owned by Clear Channel.

quote:

---

Is there no way to actually hear the truth in raw form anymore?

---

There is no such thing. There never has been such a thing. Surely you've heard of Spanish-American War, yes? How Hearst and Pulitzer literally ginned up a war in order to boost circulation? There has never been a shortage of opinionation in the media. If you may recall, when the Democrats sued the Nixon campaign over Watergate, the media generally dismissed it as desperate and frivolous. Brinkley spewed an editorial about it on national television.But even assuming no ego in the newsroom, there are more stories than there is media to publicize them. The mere act of journalism requires making editorial choices about what to cover and in what depth. Do you honestly think that NBC is going to be as critical about GE as, say CNN would be? That CNN would be as critical about Warner as ABC would be? That ABC would be as critical of Disney as Fox would be? That Fox would be as critical of the Wall Street Journal as the New York Times would be?With the fall of the Fairness Doctrine, television news has shifted from being a loss leader to a profit center. That is, television stations such as NBC knew the news was going to be a money loser, but they did it anyway because they had a mission regarding journalism. However, newsrooms these days are considered to be profit centers and if you can't turn a profit, you get canned. Thus, harder news has given way to puff pieces and sensationalism.Despite all the claims about journalists being "liberal," the media actually skews conservative, which is not surprising given the corporate nature of the media. Conservatives get more air time and more solo air time than liberals. Again, during the healthcare debate back in 2010, not one single advocate of single-payer was ever given any airtime on any of the political talk shows.There is no such thing as "truth in raw form" and there never can be. News is carried out by people and people aren't perfect. You need to pay attention to the sources you are listening to, compare them to others, and actually listen to what you are being told to see if it passes the smell test. It isn't enough to say that Fox is owned by known conservatives and yellow journalists. You have to pay attention to what they are doing. Did you see Trump's little rant on Fox and Friends today? Do you think it's appropriate for a media outlet to be so cozy with the President? When the media outlet makes mistakes (and they all do), how do they handle it? Does this outlet seem to always be at odds with most other media outlets? If so, how do they make their justification? Pay attention to the way the news cycle happens: Do the pundits at night make unsubstantiated claims (under the guise of "just asking questions") that the news people in the morning pick up as, "People are talking about," as if that somehow lends credence?And just as importantly, compare the information you are reading against your own confirmation bias. If a source shows itself to be regularly unreliable, do you continue to turn to it because you often hear what you like from it?

To that end, the Washington Post, that supposed "failing," "liberal" newspaper that Trump claims is a "lobbyist for Amazon" just hired Kevin Williamson.Williamson was let go from the Atlantic over his comments that women who get abortions should be hanged. And despite what certain news sources may tell you, it was not over "a single tweet." He routinely called for the deaths of people who have and perform abortions, saying that lethal injection was "too antiseptic" and that they should be killed violently (such as by hanging), saying, "if the state is going to do violence, let’s make it violence. Let’s not pretend like we’re doing something else."Now, while you would expect that National Review, where Williamson made those comments, would leap to his defense, it seems that Kevin Drum of Mother Jones (supposedly liberal) and Bret Stephens of the New York Times (again, supposedly liberal) came to his defense. Stephens said, "I jumped at your abortion comment, but for heaven’s sake, it was a tweet."For crying out loud, even Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg tried to defend him, saying, "taking a person’s worst tweets, or assertions, in isolation is the best journalistic practice," and then going on to say he "would also prefer, all things being equal, to give people second chances and the opportunity to change. I’ve done this before in reference to extreme tweeting."*But this wasn't an isolated incident. This wasn't an example of "worst assertions in isolation." Williams was confronted regarding this by Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, asking if he were truly serious and he repeatedly said that he was, stating that the point was not merely to have these women die for having an abortion but to have them suffer.Since then, Williamson has been whining about this, claiming that when New York magazine asked him some questions, he refused and instead countered that he give them an essay telling his side of the story. They refused. He is claiming that this is proof that there is a conspiracy against him, that people are lying about him, etc., etc. He makes this claim in the Weekly Standard.Interestingly, his essay that he offered to New York (which he proudly trumpets as "free of charge") is not to be found in the Weekly Standard. Instead, he simply whines about how misunderstood he is. As GQ described it: What liberal media?* So if the E-i-C didn't want him gone, why was he let go? Because enough people told Goldberg that Williamson was a liability. He was there for only two weeks.