Why MSNBC did not cover Bernie Sanders, even though they were the most liberal/progressive leaning network.
Ed was my favorite on MSNBC until he was fired (too liberal?) ...
This is how corporate news controls the news you get to see.
Is this any different from Sinclair or FOX?
I prefer independent news - Democracy Now, Humanist Report, The Young Turks, and yes a variety of foreign sources (al jazeera, RT) for alternate views.
Still think there was no conspiracy to silence Bernie's message?
For what it's worth, MSNBC is kinda left leaning, but I have found that they miss the mark way too often, and I just cannot watch them on a regular basis. They just are not accurate enough.
This is how corporate news controls the news you get to see.
Is this any different from Sinclair or FOX?
Yes, it is way different from Sinclair.
I prefer independent news - Democracy Now, Humanist Report, The Young Turks, and yes a variety of foreign sources (al jazeera, RT) for alternate views.
I watch the Young Turks, but they have their own, quite obvious, slant. I suspect that all news services do. It would be a mistake to rely on any one of those sources you named as supplying objective truth. It might be that their slant matches your own proclivities. But let's turn your question around. Is what the Young Turks does all that different from what Fox does?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
For what it's worth, MSNBC is kinda left leaning, but I have found that they miss the mark way too often, and I just cannot watch them on a regular basis.
I stopped watching MSNBC around the time of the 2008 election. They were more entertaining and informative prior to that. But they seemed to adopt the Fox News model of excessive bias. Except this time, from the left side of the fence.
In my opinion, the main 24 hr news stations are utter garbage at this stage. The way I categorize them is as follows:
Fox News: Heavy right slant; mouthpiece for RNC MSNBC: Heavy left slant: mouthpiece for the DNC CNN: Disaster porn (Wanna know how you get CNN to come to your house? Tell them you have a Malaysian airliner in your backyard)
My personal favorites for news are the PBS news hour and BBC America. Both have slants, but PBS focuses more on what I think is real journalism and BBC provides a world view that is sorely lacking in the other news stations.
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.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
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.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
Usually, I laughed at Alex Jones and the conservative conspiracy theories which he espoused. I could see that he earned a decent living broadcasting the trash and innuendo that he did, and considered him too far to the right. I also seek the truth in the news and yet am unafraid to listen to every source for comparison and contrast.
Jones latest commentary appears to show a side of him that is puzzlingly honest and genuine, however. He actually believes in a globalist agenda and comes across as honestly defending the hypothesis. https://www.infowars.com/...against-donald-trump-is-now-live
I judged this presentation with an admitted bias...I assumed that Jones was not simply full of it...he actually believes what he broadcasts.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
I used to think it was all so simple. The Left and the Right. Two philosophies, two contrasting ideologies. Now, however, I see the Left behaving at times like the Right and visa versa. I am puzzled as to what, if anything, is the proper philosophy or path with which to believe and support. Add by Edit:
As I examine my own bias and beliefs, I find that I actually agree that there is a movement to bring down the American middle class...whether we have done it to ourselves or whether it is and was being done to us.
I'm not entirely clear as to what or who it is whom I oppose, but I find myself agreeing more and more with the populists whom I used to laugh at. 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.
Edited by Phat, : added musings
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
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.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
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.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
™ Version 4.2
(1)