Claims of biased media coverage on Bernie Sanders from his top campaign advisors

jviggy43

Member
Oct 28, 2017
13,488
Even worse, he spoke about it directly after talking about Fox News and Rupert Murdoch, trying to directly tie a line between the two.
No you missed the point. He also brought up the times as well. All of which was used to evidence the point of the question being asked. Nowhere was he suggesting there was some link with Fox news and WaPo other than, theyre owned by incredibly wealthy people who have a lot of influence in the world.
 

BADMAN

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
1,467
This "oh I guess the media can't be criticized huh?" response is a complete strawman. No one has ever suggested the media can't be criticized. The issue is not that Bernie is criticizing the media. The issue is specifically that instead of arguing why particular coverage is wrong or misleading, he assigned a conspiratorial motivation to it all to poison the well and have people reject negative coverage out of hand. It's like responding to someone arguing against the moonlanding conspiracy with "oh so I guess NASA is perfect then, huh?"



Lol, if you're satisfied with such an awful perspective you stick with it I guess.
I'm extremely satisfied with my perspective and I will certainly stick with it. Infact you and I can be polar opposite trash buddies where we both trash up threads with our awful takes
 

Baji Boxer

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,385
Even worse, he spoke about it directly after talking about Fox News and Rupert Murdoch, trying to directly tie a line between the two.
Yeah. And big mistake bringing it back to himself like that. Especially considering Trump's dangerous anti-media rhetoric. While the fact of corporate owned media is something to keep in mind, don't throw out baseless jabs at a publication like that, regardless of owner.
 

digdug2k

Member
Mar 28, 2018
492
Don't read opeds. They have literally zero value. The section, in every paper from your local gazette to the nyt, is worthless. Stop talking about opeds like they are news.

The craziest thing to see in these trump days is how quick even really smart people are to attach themselves to conclusions they want to be true, even after they see theres no evidence to support them
 

Maolfunction

Member
Oct 27, 2017
997
No you missed the point. He also brought up the times as well. All of which was used to evidence the point of the question being asked. Nowhere was he suggesting there was some link with Fox news and WaPo other than, theyre owned by incredibly wealthy people who have a lot of influence in the world.
If you say so. Sure seems like a lot of people didn't read it that way considering today's headlines.

But, right, they're all biased against him and the rest of us can't understand his words or read between the lines.
 

Sunster

Banned
Oct 5, 2018
2,445
i think maybe the worst and most dangerous things about the trump era is the blanket demonization of "the media". huge swaths of people just straight up don't trust journalism now. NYT for example has printed several GROUNDBREAKING stories these past few years and it seemed like people were just like, "lol okkkk." all facts are optional now. earth "may or may not be flat" the holocaust "may or may not have happened" everything's "up for debate" we're all just spinning our wheels debating and arguing on things that are simply facts instead of moving forward.
 

jviggy43

Member
Oct 28, 2017
13,488
If you say so. Sure seems like a lot of people didn't read it that way considering today's headlines.

But, right, they're all biased against him and the rest of us can't understand his words or read between the lines.
So youre going to ignore the video posted in here, time marked for you, where he literally addressed a question about numerous rich donors owning media outlets in order to act like he was insinuating there was a tie between fox news and Bezos? Someone certainly is having trouble understanding his words. Also for the people who "aren't reading it like that considering the headline" are either not reading the actual speech he was giving and just going off the headline, or showing their face of what theyre about
 

TheModestGun

Member
Dec 5, 2017
2,357
Retail campaigning is the hand shaking and individual kissing baby part as well as the touring. While I doubt Bernie didn't shake hands and kiss babies and while I agree that the media is complicit in creating horse races and drama out of nothing - that crowd image doesn't actually invalidate the tweet. I assume on the other hand that the NYT probably has loads of pics of the individual interactions it claims "almost" didn't occur.
Yes there is literally one of those pictures in this thread of Sanders meeting with individuals in Iowa and not just making a speech.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,206
I doubt the vast majority of the people are familiar with the term. I just had to look it up lol.
The story, which people presumably haven't read, is about Sanders' approach to the Iowa Fair (and Iowa in general) differing from other candidates there - eschewing the traditional one-on-one interactions, baby kissing and burger flipping.

I mean I don't blame him because fairs are gross and people are gross. But I'm not running for POTUS.
Yes there is literally one of those pictures in this thread of Sanders meeting with individuals in Iowa and not just making a speech.
Everyone is campaigning and meeting people in Iowa. Visiting a poison well or whatever is not what the article is about...

As far as the footage I've seen Sanders came to the Fair with a large entourage, gave his speech, ate a corn dog, and mostly briskly walked through the crowd from place to place with his wife. Which is... Basically what's described.

It's no secret that Sanders isn't big on retail politicking.
 
Last edited:

Maolfunction

Member
Oct 27, 2017
997
So youre going to ignore the video posted in here, time marked for you, where he literally addressed a question about numerous rich donors owning media outlets in order to act like he was insinuating there was a tie between fox news and Bezos? Someone certainly is having trouble understanding his words. Also for the people who "aren't reading it like that considering the headline" are either not reading the actual speech he was giving and just going off the headline, or showing their face of what theyre about
Yeah, I watched it. He literally goes "Rupert Murdoch controls what Fox News puts out. So if you want to know why the NYT, WaPo, and the WSJ write mean articles about me, you know why."

That, to me, from my understanding of the English language, is saying that the rich people who own these organizations are responsible for what their outlets put out in the same way Murdoch is responsible for what Fox News puts out. And just as us smart people know not to trust Fox News because we know that it's just a mouthpiece for what Murdoch wants, we should similarly stop getting the news from WaPo, the NYT, and WSJ because they're just mouthpieces for their rich owners.

Which I disagree and am disappointed with.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,977
Yeah using Murdoch and Fox News as an argument against Bernie suggesting a conspiracy with Bezos and the WaPo is a terrible strategy because Murdoch literally does do to the entities he owns what Bernie just suggested Bezos is doing with WaPo.
 

Zombegoast

Member
Oct 30, 2017
4,325
Not sure why people are taking the political media's side on this. They've been trash forever now. What's the harm in criticizing them?
Because it might give Bernie credit.

US debates are just shit show having candidates trying to explain everything in less than minute.

And all they do is paint Bernie as the bad guy when a guest on MSNBC would rather vote Trump instead of Bernie.

Joe Rogan interview is what he needed and the YT comments have been positive where it's usually a shit show.
 

y2dvd

Member
Nov 14, 2017
1,631
Even if there are no direct proof of Bezos telling the WaPo what to write, do we really believe the richest man on earth doesn't have any semblance in what is published?
 

Maolfunction

Member
Oct 27, 2017
997
Even if there are no direct proof of Bezos telling the WaPo what to write, do we really believe the richest man on earth doesn't have any semblance in what is published?
Yes.

Like, christ, do you guys have any idea who the people who are on WaPo's leadership are? How long they've been in the industry? Their stances on these issues you're accusing them of?

Our senior management here has a conversation with Jeff once every two weeks. We talk about tactics and strategies, a whole range of subjects in that realm. We never talk about our stories that we're working on. He's never assigned a story, never suppressed a story. He's never even critiqued a story. We operate entirely with independence.
 

GuessMyUserName

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
1,619
Toronto
Oh boy, I don't normally have Brian Williams but I left the TV up long enough to catch his commercial break teaser for the coming coverage -- "What are Democrats to do when Bernie starts to sound like Donald?"

I ain't even a Bernie stan but yikes.
 

Nocturnal

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,122
The media is not your friend, in fact they are complicit in Trump's election as I pointed early in this very thread but was ignored.
They normalized Trump & made him acceptable to push ratings, they would literally be broadcasting 30 minutes of an empty podium back in 2015.
Hardly called him out on his BS and were more than happy to push the GOP circus & awful people like Carson & Cruz in order to have a horse race narrative.

Also WaPo published 16 negative articles about Bernie in a single day... what are you even arguing about?
When was the last time their panels discussed any of Sanders or Warren for that matter proposals in good faith. They'd usually have lobbyist or surrogates on their panels on that didn't even disclose they are lobbyist or surrogates for someone. Howard Dean is a good example when was the last time he was introduced as a Big Pharma lobbyist on a panel instead of being "ex-Presidential" candidate? & we should somehow take his opinion on M4A seriously?
 

digdug2k

Member
Mar 28, 2018
492
When was the last time their panels discussed any of Sanders or Warren for that matter proposals in good faith. They'd usually have lobbyist or surrogates on their panels on that didn't even disclose they are lobbyist or surrogates for someone. Howard Dean is a good example when was the last time he was introduced as a Big Pharma lobbyist on a panel instead of being "ex-Presidential" candidate? & we should somehow take his opinion on M4A seriously?
What "panel"? They're a newspaper. Their latest article about him (ignoring the ones about this exact subject) is "Bernie Sanders focuses on Medicare-for-all, making it the defining issue of his campaign". Before that its "Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and other presidential candidates say Walmart should stop selling guns".

Are you talking about oped's? Like you want them to run an oped by someone who likes Warren or Sanders (they already do).

I'm curious about that 16 article thing, but it was from 2016, and it was the day after a debate between him and Clinton: https://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/ . Its hard to look and see what sort of articles were written about her in the same time frame (and FAIR doesn't try to). I... still don't really buy that it shows some sort of sestimic hatred for him from the Post, then or today.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,206
Also WaPo published 16 negative articles about Bernie in a single day... what are you even arguing about?
I don't know how you can simultaneously link to the Shorenstein Centre report that show Sanders received on balance positive press coverage in the pre-primary and most of the primary periods of 2016, and yet propagate this foolishness.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and also assume you have read those 16 articles, which either aren't negative and/or are just post-debate analysis/punditry, pulling out a sentence or action from the debate - the shushing, the ghetto comment, trade comments etc - or appraisal of overall performance. This is not something exclusive to Sanders.

They do the same now except there are a million candidates.
It was just a two horse race in 2016.
 

StoveOven

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
972
Yeah, I watched it. He literally goes "Rupert Murdoch controls what Fox News puts out. So if you want to know why the NYT, WaPo, and the WSJ write mean articles about me, you know why."

That, to me, from my understanding of the English language, is saying that the rich people who own these organizations are responsible for what their outlets put out in the same way Murdoch is responsible for what Fox News puts out. And just as us smart people know not to trust Fox News because we know that it's just a mouthpiece for what Murdoch wants, we should similarly stop getting the news from WaPo, the NYT, and WSJ because they're just mouthpieces for their rich owners.

Which I disagree and am disappointed with.
You might want to look up who owns the Wall Street Journal.
 
Last edited:

Inuhanyou

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,313
New Jersey
CNN : Where is the proof that corporate media is biased against you Sanders? Where is it!? There's not a single shred of evidence whatsoever!

Also CNN:


Also Also CNN :

 
Oct 25, 2017
2,326
CNN : Where is the proof that corporate media is biased against you Sanders? Where is it!? There's not a single shred of evidence whatsoever!

Also CNN:


Also Also CNN :

Um CNN is correct. Bernie Sanders is incorrect. Unless Bernie math changes something, 10k (US per capita health care spending) is not 2x 7.5k(Switzerland per capita health care spending). Any is an important qualifier. The second CNN article does not say any. It mentions the average.

All you are proving is that Bernie stans are not fans of facts. A
 

Acorn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,548
Scotland
In the Anglosphere anything to the left of 90s politics is treated like a dangerous kook and almost as bad as a trump like figure. Even by supposedly "left"(they aren't) sources.
 

Inuhanyou

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,313
New Jersey
Um CNN is correct. Bernie Sanders is incorrect. Unless Bernie math changes something, 10k (US per capita health care spending) is not 2x 7.5k(Switzerland per capita health care spending)
Before you kneejerk at my post desperate for a snappy comeback, actually read the actual politifact article...they were not rating Sanders claim 'false' because the US doesnt spend more than twice as most countries, we actually do spend more than twice as most countries. They rated it false because there are 'a few' countries out of the many that spend a little more than half.

Its nuance/nitpick trolling by CNN themselves, and that makes it a bias, desperate to make Sanders in a tweet sound as if he is lying about his claim by trying to focus on the small detail rather than actually do their jobs as journalists to explain the situation in more depth about his position and how he is actually correct.

They had to actually update their own article that they linked to because Sanders team said that they were able to reference right back to the post CNN themselves made on the substance.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,977
Before you kneejerk at my post desperate for a snappy comeback, actually read the actual politifact article...they were not rating Sanders claim 'false' because the US doesnt spend more than twice as most countries, we actually do spend more than twice as most countries. They rated it false because there are 'a few' countries out of the many that spend a little more than half.

Its nuance/nitpick trolling by CNN themselves, and that makes it a bias, desperate to make Sanders in a tweet sound as if he is lying about his claim by trying to focus on the small detail rather than actually do their jobs as journalists to explain the situation in more depth about his position and how he is actually correct.

They had to actually update their own article that they linked to because Sanders team said that they were able to reference right back to the post CNN themselves made on the substance.
Did they change the name to Politi-closeenough?
 

Inuhanyou

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,313
New Jersey
Did they change the name to Politi-closeenough?
Nope, but im not even calling out politifact for not using their normal "partially true" "partially correct" scale either. I am calling out the corporate media in CNN for trying to make a non story out of something just to get at Sanders in some way, while then having to get owned by their own earlier postings.

Its similar to how Jake Tapper make an entire video to say Bernie and AOC were lying about M4A saving 2 trillion dollars in the Marcatus conservative study because "i went to the source of the study and asked them if they said M4A saves 2 trillion dollars and they said 'no', so thats all that needs to be said"

WHen Sanders and AOC were making a deeper point about an unintentional reveal of how much money their own study said that the plan would save. They were not quoting Marcatus verbatim but highlighting the flaws in their own conservative logic, because they were not going to admit their data was proving his point to start with. That's the ENTIRE reason the Marcatus study was brought into the national conversation to begin with in the first place, to highlight the flaws in the conservative position on how much Sanders plan would save compared to the current system over 10 years.

Jake tapper later had to come back and apologize for this but still didnt admit that he was wrong, just that "we fudged some information in the previous video but still Marcatus didnt directlysay that M4A saves 2 trillion, so we're still right"

 
Last edited:

skullmuffins

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,683
Nope, but im not even calling out politifact for not using their normal "partially true" "partially correct" scale either. I am calling out the corporate media in CNN for trying to make a non story out of something just to get at Sanders in some way, while then having to get owned by their own earlier postings.
What? They didn't get "owned" by their own earlier postings. Sanders keeps saying we spend more than twice ANY other country. That is incorrect. It is true we spend more than twice the OECD average, but that is not what he actually said despite his team saying that's what he's referring to. I, personally, appreciate knowing the actual facts of the matter so I don't accidentally go around repeating false statistics to people.
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,123
Minnesota
So I had no intention on posting in this thread again, but there have been a few developments that bring more clarity to this situation that haven't been brought up here yet, so I figured, "what the hell, I might as well do it myself", so here you go:

As expected, Bernie clarifies that he was not literally referring to a conspiracy theory:


And was referring to the framework in which stories are produced due to corporate media bias.

This is something that Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti talk about in a video they put out today, where they explain how bias has affected them as journalists themselves and why the influence from the top is real, though not as direct as people theorize about.


This is why it's important to try to make arguments in good faith, otherwise, you end up with a lot of strawmen that weren't invited to the discussion in the first place.
 

Inuhanyou

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,313
New Jersey
What? They didn't get "owned" by their own earlier postings. Sanders keeps saying we spend more than twice ANY other country. That is incorrect. It is true we spend more than twice the OECD average, but that is not what he actually said despite his team saying that's what he's referring to. I, personally, appreciate knowing the actual facts of the matter so I don't accidentally go around repeating false statistics to people.
That is the entire problem, because its nuance trolling to get people like you to say "what's wrong? its not technically incorrect!", because your intentionally missing the point of his statement just to nitpick small details that dont take away whatsoever from his overall sentiment.

The difference between "Most countries per capita spend half of the US on healthcare" and "All other countries without exception spend less than half per capita of the US on healthcare" doesnt fucking matter to the point he's making.

THAT TONS OF COUNTRIES THAT ARE NOT THE US SPEND LESS THAN HALF PER CAPITA OR LESS IN GENERAL ON HEALTHCARE!

But CNN still tries to make a tweet or a headline about how "Bernie Sanders is wrong", knowing that people arent going to read the actual nuance. They just hear "That Bernie Sanders is lying again and making outrageous claims like i hear all the time on the media!"

That is bias by default to perpetuate a specific narrative. Acknowledge it!

So I had no intention on posting in this thread again, but there have been a few developments that bring more clarity to this situation that haven't been brought up here yet, so I figured, "what the hell, I might as well do it myself", so here you go:

As expected, Bernie clarifies that he was not literally referring to a conspiracy theory:

This is why it's important to try to make arguments in good faith, otherwise, you end up with a lot of strawmen that weren't invited to the discussion in the first place.
I'm pretty sure everyone and their mother knew this to be the case...so i dont really know why he felt he had to come out and clarify it... The people strawmanning his position already knew this. they were just trying to back up the media's false narrative because its a team sport.

The position of the US media and how it is affected by default, its very nature of being a corporate entity designed and owned by wealthy elites is by definition a corrupting influence on how stories and positions and narratives are framed, by the hiring practices and the people who get picked up to write stories. It doesnt have to be Jeff bezos directly telling people what to write, and it was never about that. Even if the media does have instances of that, and we can just look at Fox as a single example.
 
Last edited:

phanphare

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,911
So I had no intention on posting in this thread again, but there have been a few developments that bring more clarity to this situation that haven't been brought up here yet, so I figured, "what the hell, I might as well do it myself", so here you go:

As expected, Bernie clarifies that he was not literally referring to a conspiracy theory:


And was referring to the framework in which stories are produced due to corporate media bias.

This is something that Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti talk about in a video they put out today, where they explain how bias has affected them as journalists themselves and why the influence from the top is real, though not as direct as people theorize about.


This is why it's important to try to make arguments in good faith, otherwise, you end up with a lot of strawmen that weren't invited to the discussion in the first place.
I always appreciate your posts and frankly you shouldn't let the disingenuous posters who often delve into personal attacks deter you from posting in political threads. your posts are generally the most rational and well sourced posts I've seen on here without falling into the common trap of merely linking a think piece and thinking that's checkmate for whatever discussion is being had. you actually pull the relevant bits from the sources you cite to specifically tie into the point your making or refuting and that's not common at all in these kinds of threads. basically the low effort posters who just want to stir the shit do not deserve to be successful in their attempts to silence you. your posts are a net positive to these threads and I'm sure they are well received and insightful for many people and probably a lot of lurkers who share your views but do not share your ability to coherently put those views into words and are deterred from posting because of the negativity that supporting progressive politics can bring.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,977
So I had no intention on posting in this thread again, but there have been a few developments that bring more clarity to this situation that haven't been brought up here yet, so I figured, "what the hell, I might as well do it myself", so here you go:

As expected, Bernie clarifies that he was not literally referring to a conspiracy theory:


And was referring to the framework in which stories are produced due to corporate media bias.

This is something that Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti talk about in a video they put out today, where they explain how bias has affected them as journalists themselves and why the influence from the top is real, though not as direct as people theorize about.


This is why it's important to try to make arguments in good faith, otherwise, you end up with a lot of strawmen that weren't invited to the discussion in the first place.
So what is the relationship between WaPo’s coverage, Bezos, and specifically his criticism of Amazon’s taxes?
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,123
Minnesota
so i dont really know why he felt he had to come out and clarify it
I think it's probably because his team is very keen on dealing with bad press so that it doesn't negatively affect him too much. At least, that's my guess.

I always appreciate your posts and frankly you shouldn't let the disingenuous posters who often delve into personal attacks deter you from posting in political threads. your posts are generally the most rational and well sourced posts I've seen on here without falling into the common trap of merely linking a think piece and thinking that's checkmate for whatever discussion is being had. you actually pull the relevant bits from the sources you cite to specifically tie into the point your making or refuting and that's not common at all in these kinds of threads. basically the low effort posters who just want to stir the shit do not deserve to be successful in their attempts to silence you. your posts are a net positive to these threads and I'm sure they are well received and insightful for many people and probably a lot of lurkers who share your views but do not share your ability to coherently put those views into words and are deterred from posting because of the negativity that supporting progressive politics can bring.
I appreciate the feedback and kind words. Thank you.

I definitely see value in not having others silence me, but I'm a fairly busy person who tries to find balance with social media engagement and other activities, so when I sense that a conversation isn't going to be productive, that's usually a sign for me that it's time to go. So just know that when I bail out seemingly abruptly, most of the time it's to find more productive use of my time and to maintain my overall mental health. Thanks again for the feedback though.
 

phanphare

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,911
I appreciate the feedback and kind words. Thank you.

I definitely see value in not having others silence me, but I'm a fairly busy person who tries to find balance with social media engagement and other activities, so when I sense that a conversation isn't going to be productive, that's usually a sign for me that it's time to go. So just know that when I bail out seemingly abruptly, most of the time it's to find more productive use of my time and to maintain my overall mental health. Thanks again for the feedback though.
no worries just wanted to throw that out there. always feels like positivity gets left unsaid while negativity dominates and I've also witnessed people intentionally trying to get you out of threads which is super lame.
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,123
Minnesota
So what is the relationship between WaPo’s coverage, Bezos, and specifically his criticism of Amazon’s taxes?
I think Inuhanyou did a pretty good job of summarizing it:

The position of the US media and how it is affected by default, its very nature of being a corporate entity designed and owned by wealthy elites is by definition a corrupting influence on how stories and positions and narratives are framed, by the hiring practices and the people who get picked up to write stories. It doesnt have to be Jeff bezos directly telling people what to write, and it was never about that. Even if the media does have instances of that, and we can just look at Fox as a single example.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,977
Why ask when you know no answer is going to satisfy you?
Plenty of answers would satisfy me. I’m allowed to be an optimist.

I think Inuhanyou did a pretty good job of summarizing it:
No they didn’t. Bernie specifically mentions Amazon, Bezos and his criticism presumably for a reason. If this is just a general criticism of large companies owning media what’s the purpose of being specific like that?
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,123
Minnesota
Plenty of answers would satisfy me. I’m allowed to be an optimist.



No they didn’t. Bernie specifically mentions Amazon, Bezos and his criticism presumably for a reason. If this is just a general criticism of large companies owning media what’s the purpose of being specific like that?
If you go back to the original quote in context, it wasn't just about Jeff Bezos/Amazon/WP in the first place; it was just one of the examples of corporate media bias.
 

Inuhanyou

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,313
New Jersey
I mean, we can see this in NYT's articles, where the person who they hired to put on Bernie Sanders stories(if your looking for her, she was the one who wrote the article on Sanders Iowa state fair trip) was a former Blackrock lobbyist affiliated with Bain capital...OF COURSE that journalist who has so many conflicts of interest and is basically bathing in corruption is going to write negative stories on Bernie Sanders, or frame them in a negative light. That's the entire point!

This is nothing new for the media, so to have them feign outrage about their bias is absolutely ridiculous. Its not just Washington post, its how a majority of the large media companies in America operate.
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,123
Minnesota
But he added those specifics only when talking about Amazon. This doesn’t strengthen your argument.
I don't need to strengthen my argument. Bernie knows the intent behind his words more than you, and he says that it's not what you (and others) claim it to be, and has since clarified what he meant. You can call him a liar, but good luck finding evidence of that.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,977
I don't need to strengthen my argument. Bernie knows the intent behind his words more than you, and he says that it's not what you (and others) claim it to be, and has since clarified what he meant. You can call him a liar, but good luck finding evidence of that.
The argument you posted undercuts the position you’re trying to take. He communicated those details about Amazon for a reason. I’m confident anyone listening to his words knows what he was saying.

And now he’s clarified. Which is great. But his statement today is different from the statement discussed yesterday.