• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

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

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,480
KHarvey16 said:
And now he's clarified. Which is great. But his statement today is different from the statement discussed yesterday.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's generally how clarifications work. His previous statement was ambiguous enough for people to take it the wrong way, so he removed the ambiguity so that is was more clear what he meant. He didn't change his mind, he simply communicated his thoughts more effectively.
 
KHarvey16

KHarvey16

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,193
brainchild said:
That's generally how clarifications work. His previous statement was ambiguous enough for people to take it the wrong way, so he removed the ambiguity so that is was more clear what he meant. He didn't change his mind, he simply communicated his thoughts more effectively.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It wasn't ambiguous.

What evidence do you have that he didn't change his mind? That's a positive claim that carries a burden of proof.
 
Gobias-Ind

Gobias-Ind

Member
Nov 22, 2017
4,025
Fucking lib Ben Shapiro in here lmao "hhhhhrrrrmmmm, ackctually that doesn't strengthen your argument!"

Very reminiscent of all the blatantly transparent pearl clutching about the discussion of money's influence on politics during the 2016 primary. "show me the quid pro quo! Show me the changed votes! How dare you accuse a politician of impropriety! What does this structural criticism that I pretend I broadly agree with because I'm a gormless liar have to do with this candidate that I like in particular?"
 
BADMAN

BADMAN

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,887
KHarvey16 said:
But he added those specifics only when talking about Amazon. This doesn't strengthen your argument.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Why are you so upset about this? Let's assume, worst case scenario, you're totally right and Bernie Sanders pused a conspiracy theory involving Jeff Bezos, mega billionaire and exploiter of workers, having influence at WaPo, the most influential newspaper in America. Despite Sanders clarifying what he meant, let's go with that assumption.

What's the consequence of this?
It builds distrust in corporately owned media and increases class consciousness

Fucking tragedy if you ask me.

BUT THE REAL PROBLEM IS HE DID A FIB ABOUT IT

To me, it seems you're more concerned with Sanders making an unfounded accusation, which he clarified, or in your words, "changed his mind on", than the extremely real problem of our media being completely biased against DC outsiders and people advocating for the lower classes in a serious way.

Which is... an extremely trash take.
 
Inuhanyou

Inuhanyou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,214
New Jersey
brainchild said:
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.

Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Krystal Ball delivering great truthfacts as usual. Working at the MSNBC news room gives her a unique perspective. Sagaar only works when riffing off of her like here.

People like Ed Schultz have said similar things about MSNBC in particular
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,480
KHarvey16 said:
It wasn't ambiguous.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You and I had very different interpretations about the meaning of his previous statement. Logically, there are multiple ways to parse the statement. Definitionally, the statement has some ambiguity (the level of explicit influence from Bezos over WP was not clearly stated).

KHarvey16 said:
What evidence do you have that he didn't change his mind? That's a positive claim that carries a burden of proof.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In a clarification, the viewpoint doesn't change, just the communication of the viewpoint. Feel free to look up the definition of 'clarify' if you don't believe me.
 
KHarvey16

KHarvey16

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,193
BADMAN said:
Why are you so upset about this? Let's assume, worst case scenario, you're totally right and Bernie Sanders pused a conspiracy theory involving Jeff Bezos, mega billionaire and exploiter of workers, having influence at WaPo, the most influential newspaper in America. Despite Sanders clarifying what he meant, let's go with that assumption.

What's the consequence of this?
It builds distrust in corporately owned media and increases class consciousness

Fucking tragedy if you ask me.

BUT THE REAL PROBLEM IS HE DID A FIB ABOUT IT

To me, it seems you're more concerned with Sanders making an unfounded accusation, which he clarified, or in your words, "changed his mind on", than the extremely real problem of our media being completely biased against DC outsiders and people advocating for the lower classes in a serious way.

Which is... an extremely trash take.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

"Changed his mind" aren't my words. I have no idea what he was or is thinking. It's irrelevant to the argument. Trying to divine intent is what others are doing, I'm reading his words. It's like writing a 4 and a plus sign, a 4, an equal sign and then a 7. Some folks are arguing he meant 8 so everything is fine. I'm saying he wrote 7 which is wrong whether he meant it or not. It's not the end of the world. And it's typical that a discussion that continues on for awhile generates responses of "BUT WHY DO YOU CARE SO MUCH?" It's an attempt to dismiss a position even after granting it could be perfectly valid. It's nonsense. This is a discussion forum and I'm not talking to myself here.

The issue is forwarding unnecessary, unfounded conspiracies. His point about corporate ownership of media is fine. Claims about conspiracies without any evidence only serves to poison the well. It should be entirely beneath serious public figures and it's wholly unnecessary to boot.
 
KHarvey16

KHarvey16

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,193
brainchild said:
You and I had very different interpretations about the meaning of his previous statement. Logically, there are multiple ways to parse the statement. Definitionally, the statement has some ambiguity (the level of explicit influence from Bezos over WP was not clearly stated).



In a clarification, the viewpoint doesn't change, just the communication of the viewpoint. Feel free to look up the definition of 'clarify' if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So you calling it a clarification is evidence he didn't change his mind?
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,480
KHarvey16 said:
I don't think you're following the point here. How is the label applied to his latest statement evidence he didn't change his mind? The argument is nonsensical.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Because what's being reported is that what Bernie said did not mean what people thought that it meant; elucidating the true meaning of his previous statement inherently preserves the integrity of that meaning, so it would be illogical for a clarification predicated on a previously held idea to clarify an idea that was never stated in the first place.
 
KHarvey16

KHarvey16

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,193
brainchild said:
Because what's being reported is that what Bernie said did not mean what people thought that it meant; elucidating the true meaning of his previous statement inherently preserves the integrity of that meaning, so it would be illogical for a clarification predicated on a previously held idea to clarify an idea that was never stated in the first place.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Huh? That's not what's being reported. A reporter asked him about it and this is what he responded with. The response is being reported. You're arguing in a circle.
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,480
KHarvey16 said:
Huh? That's not what's being reported. A reporter asked him about it and this is what he responded with. The response is being reported. You're arguing in a circle.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

???


"I think my criticism of the corporate media is not that they are anti-Bernie, that they wake up, you know, in the morning and say, 'What could we do to hurt Bernie Sanders?' -- that's not the case, that Jeff Bezos gets on the phone to The Washington Post," the Vermont independent said in an interview with CNN. "There is a framework of what we can discuss and what we cannot discuss, and that's a serious problem."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sanders clarified his position on Bezos' role after suggesting twice on Monday that his public objections to Amazon's business practices had influenced the Post's reporting.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

"So this is not into conspiracy theory," Sanders said. "We are taking on corporate America. Large corporations own the media in America, by and large, and I think there is a framework, about how the corporate media focuses on politics. That is my concern. It's not that Jeff Bezos is on the phone every day; he's not."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


It doesn't get any clearer than that.
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,480
KHarvey16 said:
You can't be serious with this.

Just to be clear, the evidence you have that Bernie Sanders didn't change his mind is that an article labeled his statement as a clarification and didn't just report he made a statement?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No, it's that Bernie was asked to clarify his statement and he did. His response is in reference to his previous statement, as he literally says in his response.
 
KHarvey16

KHarvey16

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,193
brainchild said:
No, it's that Bernie was asked to clarify his statement and he did. His response is in reference to his previous statement, as he literally says in his response.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

First of all the video doesn't show the question. Second of all saying one thing yesterday and "clarifying" today isn't evidence you didn't change your mind. Maybe you can "clarify" you meant you don't think he changed his mind rather than meaning he objectively for sure didn't change his mind.

I hate that these kinds of obvious, throwaway points become long discussions because accepting obvious conclusions is detrimental to an argument and must therefore be rejected at all costs. It's unnecessary and tedious.
 

jviggy43

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
18,184
KHarvey16 said:
First of all the video doesn't show the question. Second of all saying one thing yesterday and "clarifying" today isn't evidence you didn't change your mind. Maybe you can "clarify" you meant you don't think he changed his mind rather than meaning he objectively for sure didn't change his mind.

I hate that these kinds of obvious, throwaway points become long discussions because accepting obvious conclusions is detrimental to an argument and must therefore be rejected at all costs. It's unnecessary and tedious.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Theres a video time stamped in here showing the question and the response
 
JABEE

JABEE

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,853
I feel like people can understand what Bernie is saying in good faith. I feel like we're at a point where a lot of people are willing to go with the least charitable interpretation of what Sanders said. Sanders clarifying to make sure people understood his comment shouldn't be taken in the least charitable way.
 
Ignatz Mouse

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,741
It's good he clarified it (or changed his mind or whatever but who cares). As stated yesterday, it was media-blaming and dangerously undermining.
 
Inuhanyou

Inuhanyou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,214
New Jersey
Imagine having to twist Sanders actual words around to have the onus of truth be on the media companies intentionally trying to frame a 10 second soundbite out of context as "dangerous radical talk".
 
Inuhanyou

Inuhanyou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,214
New Jersey


I actually didnt hear about this, but Mike Papintonio is a credible guy and has been affiliated with NBC/MSNBC for atleast a decade, his experiences show exactly what Sanders is talking about regarding the narratives these companies create against progressive ideas and people espousing those ideas when it goes against their conflicts of interest
 
Odrion

Odrion

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,148
if and when bernie drops out of the primary, the media is going to target the hell out of warren. y'all progressives need to realize we're in the same boat
 
legacyzero

legacyzero

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
4,252
Centrist Era: Ha Bernie hasnt changed much has he. What a baby. None of this is acurate.

Smart people: [posts long line of evidence and tweets]

Centrist Era: Yeah what what the really mean is, oh damm the sun is in my eyes
 
Polioliolio

Polioliolio

Member
Nov 6, 2017
5,396
NPR doesn't talk about bernie. So it's funny when the other day they ran the 'bernie says media doesn't cover him' thing, and then quickly dismissed it as an outrageous claim.

I'm not a Bernie fanatic. But he's not the Democratic Donald Trump guys, and he's right about major media publications being owned by mega corporations being shady and I'd say, not acceptable. That's how you get shit like Fox News.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
brainchild said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This video basically shows all of the shitty ways the coverage can be manipulated without actually doing it directly. It's a systemic issue through and through, not a conspiracy like others are trying to make it out to be in order to gaslight Bernie supporters.
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,480
Helio said:
This video basically shows all of the shitty ways the coverage can be manipulated without actually doing it directly. It's a systemic issue through and through, not a conspiracy like others are trying to make it out to be in order to gaslight Bernie supporters.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yup.

Noam Chomsky sums this up pretty well in this excerpt of the following interview:

Marr: ...How can you know that I'm self-censoring?...

Chomsky: ...I don't say that you're self-censoring - I'm sure you believe everything that you're saying - but what I'm saying is that if you had believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where your sitting...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...



Says it all, really.

That whole interview was amazing to see. Chomsky ate that poor man alive 😂
 
Last edited:

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,480
shinra-bansho said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

About that:

The Iowa State Fair and the Wing Ding dinner were the most media-covered events, but Sanders also toured a factory farm and contaminated water wells, met with Latino voters, held two town halls — one on women's rights and another on economic inequality — and attended to a gun violence prevention forum. Any of those events could be classified as "retail politics," but the media tends to focus on candidate cattle calls.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

www.vox.com

Bernie Sanders versus the "corporate media," explained

Sanders came out of an Iowa trip a loser in the media for very weird reasons.
www.vox.com www.vox.com

At this point, I'd say the narrative that he "spoke to almost no one" is just patently false, even if we're only talking about retail politicking.

Screenshot2019081422.jpg


which is exactly what he was doing there, literally by definition.
 
Acorn

Acorn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,972
Scotland
brainchild said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This video is great and is gonna be useful when the inevitable election happens here.
 
samoyed

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
"There is no way to know if someone changed his mind or not. How can a person ever claim to behold the true form of another person's thoughts? An intraversable gulf lies between the hearts of man. Thus, it is epistemologically irrational to claim 'he did/didn't change his mind'."

-K "I am very smart" Harvey16
 
Wilf Netherton

Wilf Netherton

Banned
Jun 20, 2019
2,638
Helio, brainchild, thanks for making some great informative posts (and I'm sure others too, I haven't been keeping up with the whole thread since yesterday and my eye was drawn to your posts on this page).
 

Deleted member 41502

User requested account closure
Banned
Mar 28, 2018
1,177
Helio said:
This video basically shows all of the shitty ways the coverage can be manipulated without actually doing it directly. It's a systemic issue through and through, not a conspiracy like others are trying to make it out to be in order to gaslight Bernie supporters.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Its kinda bullshit though. I means she starts off with a basic "obviously the bias is real. Here are three examples of negative stories about Bernie" comment that ignores that... we have actual data on media bias. Like, people have been complaining about it for 40 years now, and we've been measuring it for most of those. FAIR was started in 1986!

Then she claims two types of subtle bias

1.) Access Journalism: Basically that the Democratic party is backing other non-Bernie candidates and puts pressure on news sources to ensure they give them good coverage, but don't do the same for Bernie. Again, we have data. It doesn't show this happening. You have to think there are shitloads of "good Bernie!" or "bad Biden!" stories getting buried up to massively have distorted it for this to be true.

2.) Class media: i.e. that (for instance) "wealth inequality" isn't being talked about by the media because they think that their viewers don't care. But really lots of people do care, and hence Bernie is getting less screen time than he deserves. But again... we have data. AFAIK, it doesn't show this. Bernie's screen time is on par with his competitors, both in size and in tone. You have to think he deserves EXTRA praise that he's not getting (i.e. you have to be biased FOR Bernie to think the data is flawed).
 

Deleted member 7130

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,685
brainchild said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

brainchild said:
Yup.

Noam Chomsky sums this up pretty well in this excerpt of the following interview:





Says it all, really.

That whole interview was amazing to see. Chomsky ate that poor man alive 😂
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


This has always been the more granular argument from progressives and leftists. Bernie (who fits squarely in that demographic) gave a very surface level critique of WaPo and their relationships to power which many in the press and in this thread took advantage of by disingenuously interpreting as conspiracy theorizing.
 

Deleted member 6230

User-requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,118
digdug2k said:
Its kinda bullshit though. I means she starts off with a basic "obviously the bias is real. Here are three examples of negative stories about Bernie" comment that ignores that... we have actual data on media bias. Like, people have been complaining about it for 40 years now, and we've been measuring it for most of those. FAIR was started in 1986!

Then she claims two types of subtle bias

1.) Access Journalism: Basically that the Democratic party is backing other non-Bernie candidates and puts pressure on news sources to ensure they give them good coverage, but don't do the same for Bernie. Again, we have data. It doesn't show this happening. You have to think there are shitloads of "good Bernie!" or "bad Biden!" stories getting buried up to massively have distorted it for this to be true.

2.) Class media: i.e. that (for instance) "wealth inequality" isn't being talked about by the media because they think that their viewers don't care. But really lots of people do care, and hence Bernie is getting less screen time than he deserves. But again... we have data. AFAIK, it doesn't show this. Bernie's screen time is on par with his competitors, both in size and in tone. You have to think he deserves EXTRA praise that he's not getting (i.e. you have to be biased FOR Bernie to think the data is flawed).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
How did you manage to distort what was said in the video this way
 
You must log in or register to reply here.