• 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.

Inuhanyou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,214
New Jersey
Hit him for Glass-Stegal then. Hit him on 4he bailout and he just can say how he saved people's pensions.

When did the bailout vote happen? Was he elected VP yet?

The bailout happened right at the tail end of bush IIRC

and just to respond to your previous point, he can say he saved people's pensions, but you can just as easily rebuttal to say he let the banks get off scott free. That's just as valid a critique as the positive connotation that voting for the bailout saved people.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
The bailout happened right at the tail end of bush IIRC

and just to respond to your previous point, he can say he saved people's pensions, but you can just as easily rebuttal to say he let the banks get off scott free. That's just as valid a critique as the positive connotation that voting for the bailout saved people.
Had the bailout not occurred the economy would have collapsed in ways far worse than what we saw. The emergency stabilization measures were necessary and penalizing him for doing the right thing there is terrible You absolutely can criticize how the process played out once Obama took over (Bring up Iceland!), but to pretend that a vote for the '08 bailouts was a bad thing is either to fall in the anti-Vaxxer trap of "things would have worked out fine if we did nothing" or to simply be incredibly disingenuous.
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,478
How many of y'all read the new FAIR article?

I mean...

Or you could take the many occasions on which the Post's factchecking team performed impressive contortions to interpret Sander's fact-based statements as meriting multiple "Pinocchios" (e.g., FAIR.org, 1/25/17, 3/20/17). In particular, we might observe the time the Post "factchecked" Sanders' claim that the world's six wealthiest people are worth as much as half the global population (FAIR.org, 10/3/17). It just so happens that one of those six multi-billionaires is Bezos, which would make an ethical journalist extra careful not to show favoritism.

Instead, after acknowledging that Sanders was, in fact, correct, the paper's Nicole Lewis awarded him "three Pinocchios"—a rating that indicates "significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions." This is because, the paper explained, even though the number comes from a reputable nonpartisan source, Oxfam, which got its data from Credit Suisse, "It's hard to make heads or tails of what wealth actually means, with respect to people's daily lives around the globe."

And sometimes the digs are clearly deliberate, as when a Post political correspondent essentially admitted to trolling the Sanders camp by intentionally choosing a "provocative" headline—"Bernie Sanders Keeps Saying His Average Donation Is $27, but His Own Numbers Contradict That"—over a piece that revealed the scandalous deception that the actual number was $27.89 (FAIR.org, 4/24/16).

...really?


EDIT:

My favorite part:

ScreenShot8152019at7.png
 
Last edited:

Inuhanyou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,214
New Jersey
It reminds me of people thinking to give credit to Trump for stopping an Iran war crime at the last second. He created it.

If you deregulate banks, that directly contributes to the crash of 2008, and then you dont do anything about it again and just give them what they want no strings attached again because they are going to destroy the entire global economy because of their own corrupt activities, i think that's two for one right there.
 

Gobias-Ind

Member
Nov 22, 2017
4,020


Woof.

Three other headlines from Capehart in August:

  1. "There are more important things to worry about than Biden's gaffes" 8/13
  2. "Joe Biden reminded all of us of what a presidential president would sound like" 8/7
  3. "Kirsten Gillibrand totally mischaracterized Joe Biden's op-ed on 'deterioration of family'" 8/1
Capehart's husband worked in Obama's State Department and their wedding was officiated by Eric Holder, for whatever that might be worth I dunno
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,478
The new Jacobin article on this subject tears corporate media a new one:

Second, what makes all of this particularly ironic is that the very same news outlets decrying Sanders's criticism as an unfair, Trumpian attack have themselves utilized the same logic to smear reporters. CNN raced to criticize Sanders's statements, complaining he provided no evidence of bias, yet just months earlier the network had Maffick, a left-wing news outlet, removed from Facebook largely because it received funding from the Russian government. Unlike the coverage Sanders is complaining about, which is often either outright wrong or cartoonish in its attempts to play down the senator's campaign and policies, CNN noted that Maffick's content "fits comfortably within fairly mainstream American politics." In other words, its only crime was that its content gelled with the Russian government's presumed goal of "exploit[ing] existing divisions and tensions in the country." This same mindset had led the Post to earlier cast several legitimate, independent news sources as "routine peddlers of Russian propaganda," a story Baron personally promoted.

In other words, the corporate media is entirely comfortable with casting aspersions on otherwise factual reporting based on who owns the news outlet in question, at least when who owns it is a foreign government the United States opposes. For some reason, it's only criticism of corporate ownership that makes reporters uncomfortable.

Finally, it's curious that Sanders's criticism has launched such a furious pushback, including accusations of "attacks [on] the free press" and comparisons to Trump, when, for the past three years, prominent Democrats and liberals have relentlessly attacked the media for their coverage of Hillary Clinton's campaign, including Clinton herself. In some cases, those who lobbed the most vicious criticisms of the press are now solemnly mourning what Sanders said.

Take Neera Tanden for instance, who did just that on Meet the Press (a program, incidentally, whose host once wondered out loud whether a US journalist should be prosecuted for publishing government secrets). You can find example after exampleof Tanden criticizing reporters and the media for their reporting on Clinton's email server scandal, and for having the temerity to report on the newsworthy contents of her campaign's hacked emails.

Tanden has said that "every reporter who gleefully trafficked in stolen emails via WikiLeaks abetted a crime" and that "all those who printed WikiLeaks emails helped a foreign adversary." Nothing Sanders said remotely comes close to the extreme, nearly intimidating nature of these statements from one of the country's most influential Democrats, who herself has a habit of censoring the supposedly independent reporters whose outlet her think tank owns, and who once suggestedthat the Clinton campaign use "brown and women pundits" to "shame the Timesand others" into more positive coverage.

 

Inuhanyou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,214
New Jersey
Bernie sanders has a coat given to him by his son for christmas while complaining about rich people, can you sense the hypocrisy and entitlement of this man?
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,478


Great article.

My point is a simple one: Our corporate-owned media system too often functions as a corporate-friendly propaganda system, and it operates smoothly. It typically operates without orders from the owner or top management, and without firings for blatantly political reasons.

At MSNBC in those months, we were ordered to bias our content. Memos were written. I don't know that orders were given in all the other big TV newsrooms. Yet, the content was amazingly homogeneous.

How else do you explain this finding from FAIR? In the two weeks surrounding Secretary of State Colin Powell's inaccurate, pro-invasion presentation to the UN in February 2003, there were 393 on-camera sources discussing Iraq on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS. Only three of them represented the antiwar movement. That's less than 1 percent of the total.

This is the founder of FAIR writing this; maybe people should listen to him.
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,315
Ultimately the issue I have here is pretending it's Sanders specific, it's not... Media is so utterly terrified of the "Liberal Media" moniker that they controt themselves to downplay white supremacy on the right and distort left wing politics to make it look scary and dangerous in the name of being #balanced

That's why Dems sometimes are so fucking passive, because by far the media is looking for any opportunity to cast them in a negative light as a balance for all the crazy shit the GOP does.

It's not different rules for the two parties, it's a different fucking sport.
 

mugurumakensei

Elizabeth, I’m coming to join you!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,320
Jacobinmag has ties to the Russian government? Is this true?

I'm talking about the article propping up known Russian ops.

The excerpt is them basically defending Maffick who distributed news via only Facebook pages. Maffick is affiliated with Russia Today and receives funding via the Russian Government. They also spend time criticizing journalists who criticize WikiLeaks whose links to the Russian Government and the GRU are also well established by this point. It doesn't get any better in the actual article.
 

lmcfigs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,091
I'm talking about the article propping up known Russian ops.

The excerpt is them basically defending Maffick who distributed news via only Facebook pages. Maffick is affiliated with Russia Today and receives funding via the Russian Government. They also spend time criticizing journalists who criticize WikiLeaks whose links to the Russian Government and the GRU are also well established by this point. It doesn't get any better in the actual article.
Yes I noticed too late
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,478
Ah yes, that's what is meant by "independent" media. It's media that chooses not to disclose their ties such as ties to Russia Today and the Russian Government.

The point is that we don't need direct evidence of memos sent from the Russian government to know that they have some influence over the outlets that they own. It's not a defense for that media, it's pointing out the hypocrisy of being able to call out the influence of foreign government ownership but not corporate ownership.


Ultimately the issue I have here is pretending it's Sanders specific, it's not... Media is so utterly terrified of the "Liberal Media" moniker that they controt themselves to downplay white supremacy on the right and distort left wing politics to make it look scary and dangerous in the name of being #balanced

That's why Dems sometimes are so fucking passive, because by far the media is looking for any opportunity to cast them in a negative light as a balance for all the crazy shit the GOP does.

It's not different rules for the two parties, it's a different fucking sport.

Even Bernie says it's not just him. Obviously he's going to focus on himself because he's chiefly concerned with his campaign, but he has repeatedly said it applies to anyone who is antagonistic of corporate media.
 

mugurumakensei

Elizabeth, I’m coming to join you!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,320
The point is that we don't need direct evidence of memos sent from the Russian government to know that they have some influence over the outlets that they own. It's not a defense for that media, it's pointing out the hypocrisy of being able to call out the influence of foreign government ownership but not corporate ownership.
Be mindful of the writer.
he's been anti-Biden for a while.



Also very anti Obama
 

lmcfigs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,091
The point is that we don't need direct evidence of memos sent from the Russian government to know that they have some influence over the outlets that they own. It's not a defense for that media, it's pointing out the hypocrisy of being able to call out the influence of foreign government ownership but not corporate ownership.




Even Bernie says it's not just him. Obviously he's going to focus on himself because he's chiefly concerned with his campaign, but he has repeatedly said it applies to anyone who is antagonistic of corporate media.
Of course. Bernie, who has read his Chomsky, has been making the same media critiques since like the 80's. And it wasn't about negative coverage of him but about South America, healthcare, etc. But people have this image of Bernie the egomaniac who only cares about himself and it just doesn't really correspond to reality.
 

Deleted member 2145

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
29,223
Ultimately the issue I have here is pretending it's Sanders specific

ultimately the issue I have here is pretending anyone else is pretending it's Sanders specific

of course, the irony here (and this isn't levied at you, I am familiar with your posts here and know you to be an actual reasonable Bernie critic [they do exist] who knows how to criticize his faults and praise his merits even while criticizing his strategy or delivery methods regarding those merits which can, depending on the person receiving and interpreting make those merits lesser) but the irony here is the majority of the people making this a Bernie-specific thing are the ones forcefully pushing the narrative and strawman that anyone criticizing the corporate media is making it a Bernie-specific thing. the unreasonable Bernie critics (they do exist) have such a laser-focus on Bernie to such an absurd degree that it manifests itself in almost every single current event regarding american politics and almost always through the act of projection.
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,315
ultimately the issue I have here is pretending anyone else is pretending it's Sanders specific

of course, the irony here (and this isn't levied at you, I am familiar with your posts here and know you to be an actual reasonable Bernie critic [they do exist] who knows how to criticize his faults and praise his merits even while criticizing his strategy or delivery methods regarding those merits which can, depending on the person receiving and interpreting make those merits lesser) but the irony here is the majority of the people making this a Bernie-specific thing are the ones forcefully pushing the narrative and strawman that anyone criticizing the corporate media is making it a Bernie-specific thing. the unreasonable Bernie critics (they do exist) have such a laser-focus on Bernie to such an absurd degree that it manifests itself in almost every single political current event and almost always through the act of projection.

Fair enough
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Bernie, who has read his Chomsky, has been making the same media critiques since like the 80's. And it wasn't about negative coverage of him but about South America, healthcare, etc.
Bernie has a pretty Chomskean view of the role of the media in society and he has a consistent history of this. This is not a Trumpean critique so much as him doing the same thing he's always been doing, unless people also think Trump is Chomskean.

If I had to write a single sentence to sum up the Chomsky view of media bias, it'd be "If a nation's corporate media spends more time covering other nations' crimes than those of their own, it's bias/propaganda and the whole purpose of the corporate media".

Not a deep Chomsky reader though, might be embellishing a bit.
 

Bronx-Man

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
15,351
Of course. Bernie, who has read his Chomsky, has been making the same media critiques since like the 80's. And it wasn't about negative coverage of him but about South America, healthcare, etc. But people have this image of Bernie the egomaniac who only cares about himself and it just doesn't really correspond to reality.
I'll give Era the benefit of the doubt and say it's only like 7-8 loons on here that started going nuts with that fantasy after Bernie refused to drop out even Hillary had the race wrapped up.
 

Deleted member 2145

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
29,223


I just want to quote this again and urge people to read it but to also click through to the linked sources for their claims which are all throughout the article

"But here's the sad reality: There doesn't have to be a memo from the owner to achieve the homogeneity of coverage at "centrist" outlets that media watchdog groups like FAIR (which I founded) have documented (FEBRUARY 6, 1989
Are You on the Nightline Guest List?
) in study (MARCH 18, 2003 In Iraq Crisis, Networks Are Megaphones for Official Views)
after study (OCTOBER 4, 2006 Study Finds Lack of Balance, Diversity, Public at PBS NewsHour) over the decades."

"No memo is needed to achieve the narrowness of perspective — selecting all the usual experts from all the usual think tanks (JULY 1, 2013 FAIR STUDY: Think Tank Spectrum 2012, Range of debate narrows as the status quo holds) to say all the usual things. Think Tom Friedman (MAY 16, 2006 Tom Friedman's Flexible Deadlines, Iraq's 'decisive' six months have lasted two and a half years). Or Barry McCaffrey (Friday, August 04, 2006 Being a TV Expert Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry). Or Neera Tanden (April 15, 2019 The Rematch: Bernie Sanders vs. a Clinton Loyalist). Or any of the elite club members who've been proven to be absurdly wrong time and again about national or global affairs."

"And then ask yourself why someone like Noam Chomsky can be quoted regularly in the biggest mainstream outlets abroad, but almost never (December 16, 2013 The Blacklisting of Noam Chomsky) in mass media in his own country — even though he mostly analyzes the policies of his own country's government."

"Bernie Sanders is one of the world's most effective critics of Jeff Bezos and the fact that Amazon paid no federal income tax (February 13, 2019 Amazon in Its Prime: Doubles Profits, Pays $0 in Federal Income Taxes) last year. And the Bezos-owned newspaper has exhibited an unrelenting bias against Sanders in recent years — perhaps most acutely in March 2016, when FAIR analyst Adam Johnson famously wrote an article that quickly went viral: 'Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours (MARCH 8, 2016 Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours).' Among the Post's headlines during that period: 'Five Reasons Bernie Sanders Lost Last Night's Democratic Debate,' followed an hour later by 'Bernie Sanders's Two Big Lies About the Global Economy,' followed a few hours later by 'Even Bernie Sanders Can Beat Donald Trump.'"

"If you still want to believe there's no connection between corporate media ownership and content, join me in a mental exercise: Imagine how quickly heads would roll at the Post in the fantastical event that it somehow produced even three negative stories about owner Jeff Bezos in a few hours. (Needless to say, there's much to critically report about Bezos, including Amazon's tax avoidance [February 13, 2019 Amazon in Its Prime: Doubles Profits, Pays $0 in Federal Income Taxes], labor exploitation [What's Wrong With Amazon? A Report Detailing Amazon's Deadly and Dehumanizing Employment Practices, Anti-Union Activities, Destruction of Brick and Mortar Retailers at Taxpayer Expense, and Past Practice of Allowing Its Platform to Sell Racist Products], taxpayer subsidies [January 9, 2018 Amazon Is Thriving Thanks to Taxpayer Dollars, The tech giant has received more than $1 billion in tax breaks. The government is also funding food stamps for many of its workers.] and CIA contracts [February 20, 2014 Why Amazon's Collaboration with the CIA Is So Ominous--and Vulnerable].)"

"When the Donahue show was terminated three weeks before the Iraq invasion, internal memos that had circulated among top NBC News executives actually leaked (APRIL 3, 2003 Some Critical Media Voices Face Censorship). (God bless whistleblowers!) One memo said that Phil Donahue represented 'a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war. . . . He seems to delight in presenting guests who are antiwar, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives.' The memo described a dreaded scenario in which the Donahue show would become 'a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.'

NBC's solution? Pull the plug."

 

Tracygill

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
1,853
The Left
Sanders traveled back in time to 2013 to talk with Bill Moyers about corporate media consolidation.



Majority Control of U.S. Media
1983: 50 corporations
1990: 23 corporations
1997: 10 corporations
2012: 6 corporations

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Look, the issue is we live in a country where millions of people really have not had the opportunity to learn about the dynamics of what goes on in American society. Major, major issues literally, get very, very little discussion. So the bottom line for the FCC has got to be, "How do we create a situation in which the American people are hearing a diverse range of ideas so that our public world has the kind of debate that it needs?"
SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: 
I think, I mean again, it's not to just pick on Murdoch. I think the idea that one person, who, in this case, happens to be a right-wing billionaire, can have that much influence in media is very dangerous for our democracy. And by the way, of course, in terms of Murdoch he owns a lot of media in Australia, in the United Kingdom. I believe he owns media in Eastern Europe. I think this is a pretty dangerous trend. You know, the bottom line is that when you have a situation like that, it really influences not just what the American people think and feel, how they vote, but the issues that the United States Congress deal with every day.

Wikipedia said:
Since the media is owned by the wealthy and by groups of people with a strong influence, these owners use the media as a safety tool. "The guard dog metaphor suggests that media perform as a sentry not for the community as a whole, but for groups having sufficient power and influence to create and control their own security systems." The Guard Dog Theory states that, "the view of media as part of a power oligarchy".

Oh, no! The conspiracy theorists got to the wiki editors and text book authors too.
 
Last edited:

nib95

Contains No Misinformation on Philly Cheesesteaks
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
18,498
This has been talked about and spread around a lot by his base, it's not surprising that the campaign started to adopt it.

Nothing like an enemy to get a base riled up.
this is never a good look. makes you look like a whiner, even if there may be truth to it
yup...

and I say this as someone who donated to Bernie's campaign.

And also, enough complaining about "the media". Name names, don't lump everyone together FFS.

So it's not good to shine a light on something that has statistical foundation and truth, is accurate and deserves attention?

Ok....

Just because Trump has made irrational or unfounded media bashing popular, doesn't mean actual well founded and legitimate media criticism should he frowned upon or rejected. The media should instead be held to account.
 

Jeb

One Winged Slayer
Avenger
Mar 14, 2018
2,141
Now that I've read through this thread, let me update my thoughts on the matter.

The US media is trash.

If it seems exactly like my previous post, you are right, but if it makes a difference I feel a bit more strongly about it.
 

tommy7154

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,370
The thing I love about all this is that even when Sanders is "losing" as some might put it, he's winning. He's normalizing this talk and this idea of media bias, and it is one of the most important issues in this country today. Right now people are waking up and understanding what is really going on in this country thanks to him and others like him. I am hoping at some point that Warren joins him on this serious issue, just to shut certain people up about the matter.

I could write a book here with my thoughts on the media but I'll just say I'm glad that there are people out there that are looking to cut through the bullshit and find the truth. The real news.
 

gozu

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,302
America
The media should instead be held to account.

You're not holding anyone to account when you let people hide behind the word "media".

Instead, tell me that X channel or X program or X host is biased and call THEM out. Name and shame them. Do you understand?

Because I thought I made this rather clear when I said "Name names, don't lump everyone together FFS.".

I hope now you understand. Because, seriously, what wasn't there to understand the first time around?

How is "don't lump everyone together FFS" equivalent to

"it's not good to shine a light on something that has statistical foundation and truth, is accurate and deserves attention?"

Because I just don't see it. So let me expand:

It's lazy to lump all media together. It's lazy when it's gaming media, and it's lazy when it's other kind of media. And laziness is destructive. Just look what the physically and intellectually laziest president ever has done to this country.

So, are you seriously going to stand here and defend laziness? I don't think so!
 

nib95

Contains No Misinformation on Philly Cheesesteaks
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
18,498
You're not holding anyone to account when you let people hide behind the word "media".

Instead, tell me that X channel or X program or X host is biased and call THEM out. Name and shame them. Do you understand?

Because I thought I made this rather clear when I said "Name names, don't lump everyone together FFS.".

I hope now you understand. Because, seriously, what wasn't there to understand the first time around?

How is "don't lump everyone together FFS" equivalent to

"it's not good to shine a light on something that has statistical foundation and truth, is accurate and deserves attention?"

Because I just don't see it. So let me expand:

It's lazy to lump all media together. It's lazy when it's gaming media, and it's lazy when it's other kind of media. And laziness is destructive. Just look what the physically and intellectually laziest president ever has done to this country.

So, are you seriously going to stand here and defend laziness? I don't think so!

Have you actually read the OP? When 47 different outlets cover negative numbers but only 2 cover positive, that is simply too many outlets to individually detail, and is also enough of a consensus or discrepancy that referring to them simply as "media/press coverage", can in this instance be excused.
 

gozu

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,302
America
Have you actually read the OP? When 47 different outlets cover negative numbers but only 2 cover positive, that is simply too many outlets to individually detail, and is also enough of a consensus or discrepancy that referring to them simply as "media/press coverage", can in this instance be excused.

If 47 is too many to list, why not single out a couple of the worst offenders and blame them, then say they are not the only ones? This way, you are still naming names, while still condemning the remaining 45 implicitly.

pros:

1. You're not blaming anyone innocent if you do it this way.
2. You're not diluting your attack.
 

nib95

Contains No Misinformation on Philly Cheesesteaks
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
18,498
If 47 is too many to list, why not single out a couple of the worst offenders and blame them, then say they are not the only ones? This way, you are still naming names, while still condemning the remaining 45 implicitly.

pros:

1. You're not blaming anyone innocent if you do it this way.
2. You're not diluting your attack.

Honestly, it sounds like you're arguing ridiculous and petty semantics. How do you even single two outlets out when there are 47 complicit? And how is that even fair? Talk about missing the point as well, which is that this is a far more widespread issue.
 

Whompa

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
4,254
It's kinda sad seeing MSNBC fudge numbers to make Biden look better than the competition.

Then couple that with CNN's clown shoes debates...

The mainstream 24/7 news networks in general are a joke.

Fox News being the king of bullshit, but the other networks are not trailing too far behind...

Bernie's team is doing the right thing by calling this shit out.
 
Oct 26, 2017
3,946
It's weird that people can see how the media is biased when it comes to Antifa or Omar and Tlaib and are complicit in boosting Trump and conservatives and even Richard Spencer unopposed or that Hilary's emails got a disproportionate amount of coverage, but believing the media has a bias against Sanders is a bridge too far.

You can still not like Bernie for president and believe the media coverage is bad, because eventually you're going to find the media coverage is bad for your preferred candidate as well.
 

nib95

Contains No Misinformation on Philly Cheesesteaks
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
18,498
You just do it. I don't understand the question.



Do you want to get Bernie elected or be fair in his criticism of his detractors?

The objective of the game is to win centrist votes and effect policy. Not win useless accolades among the already-won base.

How about both? And have you heard of this guy called Trump? He basically won the election on an anti establishment platform. If you can offer up the damning truth, hold media accountable whilst simultaneously garnering support and valid skepticism, then all the better.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
I'm still baffled some find it so hard to believe that rich men who own corporate media may have a vested interest to protect against anyone who would go after them or their ads affiliates.
I think the hard part people to grasp is that they think it has to be explicit, like your owner coming down to the office to tell you what to write.

The entire point of Chomsky's critique of media bias is that it's often unconscious and implicit. A reporter who reports too many uncomfortable things for the editorial board's liking gets less stories to cover, less promotions. A reporter who can rock the boat but only within acceptable boundaries has a higher chance of getting promoted. Every reporter who wants to keep their job and advance their career will be pushed towards the latter than the former. So it goes on and on, level by level, until the most status quo people end up at the top in editorial departments passively maintaining the status quo.

As Chomsky has said, this "filter" happens way before the reporters even get hired. "Problem kids" who don't play by the rules get excluded from activities/opportunities. College applicants who show too much independence get funneled away from the best colleges. Students who buck the trend too much get assigned to different professors/contacts so they wind up in the mainstream or on the periphery. Each level of American society has built in filter mechanisms that implicitly crowds out dissenting voices. People who wind up on the top of the system will have survived all these filters, and they survive by being implicitly status quo.

But in the end it's still bias. Liberals have little trouble accepting "unconscious bias" in the workplace or in education or in the prison system, but the idea of unconscious bias in the media sends them in apoplectic fits, because the standard liberal world view depends on the media being this bastion of objectivity, and that career success in the media is fundamentally meritocratic.