-
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
- Thread starter Troast
- Start date
well yeah but also the chain link fence stuff... like what the hell, honestly
People are defending them because you're showing evidence of times they've done a "bad job", but not evidence that they're intentionally targeting or biased against Bernie. Like, the Politifact decisions above are... questionable, on the whole, Politifact rates Bernie correct most of the time: https://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-sanders/ especially when compared to, say Joe Biden: https://www.politifact.com/personalities/joe-biden/ or Trump: https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
Based on that, I don't really buy that Politifact is out to get Bernie and sabotage his political campaign. Does that make me nuts?
their job, Kessler's most transparently, is less to check facts than it is to launder Beltway elites' preferred centrist ideology into an "objective" representation of reality
Yup. You see the same thing with posters here claiming something is objective fact when all it really is is centrist liberal ideology. And then that manifests into weird things such as "being the adult in the room" where liberals would want to be seen above the fray and scolding children for deviating from "objective truth".
Thank you. While my question was rhetorical in nature I still appreciate how beautifully you put this into words :)
That begs to question tho why fact checking is completely ineffective against Republican rhetoric and and talking points.
After the 2016 elections, there have been many articles detailing why fact-based approaches might not be as foolproof as we previously thought.
Proofs were delivered again and again on this, ever since, see:
-Brexit
-Anti-vaccine movements
-Flat-earthers
-Climate change deniers, etc.
But there is a required listening on the topic of fact-checkers and their faux authenticity:
Episode 83: The Unchecked Conservative Ideology of US Media's 'Fact-Check' Verticals
"Three Pinocchios!" rates The Washington Post. "Pants On Fire!" declares PolitiFact. “True, but misleading,” assess The New York Times. In a media environment overwhelmed with information, misinforma
soundcloud.com
That citations needed podcast on fact checking was pretty good.
Context is important when fact checking. Especially with how the information is being used to present an argument.
Context is important when fact checking. Especially with how the information is being used to present an argument.
I actually listen to this podcast and heard this episode. I agree with everything they say. I just want people in this thread to reflect on that a little more by asking that question.After the 2016 elections, there have been many articles detailing why fact-based approaches might not be as foolproof as we previously thought.
Proofs were delivered again and again on this, ever since, see:
-Brexit
-Anti-vaccine movements
-Flat-earthers
-Climate change deniers, etc.
But there is a required listening on the topic of fact-checkers and their faux authenticity:
Episode 83: The Unchecked Conservative Ideology of US Media's 'Fact-Check' Verticals
"Three Pinocchios!" rates The Washington Post. "Pants On Fire!" declares PolitiFact. “True, but misleading,” assess The New York Times. In a media environment overwhelmed with information, misinforma
I don't believe that fact checkers or the media is inherently "anti-Bernie". But the media is deeply skeptical and biased against M4A proposals. Despite their claim or their belief that they are unbiased, they consistently show their bias whenever they start talking about the costs of M4A and how it would raise taxes WITHOUT ever addressing how these proposals also end premiums to private insurers. Always talking about the costs and never talking about the potential savings. This is systemic to all mainstream media outlets in America. For that reason, they are consistently positioned against Bernie on this issue.
There is also a desire by the media to appear like they are unbiased and that means that they try as much as possible to hold Democrats to account for lying or misleading people in order to approach something resembling parity with how much they have to hold Republicans to account for lying and misleading. They can consistently knock out easy homeruns with Republicans considering how much that side does not value facts. Trump lies as often as he breathes air. But Democrats value the truth more, so fact checkers sometimes have to play "gotcha" in order to score points against Democrats.
When you start talking about it in an overly conspiratorial way, it makes everyone else sound nuts, and that's the problem. The issue is not these media rooms all gathering in a smoke filled back room to decide to tank Bernie Sanders campaign(although im sure there some are places where that happens) . Its just the nature of biased groupthink and living in a bubble where everyone speaks to each other and everyone else in Washington is saying that the status quo and how things currently operate is great, and that what they think of an issue is the way the issue must be framed.
Even regarding hiring practices...its not necessarily about Jeff Bezos directly telling people what to write based on who he does and does not personally like, but about the culture of a Jeff Bezos owned Washington Post, the people who are actually in charge of the editorial boards, what they believe about issues, and how that bleeds down into who gets hired, who is allowed/disallowed from posting OPEDs and what their views are.
If you live in a cushy lifestyle and only know people who live in that kind of world view, its very possible to be biased against other ways of thinking even without noticing it. And if your called out, it can turn into a very petty game of vengeance where you just want to get at people. Sanders criticizes the well off all the time as taking advantage of the people under them despite having a responsibility in the most powerful positions. it makes perfect sense that the people who work under the guy who is worth 100 billion dollars will be unable to criticize the guy they work for or the culture they surround themselves with.
That's what Sanders was talking about in the first place.
So if you ask me, if there are people are politifact or Washington post who play this nuance trolling game with their "fact checks" intentionally to "get" Sanders or progressives in general because they have a conscious(or unconscious) bias against their worldview. I say absolutely.
The authors of the study have put out an official statement on Bernie's website, backing Bernie's claim, even saying it's actually a very conservative estimate:
And the study was actually an extension of the CBP studies that they already conducted with Elizabeth Warren, as I mentioned before.
They also had something to say about the Washington Post fact check:
And this is why you check all sources and not cherry pick them to "win" an argument.
And the study was actually an extension of the CBP studies that they already conducted with Elizabeth Warren, as I mentioned before.
They also had something to say about the Washington Post fact check:
And this is why you check all sources and not cherry pick them to "win" an argument.
But how could the media prop up a fake narrative about someone being wrong to discredit what they are saying if they were actually doing their jobs?
So it's literally true and they deem it "misleading"
What outlet was this? Whoever it was can cram their pedantry up their ass
I've actually met a disturbingly high number of people working dual full-time jobs. Most of them had kids too. Ugh.
Good. WaPo should be forced to correct their "fact check".
To me this is one of the most egregious fact-checking errors. It isn't even pedantry, it's just wrong, irrelevant, and a waste of everyone's time.
___________________________________
😂😂😂
Last edited:
From what I understand, the author of the study the number is being cited off of is demanding a retracting and apologies as well as the WaPo article damaged his reputation.
I knew a woman who started early mornings at a hotel and in the afternoon would work a Walmart shift.
"Oh, wow, let's check a secon..."
I'm #TeamWarren, but seriously, that's some bullshit.
"It's true, but also true elsewhere and sanders didn't specify!"
"He lowballed a figure that would only help his point if it was higher!"
Seriously.
Overexaggerates a figure: Bernie is inflating his numbers, 3 pinnochios!"Oh, wow, let's check a secon..."
I'm #TeamWarren, but seriously, that's some bullshit.
"It's true, but also true elsewhere and sanders didn't specify!"
"He lowballed a figure that would only help his point if it was higher!"
Seriously.
Underexaggerates a figure: Bernie should be using a higher number, 3 pinnochios!
Most people I work with do. I manage to get overtime most weeks, so I'm fine with my one job, but at least half of my colleagues work doubles five or six days each week.
Why it was the Washington post of course
We shouldn't believe our lying eyes with such clear examples of media bias and malpractice though. Because we would be doing conspiracy theories and be exactly like Trump. Horseshoe theory, checkmate, leftists. lol
Yeah. Not sure why you quoted me. The point is bias would assume they're not pedantic with everyone from time to time. They are. Like they provide their own stats to show that they are."Oh, wow, let's check a secon..."
I'm #TeamWarren, but seriously, that's some bullshit.
"It's true, but also true elsewhere and sanders didn't specify!"
"He lowballed a figure that would only help his point if it was higher!"
Seriously.
If I was going to really defend them, the quotes you're posting are front and center on their site. You're not doing some crazy research to find this shit. "half true? What's wrong with it? Oh here's a handy one sentence summary of why." It generally looks like they're just trying to inform people. Which... Makes sense. That's their goal.
It's not even pedantry in that example though, they're just wrong.
If we're being pedantic, the original quote's "some 200,000" can be interpreted as "the 200,000 portion of an unspecified number", and not as "only 200,000", so even using their fantasy logic that says that underestimating a number by half makes it half true (and just so we're clear, it doesn't), it still wouldn't make sense because 200,000 is being used as an approximate and not an exact quantity.
And again, on the medical bankruptcy issue, they're not being pedantic, they're just wrong. Nowhere in Bernie's statement did he say that the 500,000 bankruptcies were exclusively caused by medical debt, but that it was why people filed for bankruptcy (i.e. a leading cause, as the authors of the study he cited confirms), which is a perfectly normal assertion to make, because when we talk about causes in normal vernacular, it's not a philosophical statement that has to account for every variable in a butterfly effect, otherwise we'd never be able to say anything "accurately".
The only thing these fact-checks are informing people of is the ignorance of the fact-checkers who don't bother to properly do their homework (or do it disingenuously) and it gets really problematic when they're called out on it and refuse to correct their mistakes.
Watched the medical bankruptcy thing unfold over the weekend. WaPo is still refusing to do anything about it yes?
That fucking tagline they use becomes more hysterically ironic by the day
That fucking tagline they use becomes more hysterically ironic by the day
Like I literally don't care about one or two or a dozen examples where they're "wrong". The question is, were they wrong on purpose because they wanted to generate some negative press for Bernie Sanders or just because someone decided they thought it was important to point out the distinction here,. Their history says the later. They treat Bernie well. Because generally he's careful with what he says.
Their errors were completely unnecessary and they refuse to correct/retract them. It's irresponsible, regardless of whether or not they intentionally tried to smear Sanders.
I think it's pretty egregious that the wapo guy specifically asked the author that bernie was quoting if Bernie was interpreting his work correctly. Was told that, in fact Bernie was interpreting it correctly, and then the wapo guy called it a lie anyway. Then people online are upset that Bernie isn't (idk) apologizing for this non-error. Isn't that some shit right there?
Who covers something like this without any semblence of glee from trying to humiliate another person
These people HATE this dude
These people HATE this dude
Not to do with Bernie but also...Biden media narratives. Imagine the tone if Sanders had been the one to do this
Last edited:
I don't think they once mentioned that he was at the Muhammad Ali Center
you know, one of the greatest boxers and activists (key word) of his time
decades later and they're still trying to strip that man of everything he stood for
And they tried to disingenuously tie him to trump at the end again as well...they are going into overtime with that narrative, proving sanders correct again
