-
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
It's pretty incredible how we are good at calling out corporations for their bullshit, but when a candidate comes out with a platform of being anti-corporate, and media corporations are pretty clearly taking a stance against him, we are somehow not able to recognize that.
Again, that was touched upon in the link I gave you above to the Wiki article on Manufacturing Consent. Are you asking questions in good faith here, or is this a sort of Gish Gallop?
Wait till if she really gains footing... they'll print nothing but Pocahontas stuff for days
Sure, bring examples of media companies that don't keep their editorial and marketing separate which hasn't ended in a giant ethical explosion and shit show
with you 100%. i love Bernie and the idea of his policies but his whole campaign is a bunch of whiners. its as if Bernie is the only one subjugated to the whole theater of politics and what the presidential race is. you want to just talk about policy? great! guess what majority of the US doesn't care and finds it boring. HRC was considered a policy hawk and she was called boring, uncharismatic, and lacking energy.
Warren mirrors 99% of Bernie's ideas and ideology, how co
exactly! wouldn't be shocked by some theories about how HRC is still controlling DNC and sabotaged him.
y'all know the fact check is calling out Bernie's specific and often-repeated line that we pay twice as much as any other country and that it would be accurate to say we pay more than twice as much as average. I guess you can say it's pedantic but it's not wrong or hypocrisy.
I know about Chomsky, I know about Manufacturing Consent. I don't particularly care for Chomsky and this was a rhetorical question because I inherently disagree with the underlined
The dominant mass-media outlets are large profit-based operations, and therefore they must cater to the financial interests of the owners such as corporations and controlling investors. The size of a media company is a consequence of the investment capital required for the mass-communications technology required to reach a mass audience of viewers, listeners, and readers.
It's fine to call it out as too pedantic for CNN to bother mentioning. News companies giving a shit about accuracy and not "close enough" summaries is dumb when taking into account like 85% of headlines.
???Just waiting for the anti-media stuff to start going after Warren and for all her fans to start talking about the massive conspiracy against her and her anti-corporate agenda.
Jake Tapper was practically begging her to say she'd raise taxes to fund Medicare for All so he could give Republicans a soundbyte.
Then perhaps stop posing the question as though you have no firm opinion when you do in fact have a strong opinion on the matter?
Pop Quiz, who said this, Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders?
It's completely dishonest and Sanders is smart enough to know that it's patently false. I'm sure it plays well with his base to attack free press, it plays well with Trump's base as well, but you should have scruples. Trump is a mix of unscrupulous and terrifically dumb, so it makes perfect sense that he simply lies about the press to his supporters. Sanders is not dumb and he should have scruples.
Also, FYI, it's not the press' job "To write good articles about you." Good newspapers shouldn't be focusing on "writing good articles about you," they should be focused on writing about the truth.
Sanders
It's completely dishonest and Sanders is smart enough to know that it's patently false. I'm sure it plays well with his base to attack free press, it plays well with Trump's base as well, but you should have scruples. Trump is a mix of unscrupulous and terrifically dumb, so it makes perfect sense that he simply lies about the press to his supporters. Sanders is not dumb and he should have scruples.
Also, FYI, it's not the press' job "To write good articles about you." Good newspapers shouldn't be focusing on "writing good articles about you," they should be focused on writing about the truth.
Both of these tweets can be true. We pay twice as much as the OECD average but not twice as much as every country in it.
He also begged her to commit to preemptive nuclear strikes to protect are freedom or whatever.
That whole goddamn debate was "hey lefties, your policies are going to destroy America and kill good, hardworking white people. Why are you so terrible?" Lmao
So depressing to see all these people in here just flat out not understanding how the world works. We've already lost and we're going to look back at 2016-2020 as that silly time we thought we still had a chance.
If you understand they crafted their editorial output to make money off of coverage of Trump, it's a little silly to pretend you can't understand they might craft their coverage of Sanders on the back of his hostility to their media consolidation, which is also a major source of their revenue.
It's like, selectively naive.
Nope. The only difference is Trump has incumbent advantage now.
People say all sorts of bullshit now, lol.
They did the same shit to Corbyn over here too.
And? This is a valid question to ask, it's unavoidable that she will. Her dodging it was the right way to play it.
Oh God I follow a few UK politics folks on Twitter and that shit is almost as bad for my health as following American politics.
Not that I just don't trust you or anything OP, but are you going to post any links to some of the stuff listed in the OP? This thread feels like one massive bait fest.
Your post history doesn't lead much confidence either.
Your post history doesn't lead much confidence either.
Pressing people to answer questions during debates is important.
Having debate moderators grill candidates is their job.
Yeah, the US only pays 1.8 times as much per capita as the Netherlands and only spends twice as much on healthcare compared to 95% of developed countries. This sort of pedantry is applied equally to all claims by politicians and totally doesn't miss the fucking wood for the trees.
Some People here have learned really nothing from 2016 till now.
alright
well let's start here, I'm assuming there's no issue with the word "media" (I hope, anyway) so the problem word for you must be "corporate" so let's take it one step at a time. we'll start by defining "corporate"
cor·po·rate
/ˈkôrp(ə)rət/
adjective
1. relating to a corporation, especially a large company or group.
"airlines are very keen on their corporate identity"
so now that we've set a foundation let's try combining the words and trying to suss out what their meaning together could possibly mean. so we've established that "corporate" is relating to a corporation, especially a large company or group. seems like the combined definition of those words would have something to do with large companies or groups being affiliated with or even outright owning a large portion of the media. since we're sussing out that meaning by using the definition of the word "corporate" paired with media we'd have to check on the validity of such a claim because just throwing around phrases like that can be dangerous. so let's do some minimal digging.
what's this?
right off the bat you've got sourced claims that in 1983 90% of the media was controlled by 50 companies but by 2012 90% of the media was controlled by just 6 companies
clicking through to the source of that claim gets us to this page
which has a helpful info-graphic about what we're talking about
so it does seem like when we defined the problem word "corporate" for you paired with the word "media" we did indeed land on the correct definition of the phrase "corporate media" and now you should have a better understanding of what that means and why it might be seen as problematic especially for those who are concerned about the staggering amount of inequality in regards to power and wealth the few have over the many, which the corporate media is emblematic of and is an active participant in proliferating
hope that helps and as always bring that knowledge forward with you on your endeavors
alright
well let's start here, I'm assuming there's no issue with the word "media" (I hope, anyway) so the problem word for you must be "corporate" so let's take it one step at a time. we'll start by defining "corporate"
cor·po·rate
/ˈkôrp(ə)rət/
adjective
1. relating to a corporation, especially a large company or group.
"airlines are very keen on their corporate identity"
so now that we've set a foundation let's try combining the words and trying to suss out what their meaning together could possibly mean. so we've established that "corporate" is relating to a corporation, especially a large company or group. seems like the combined definition of those words would have something to do with large companies or groups being affiliated with or even outright owning a large portion of the media. since we're sussing out that meaning by using the definition of the word "corporate" paired with media we'd have to check on the validity of such a claim because just throwing around phrases like that can be dangerous. so let's do some minimal digging.
what's this?
right off the bat you've got sourced claims that in 1983 90% of the media was controlled by 50 companies but by 2012 90% of the media was controlled by just 6 companies
clicking through to the source of that claim gets us to this page
which has a helpful info-graphic about what we're talking about
so it does seem like when we defined the problem word "corporate" for you paired with the word "media" we did indeed land on the correct definition of the phrase "corporate media" and now you should have a better understanding of what that means and why it might be seen as problematic especially for those who are concerned about the staggering amount of inequality in regards to power and wealth the few have over the many, which the corporate media is emblematic of and is an active participant in proliferating
hope that helps and as always bring that knowledge forward with you on your endeavors
That is one damn fine post 👍🏽❤️
Evidence is sourced in the OP. This is a legit complaint and his team is calling the media out on it.
but, it's "wHiNinG. nO oNE lIKeS a wHinER bErNiE."
I am not voting for Bernie - but, the takes in this thread have mostly been stinking hot shit.
but, it's "wHiNinG. nO oNE lIKeS a wHinER bErNiE."
I am not voting for Bernie - but, the takes in this thread have mostly been stinking hot shit.
except he isn't the only anti-corporate candidate and the media isn't taking a stance against him. they are covering the election like they always do, good and bad, which Bernie doesn't like so now he and his campaign are claiming they are victims.
I have issues with the WaPo but holy shit claiming that Jeff Bezos has some agenda and is controlling how his paper covers him?
We are literally in a thread about him attacking the media for being biased against him.
If any candidate has been unfairly treated by the media, it's Beto. But when he attacks the media, it's not because of unfair treatment towards him or his campaign, but frustration of the press allowing white supremacy to thrive under Trump. See the difference? One is a conspiracy theory and the other is to bring awareness of the media's implicit contributions to the violence we've seen.
hey, who cares about accuracy when the message is good, right? an easy way for bernie to avoid the dreaded fact check would be to slightly alter his line so it's not literally wrong, but you do you. it's not like they're calling him out on something he said once off-the-cuff.
Just like the other shills will start complaining about him without researching the topic at hand. Take your hands off your eyes. This topic about the media behind an agenda is nothing new.
On the contrary, I'd say it seems like some of them were avid readers of the Washington Post circa 2016
claiming without evidence that bezos is behind negative coverage on him in the washington post is a classic demagogue move. The fact that people are now vandalizing wikipedia entries on his 'enemies list' shows the tactic is quite effective.
Amazon threatened a capital strike to kill a tax measure in Seattle that would contribute $47 million annually to address homelessness in the city
So yes, I do believe Jeff Bezos has political agendas that are reactionary in nature, and it would be surprising if WaPo wasn't influenced by that.
Tbf, gaf was probably the most centrist place on the planet.On the contrary, I'd say it seems like some of them were avid readers of the Washington Post circa 2016
Era is much better.
It's the same nonsense as last time. Ever since Biden announced he was running it was HE'S THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN BEAT TRUMP even though he's been a fucking mess every time he opens his mouth. Meanwhile candidates like Sanders and Warren get nonstop concern trolling.
Yep. We all need to come together and stop the divisive rhetoric, but wackjob bernie and his army of crazies aren't allowing it to happen
I get rubbed extremely wrongly when people assert that Bernie Sanders and the person who stood and applauded when the white supremacist fashy president said "America will never be a socialist country" are essentially the same candidate except "errrr she got PLANS" (lmao you sweet little child)
She stood the fuck up and applauded Trump! Fuck him fuck her fuck you! I apologize for the tangent.
She stood the fuck up and applauded Trump! Fuck him fuck her fuck you! I apologize for the tangent.