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

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,125
Minnesota
You don’t think he’s implying Bezos is manipulating or controlling WaPo’s coverage because Bernie criticizes Amazon for not paying taxes? How else can that statement possibly be interpreted?
I don't think he's saying Bezos is directly coordinating with WP to ensure that they make him look bad, no. What I think he's saying is that it's no surprise that WP has demonstrated a trend of having a slant towards defending the corporate interests of their owner, at Bernie's expense, which is not an unreasonable assertion to make.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,977
I disagree with your interpretation of your words, I'll leave it at that
Lol seriously.

I don't think he's saying Bezos is directly coordinating with WP to ensure that they make him look bad, no. What I think he's saying is that it's no surprise that WP has demonstrated a trend of having a slant towards defending the corporate interests of their owner, at Bernie's expense, which is not an unreasonable assertion to make.
But:

"And then I wonder why The Washington Post, which is owned by Jeff Bezos, who owns Amazon, doesn't write particularly good articles about me. I don't know why,"
He’s saying Jeff Bezos makes WaPo write bad articles about him because he criticizes Amazon. If that’s not your interpretation then, sorry, but you aren’t reading the words.
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,125
Minnesota
He’s saying Jeff Bezos makes WaPo write bad articles about him because he criticizes Amazon. If that’s not your interpretation then, sorry, but you aren’t reading the words.
Unless you can quote him literally saying what you said word for word (which you can't because he doesn't) it's a matter interpretation and I simply disagree with yours, all without needing to suggest that you didn't read it, go figure.
 
Jun 20, 2019
154
I don’t believe anything Bernie has said implies Bezos coordinated with anyone. That’s a strong word, I presume it’s being injected here to make Sanders sound less serious, but it is in no way necessary to understanding what Sanders says.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,977
Unless you can quote him literally saying what you said word for word (which you can't because he doesn't) it's a matter interpretation and I simply disagree with yours, all without needing to suggest that you didn't read it, go figure.
Well something is going wrong somewhere between the words appearing on screen and your response being typed. His quote:

"I talk about that all of the time," Sanders said of Amazon paying "nothing" in taxes. "And then I wonder why The Washington Post, which is owned by Jeff Bezos, who owns Amazon, doesn't write particularly good articles about me. I don't know why,"
is literally what I’m describing to you. There isn’t another valid interpretation. What you’re saying is simply wrong.
 
Jun 20, 2019
154
Alternately he might just be saying the Washington Post has been the kind of place that a captain of industry would want to buy, which is why Bezos gave them the lifeline to begin with. There is no reason to believe Sanders is implying causation of Bezos->WaPo rather than the other way around, or the possibility of no causation at all and this is a matter of like-minded people with similar educations, social mores, and politics acting in a mutually beneficial way. Acting as a class.
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,125
Minnesota
Example time.

Is your username supposed to be ironic?

Note: any personal insult is your own interpretation. No insult can be transcribed verbatim therefore it’s literally nonexistent.
No one said that it's not possible that your interpretation of what he said was correct; I simply disagree with it. Didn't think it would be necessary for me to explain this more than a couple of times...
 

Matt

The Terror that Flaps in the Night
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
2,332
I don't think he's saying Bezos is directly coordinating with WP to ensure that they make him look bad, no. What I think he's saying is that it's no surprise that WP has demonstrated a trend of having a slant towards defending the corporate interests of their owner, at Bernie's expense, which is not an unreasonable assertion to make.
It's a national politician running for President telling his supporters not to trust a well-respected publication when they are critical of him.

Don't let the fact that Bernie is the one who said it cloud the fact that this is dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric.
 

Suiko

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,627
User banned (5 days): Antagonizing other members, prior infraction for similar behavior.
No one said that it's not possible that your interpretation of what he said was correct; I simply disagree with it. Didn't think it would be necessary for me to explain this more than a couple of times...
Words are difficult for you huh?

It's a national politician running for President telling his supporters not to trust a well-respected publication when they are critical of him.

Don't let the fact that Bernie is the one who said it cloud the fact that this is dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric.
Brainchild is a special case where Bernie can't do anything wrong, and he will willingly misread something if he can find a way to make Bernie do nothing wrong.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,977
Alternately he might just be saying the Washington Post has been the kind of place that a captain of industry would want to buy, which is why Bezos gave them the lifeline to begin with. There is no reason to believe Sanders is implying causation of Bezos->WaPo rather than the other way around, or the possibility of no causation at all and this is a matter of like-minded people with similar educations, social mores, and politics acting in a mutually beneficial way. Acting as a class.
Or he could be signaling the aliens that the plan is a go. Unlikely, but possible.

No one said that it's not possible that your interpretation of what he said was correct; I simply disagree with it. Didn't think it would be necessary for me to explain this more than a couple of times...
It’s completely obvious what he’s saying to anyone not intent on interpreting it in a positive light.
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,125
Minnesota
It's a national politician running for President telling his supporters not to trust a well-respected publication when they are critical of him.

Don't let the fact that Bernie is the one who said it cloud the fact that this is dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric.
Words are difficult for you huh?
And with the ad hominems, I'm done with this thread. Enjoy the fruitless discussion.
 
Jun 20, 2019
154
It's a national politician running for President telling his supporters not to trust a well-respected publication when they are critical of him.

Don't let the fact that Bernie is the one who said it cloud the fact that this is dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric.
Well respected? The paper that gave a platform to Charles Krauthammer for more than 30 years and George Will for God knows how long is well respected?
 
Oct 25, 2017
836
It's a national politician running for President telling his supporters not to trust a well-respected publication when they are critical of him.

Don't let the fact that Bernie is the one who said it cloud the fact that this is dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric.
Maybe the problem here is that people still respect the Post in the first place. That doesn't automatically translate to violence just because.

Are you seriously questioning if The Washington Post is a well respected newspaper?
maybe it shouldn't be?
 

Matt

The Terror that Flaps in the Night
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
2,332
And with the ad hominems, I'm done with this thread. Enjoy the fruitless discussion.
Ad hominem? I wasn't trying to insult you, I meant it genuinely.

Imagine a Republican saying the exact same thing. What would your reaction to that be? If it's the same, ok, great. If it's not, then you have to ask yourself why that is.
 

Tukarrs

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,250
Let's pull out the full quote in YouTube and see if we can get any context.


(The actual quoted part is about 1minute in)
 

TheModestGun

Member
Dec 5, 2017
2,357
Well something is going wrong somewhere between the words appearing on screen and your response being typed. His quote:



is literally what I’m describing to you. There isn’t another valid interpretation. What you’re saying is simply wrong.
It’s literally not what you are describing.

To put it more simply. Do you think the paper is going to bite the hand that feeds or intentionally make its owner look bad or highlight talking points in a positive manner that paint their owner in a particularly bad light?
 

Maolfunction

Member
Oct 27, 2017
997
Well respected? The paper that gave a platform to Charles Krauthammer for more than 30 years and George Will for God knows how long is well respected?
What's wrong with Krauthammer and George Will other than being conservative journalists? Both were extremely critical of Bush during his administration, and Will completely opposed the McCain/Palin run in 2008. They're both examples of what conservatism should be in America, not the thinly veiled fascist party it is today.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,977
“I think we should act like Trump supporters to demonstrate that comparisons between what Bernie said and what Trump says are completely ridiculous!”
 

Matt

The Terror that Flaps in the Night
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
2,332
It’s literally not what you are describing.

To put it more simply. Do you think the paper is going to bite the hand that feeds or intentionally make its owner look bad or highlight talking points in a positive manner that paint their owner in a particularly bad light?
The problem is this line of reasoning eventually ends with a politician being the only source of truth. Which is fucking terrifying.
 
Jun 20, 2019
154
“I think we should act like Trump supporters to demonstrate that comparisons between what Bernie said and what Trump says are completely ridiculous!”
I frankly consider calling leftists the same as conservatives insulting, grossly insulting. And I believe you’re insulting those in this discussion who disagree with you purposefully and in the most incendiary way possible.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,977
It’s literally not what you are describing.

To put it more simply. Do you think the paper is going to bite the hand that feeds or intentionally make its owner look bad or highlight talking points in a positive manner that paint their owner in a particularly bad light?
I would expect The Washington Post to cover the news in an unbiased fashion, yes. Statements about the owner of Amazon also owning the Washington Post is a clear and obvious accusation that he is influencing one because of the other.

You folks are really, really desperate here.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,326
The problem is this line of reasoning eventually ends with a politician being the only source of truth. Which is fucking terrifying.
Pretty much. As the thread drags on, it inches closer and closer to what I said in the beginning is the implication. Only social media and the politician himself become the source of truth.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,977
I frankly consider calling leftists the same as conservatives insulting, grossly insulting. And I believe you’re insulting those in this discussion who disagree with you purposefully and in the most incendiary way possible.
Quote me accusing anyone specifically of acting the same as conservatives.

(pssst, think about it)
 

Ploid 6.0

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,657
Don't call the media bias because that's what Trump does. Not a good look even if media of any kind is being bias. /s
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,326
Read closer. Both CNN stories are correct. The per capita cost of healthcare in the us is twice the average of OECD countries. Germany and others are only slightly less costly per capita than the US and far from being half the costs per capita of the US.

Got to give props to Kamala Harris is a cop for being good at the disinformation campaign. Bernie must have hired someone from the Russian bot farms for that level of quality.
 
Oct 25, 2017
836
Because a politician told you to is the worst possible reason to drop a news source.
That's a very reductive way to look at the world. I dont get this obsessions with liberals disregarding context to focus on actions compared in the most general terms. I just doesn't make sense

In this cas we agree on the editorial slant, he's referencing a very real dynamic that I agree with and it seems to me quite reasonable to be skeptical of the agenda of the Post.
After 2016, financial crisis and Iraq anyone who doesn't think that the papers of record in the country are mouthpieces for power is unbelievably naive.

Honestly, I don't get it. Are y'all so desperate to find a reason to cancel Bernie that you're willing to downplay the garbage fire that is the corprate American media?
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,977
Post #420 is stating that Equippedwithtowel’s statement is an example of the Horseshoe Theory, the “two ends touching”, which is precisely the claim that leftists and rightists are one and the same in extremis.
I didn’t write that posters name anywhere. The post appearing quoted before my response is ambiguous, at best, and proves nothing.

I’m being completely reasonable here.
 

Tukarrs

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,250
I would expect The Washington Post to cover the news in an unbiased fashion, yes. Statements about the owner of Amazon also owning the Washington Post is a clear and obvious accusation that he is influencing one because of the other.

You folks are really, really desperate here.
In the clip I posted, Bernie talks about how the ownership of various media properties by Rupert Murdoch has tremendous influence for conservative values.

Anyone that joins Fox News or hired in a News Corp position knows that there's an expectation of conservative values. It doesn't have to be an explicit order from on high.

Do you think it's possible that the Washington Post similarly is influenced by ownership?
Without going into conspiracies, it's evident that WaPo had a Pro-War bias. There's a Pro-Israel bias. Is is conceivable that there's a Pro-Corporate bias that is not helped by Bezo's owning the company?
 

Maolfunction

Member
Oct 27, 2017
997
Trump: Maybe we shouldn't listen to CNN

Sanders: Maybe we shouldn't listen to the Washington Post


Where are the similarities? The only thing you can argue is that Bernie has an anti-capitalist bent to his rhetoric, but even then, he does not tell people where else to get their news source. He's telling people to just listen to him over them. Which is right out of the Trump playbook.
 

TheModestGun

Member
Dec 5, 2017
2,357
The problem is this line of reasoning eventually ends with a politician being the only source of truth. Which is fucking terrifying.
Yes and I have problems with that too but the solution is not politicians being the source of truth, but the disentanglement of conglomerated media.

It’s JUST AS scary that only a few corporations with very specific interests in profit, rather than investigation of truth own most of the media. That didn’t used to be the case, and it’s only getting worse.

I don’t think Bernie’s intent is to say he has a monopoly on truth, but that we should be very wary of a few corporations controlling the majority of public discourse and its framing. But I do understand the concern.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,977
In the clip I posted, Bernie talks about how the ownership of various media properties by Rupert Murdoch has tremendous influence for conservative values.

Anyone that joins Fox News or hired in a News Corp position knows that there's an expectation of conservative values. It doesn't have to be an explicit order from on high.

Do you think it's possible that the Washington Post similarly is influenced by ownership?
Without going into conspiracies, it's evident that WaPo had a Pro-War bias. There's a Pro-Israel bias. Is is conceivable that there's a Pro-Corporate bias that is not helped by Bezo's owning the company?
Huh? Murdoch directly controls those entities. You couldn’t offer a worse example.
 

JaeCryo

Member
Nov 6, 2017
4,889
Read closer. Both CNN stories are correct. The per capita cost of healthcare in the us is twice the average of OECD countries. Germany and others are only slightly less costly per capita than the US and far from being half the costs per capita of the US.

Got to give props to Kamala Harris is a cop for being good at the disinformation campaign. Bernie must have hired someone from the Russian bot farms for that level of quality.
Right.

It's still funny.
 

Lentic

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,622
I don't have a problem with what Bernie said. At no point did he suggest there were clandestine meetings in smoke filled rooms where the corporate elite plotted to systematically take him down, nor did he claim that Washington Post was fake news.

And Bezos wields influence over WP in the same sense that most CEOs do over their sub-ordinates; the invisible hand of power-dynamics. Bezos doesn't need to bark out orders to make sure that WP makes content that positively effects his bottom line at the end of the day, it's already inherent in the interest of the company.
Yup. There’s always a culture behind the scenes which influences the kinds of people that are hired and promoted. That culture is usually determined by the people high up and is perpetuated throughout the hierarchy.
 

jviggy43

Member
Oct 28, 2017
13,488
The problem is this line of reasoning eventually ends with a politician being the only source of truth. Which is fucking terrifying.
This is a ridiculous jump in logic. Someone agreeing that its fair to talk about bias in a paper owned by one of the richest people in the world is also not asserting the person suggesting this is the only source of truth. Very clearly that person can (and is (bernie)) biased as well, but that doesn't mean that the question posed isn't worth consideration or merit, nor does it mean that the person posing said question is our only source of truth or beyond bias themself. Because that poster never suggested anything of the sort.
 

Maolfunction

Member
Oct 27, 2017
997
Yes and I have problems with that too but the solution is not politicians being the source of truth, but the disentanglement of conglomerated media.

It’s JUST AS scary that only a few corporations with very specific interests in profit, rather than investigation of truth own most of the media. That didn’t used to be the case, and it’s only getting worse.

I don’t think Bernie’s intent is to say he has a monopoly on truth, but that we should be very wary of a few corporations controlling the majority of public discourse and its framing. But I do understand the concern.
Didn't used to be the case? the NYT and WaPo have been like the premium source of news in this country for over a century.

If anything, the internet and cable TV have added even more options to get your information from than 50 years ago.
 
Oct 25, 2017
836
Nothing at all. I’m responding to a poster who claims radical left = radical right, and I believe that is both wrong and dangerous.
yeah my bad, got my replies mixed up.
The two ends are now touching.
what did you mean by that then, if it's not horseshoe theory? I'm not gonna stop not respecting the Post and Times just because conservatives also don't like it. That's isn't evidence of anything but them being a platform for a lot of establishment dogma
 

Matt

The Terror that Flaps in the Night
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
2,332
This is a ridiculous jump in logic. Someone agreeing that its fair to talk about bias in a paper owned by one of the richest people in the world is also not asserting the person suggesting this is the only source of truth. Very clearly that person can (and is (bernie)) biased as well, but that doesn't mean that the question posed isn't worth consideration or merit, nor does it mean that the person posing said question is our only source of truth or beyond bias themself. Because that poster never suggested anything of the sort.
Again, it's perfectly reasonable for us to be talking about these issues. A national politician speaking at a rally and telling the audience not to believe criticism of him is a whole different matter.