I disagree with your interpretation of your words, I'll leave it at that
-
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.
Claims of biased media coverage on Bernie Sanders from his top campaign advisors
- Thread starter Troast
- Start date
I disagree with your interpretation of your words, I'll leave it at that
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.
Lol seriously.
But:
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.
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.
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.
Your description still isn't a verbatim match with the quote though, so no, it's literally not.
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.
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.
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 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.
User banned (5 days): Antagonizing other members, prior infraction for similar behavior.
Words are difficult for you huh?
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.
Or he could be signaling the aliens that the plan is a go. Unlikely, but possible.
It's completely obvious what he's saying to anyone not intent on interpreting it in a positive light.
And with the ad hominems, I'm done with this thread. Enjoy the fruitless discussion.
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?
Are you seriously questioning if The Washington Post is a well respected newspaper?
Maybe the problem here is that people still respect the Post in the first place. That doesn't automatically translate to violence just because.
maybe it shouldn't be?
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.
Because a politician told you to is the worst possible reason to drop a news source.
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?
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.
I do not give a blanket imprimatur of approval to the Washington Post. Absolutely I will not. It seems like madness to me to suggest that it deserves "respect" in any broad sense given its editorial and journalistic history.
The problem is this line of reasoning eventually ends with a politician being the only source of truth. Which is fucking terrifying.
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.
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.
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.
Quote me accusing anyone specifically of acting the same as conservatives.
(pssst, think about it)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Huh? Murdoch directly controls those entities. You couldn't offer a worse example.
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.
Nothing at all. I'm responding to a poster who claims radical left = radical right, and I believe that claim is both wrong and dangerous because it desolves away the entire critique of existing social arrangements that identifies the left.
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.
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.
yeah my bad, got my replies mixed up.
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
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.