Oh I meant horseshoe theory. It's just that any claim I was using it to describe the opinion of the person I quoted is completely baseless.
-
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
Oh I meant horseshoe theory. It's just that any claim I was using it to describe the opinion of the person I quoted is completely baseless.
yeah I don't really care about that part.
Horseshoe theory is nonsense and I don't appreciate being used as evidence of the inherent sympathy of the far left and the far right so I'm pointing out that it was a bad comment for you to make in the first place.
He said "any", and that's a median for OECD countries. Those are two very different things.
I didn't say it related to you or anyone here. You can't prove it.
But if I was referring to anyone here it would be only in comparing the propensity for each extreme to justify and excuse the behavior of their favored politician in increasingly unrealistic and ridiculous ways.
But I'm not doing that so don't worry.
There used to be a lot more sources owned by a lot more different interests. Of course NYT and WaPo were always considered "premium" sources. But also news divisions weren't always focused on being profit driven.
I realize that isn't always the case of course.
It's not so much about the validity of NYT or WaPo as a whole but the consolidation of media ownership and those that control the larger direction of it.
It seems like a leap regardless. And it's...hurtful and disappointing.
The ones who consistently have to bear the brunt of the media toying with fascism, white supremacy and uncontrolled capitalism are not the well-off middle/upper class (usually) white people that write articles from [insert liberal state here].
And it's also not a lot of people on Era concerned about Bernie.
It's always the people pushed to the fringes. The disabled, the incarcerated, the undocumented, the queer and the poor. Meanwhile, we have the gall to act like Bernie is even in the same ballpark as Trump because he's not playing nice with mainstream media.
And that's a perfectly reasonable issue to have very serious concerns about.
But it has really nothing to do with the quote in question.
He didnt say not believe criticism of him, he pointed out they dont write very nice articles about him. That's not the same thing as saying fake news. I also am not sure why it's not ok for him to bring up this conversation (he didnt someone asked him this question and he answered). Because it still doesnt lead to what you suggested it did.
Yeah and for more context I think it's horse shit that people are comparing him to trump. It is VERY obvious that Bernie's treatment of media is for very different ideological reasons than Trump, and I'm not sure why that's lost on so many liberals on this board.
Okay well you quoted my post and didn't give any context so if it wasn't your intention to flag my comment as an example of horseshoe theory in action I think we can agree that your reply was a misfire.
This line of thinking only works if you ignore the reasons why something is being done to focus instead of the superficial content of the position. The Post and other blue chip press outlets use the grey area of "fact checking" to dismiss the validity of the core parts of Sanders' agenda. It's not excusing behavior, I think any candidate should be able to highlight media narratives put out on them, to not do so is giving too much power to capitalized media to shape our political conversations. This is not equivalent to calling the press enemies of the people or criminal, not even close, that's unproductive and I would condemn Bernie for that.
Impossible.
He accused Bezos of making WaPo write mean articles because he criticized Amazon's tax strategy. The source and motivation for this is irrelevant.
He said they don't write nice things about him because of Bezos. Does he have any evidence of that? Because otherwise we are again left with a politician saying don't believe criticism of me.
And that's fucked up.
why should he stay silent, if something wrong is going on you should speak out otherwise you are condoning and accepting it. There is blatant favoritism in media etc, its been this way since the begging of the printed word. while not shocking ,doesn't mean you should accept it going forwards.
It's so weird to read this thread because the media has played such an important part in white people being afraid of me because of my skin color, or making them go out and buy guns, or even vote for trump. Anyone acting like the for-profit corporate owned media isn't complicit in a lot of issues in this country because they love to create sensationalist titles(something people call out everyday here) or bend the truth for attention are fooling themselves.
Real talk, they're pretty damn good.
Ah yes, the ol' quoting a of a twitter rando to provide a straw man to beat up on.
Real talk, they're pretty damn good.
I don't think anyone is saying that. The media isn't specifically targeting Bernie though.
Exactly, some two-bit fuck tried to compare me to Susan Sarandan when I said I don't trust the media on account of its issues throughout the years.
But now I'm supposed to be cool with it just because they say so? Fuuck out of here.
Nothing gets by you.
Tbh I think there's definitely people in the media in top positions who dislike Bernie and would use their power to influence the masses. Especially someone like Bernie who has already influence the DNC and helped more the party more left and has very vocal leftist supporters.
Holy shit this is so real.
Real talk, they're pretty damn good.
Would use or are using? This has just recently been studied. There's no negative bias against Bernie in the media.
The idea that people are saying "racism only began in 2016" when complaining about Russia using racial strife as leverage (as its done for like, nearly all of the past century) is some disingenuous bullshit.
Bernie Sanders says war is bad...Trump said on the campaign trail war is bad(sometimes)....therefore, Bernie Sanders must be acting like trump. Isnt Bernie Sanders acting dangerously? Using the language of Trump by saying war is bad?
How dare he criticize our new journo we put specifically on writing stories about him, whom happen to be former lobbyists for various powerful interest, which we wont disclose until people actually dig it up by the way.
I hope people who are defending the corporate media on this one day wake up and realize how ridiculous this framing and pearl clutching is from the perspective of multinational corporations who just happen to fashion themselves as news outlets for millions of people.
How dare he criticize our new journo we put specifically on writing stories about him, whom happen to be former lobbyists for various powerful interest, which we wont disclose until people actually dig it up by the way.
I hope people who are defending the corporate media on this one day wake up and realize how ridiculous this framing and pearl clutching is from the perspective of multinational corporations who just happen to fashion themselves as news outlets for millions of people.
Last edited:
Again he didnt say not believe criticism of him. He didnt even say the articles were untrue. He literally just said that wealthy powerful people who own media outlets have an influence (actually he was agreeing with this assessment someone posed to him). Nothing is unbiased and pointing out that a paper run by bezos obviously having interests that align with a pro capitalist message is nothing close to being fucked up. Especially when you're contorting what he said to something he didnt.
Do you think the media is the only way for us to discern truth in the world? Because I genuinely am worried if you do.
Works in academia that are backed by empirical research and passed through peers in the field to filter out as much bias as possible? Thats at least better than trusting that media outlets are being honest with you all the time.
Not really. I genuinely don't know what else is a better source of news than newspapers of record.
Last edited:
Are using.....but I didn't say only Bernie, anyone who challenges the status quo while also having a huge following. But that also doesn't mean I never trust the media, I'm always gonna be suspect of the American media. I mean just the fact the the health care industry had an advertisement during the debates was gross enough.
The study found no such systemic negative bias from the media against those challenging the status quo.
Bernie directly said the WP's coverage of him is negative because he wants Amazon to pay more taxes. I don't understand anyone trying to make it into a large point when he specifically singles the WP out.
As for the last line, reporters go places, talk to people, and cover things that the vast majority of the wold's population will never experience first hand. If you don't trust them to report the news, who is up to your standard?
That's completely independent from being able to criticize specific news publications for trends, slants and biases though.
Of course it is. But without any, you know, evidence, it's just another politician pushing the idea that his detractors must be motivated by something other than sincerity.
An argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.
I'm not arguing with you....go find someone else to fight with.
Define evidence in this case? Do you want evidence in the form of a memo being sent around the WaPo offices explicitly calling for negative Bernie stories or is evidence simply noticing a trends and biases in the way Bernie is cover independent of motives?
You didnt watch the video of his speech did you? He addressed the times and numerous other outlets answering this question as well following up to his comment about bezos specifically (he brought up murdoc first, bezos was like the third person he mentioned). So if anything you just dont have the full context of what he was saying given you think he wasnt making a broad point.
My answer to that would be research and peer reviewed literature. But even that isnt beyond bias. Everything and everyone has a bias, theres no getting around that. What matters is the empirical reality of a topic as opposed to who it is saying it. No one is neutral on anything.
Evidence would be, yeah, some sort of proof. Otherwise the only reason Bernie is questioning their integrity is because he doesn't like what they say about him.
And if Bernie didn't talk about motives, I wouldn't have any. problem with his qoute. He's free to dislike his coverage, it's the idea that negative coverage means the WP must be influenced by Bezos that I have major issues with.
You didn't answer my question. Are you look for some sort of hard proof like a memo that says to bash Bernie? Or is proof simply noticing an ongoing trend?
Also I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Bezos has influence on the WaPo. Implicitly for sure. Explicitly that remains to be seen
Huh? You disagreed with the study. You made an argument.
Here's some analysis then on media tone by a Harvard government and communications academic.* Enjoy!
Source: Media Tenor, January 1-December 31, 2015.
Source: Media Tenor. Based on weekly averages, January 1-June 7, 2016. Averages for Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich based on period when they were active candidates.
The Shorenstein Center study is based on an analysis of thousands of news statements by CBS, Fox, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. The study's data were provided by Media Tenor, a firm that specializes in the content analysis of news coverage.
*Not peer reviewed I know.