Lol, ignore the spirit of what he said just to be pedantic brehs.
Speaking of disingenuous. The point is that ERA loves to talk about how horribly compromised the media is on a fundamental level, but when Bernie does it people are suddenly willing to go to bat for them againYou are equating Beto's frustrations about the media's role in the rise of white supremacy violence to Bernie complaining about his woes?
Are you being disingenuous or are you really incapable of seeing the difference?
The usual suspects of course will either not respond to this or conveniently move the goalposts of course.LMAO, who can defend this shit???
Bernie has a legitimate gripe
this is never a good look. makes you look like a whiner, even if there may be truth to it
instead of being inscrutable and confrontational you could have just told me what you meant. I don't really care anymore since it doesn't seem like you're interested in backing up your points with substance.
In my experience If you get an aggressively reductive take and disregard context and motivations you might get the answer you want but you're not really talking about issues productively anymore.He accused Bezos of making WaPo write mean articles because he criticized Amazon's tax strategy. The source and motivation for this is irrelevant.
In my experience If you get an aggressively reductive take and disregard context and motivations you might get the answer you want but not really talking about issues productively anymore.
The umpire is employed by the opposite team's owner. Also some umpires play for the other team. Others merely used to play for the other team. All the umpires are totally unbiased though.Imagine if a Major League Baseball coach said an umpire called his player out because that umpire's wife liked the other team.
(Spoiler: they'd be fined)
The umpire is employed by the opposite team's owner. Also some umpires play for the other team. Others merely used to play for the other team. All the umpires are totally unbiased though.
Media can't be umpires when they're also players in the game.Imagine if a Major League Baseball coach said an umpire called his player out because that umpire's wife liked the other team.
(Spoiler: they'd be fined)
Not sure why people are taking the political media's side on this. They've been trash forever now. What's the harm in criticizing them?
We NEED corporate-owned media to protect us from radical socialist ideas like Medicare for all, ending private prisons, tuition-free college, etc etc. The center-left bourgeois pundit class knows what's best for us, that's why they tell it to us.Not sure why people are taking the political media's side on this. They've been trash forever now. What's the harm in criticizing them?
Only people who aren't worth arguing with.
It's the same people everytime too, they'll sit in these threads all day picking fight and memeing. Then the threads end up being closed.Not sure why people are taking the political media's side on this. They've been trash forever now. What's the harm in criticizing them?
Only people who aren't worth arguing with.
People don't get to complain about the NRA's incestuous relationship with Fox News, big pharma's influence on every major network, or what have you only to turn around and say that those pointing out Bezos' influence on WaPo are being "conspiratorial", while ignoring heaps of clear evidence. They just don't. Selective brain activity isn't a thing you can fall back on in the realm of political discourse. They're simply showing their asses for what they really are: bad faith actors.
Ok, I'll go inform the media so they'll start acting like the umpires they're supposed to be. First stop: Chris Matthews. Second stop: Anderson Cooper. Third stop: Chuck Todd.
But they are, even if you didn't mean for them to be
Like I just looked up washington post during the iraq war build up. Here's a piece telling everyone that the evidence is irrefutable
Ok, I'll go inform the media so they'll start acting like the umpires they're supposed to be. First stop: Chris Matthews. Second stop: Anderson Cooper.
Because everyone's brains have rotted with the election of Trump and anything that "undermines" the institutions that are in place to criticize him is seen as a threat and highly discouragable, despite that those institutions constantly undermine themselves and have been somewhat rotten long before Trump's election.Not sure why people are taking the political media's side on this. They've been trash forever now. What's the harm in criticizing them?
I agree with Bernie on most things, so when he lets me down it makes a strong impression. I expect this kind of behavior from the deplorables out there, not from him.Every Bernie thread is such a sad read, some of you are so vindictive and now that's coming with complete bad faith arguing/purposeful ignorance. Shame
Heaps of evidence? What evidence? Some mean articles and opinion columns critical of Bernie? News flash, national newspapers have always run content critical of every high profile political candidate since the beginning of this country.Only people who aren't worth arguing with.
People don't get to complain about the NRA's incestuous relationship with Fox News, big pharma's influence on every major network, or what have you only to turn around and say that those pointing out Bezos' influence on WaPo are being "conspiratorial", while ignoring heaps of clear evidence. They just don't. Selective brain activity isn't a thing you can fall back on in the realm of political discourse. They're simply showing their asses for what they really are: bad faith actors.
Making a claim of this caliber with zero actual evidence, as if a pulled headline quote from the NYTimes is enough to buttress Sanders's accusations of Bezos exerting editorial influence on the Washington Post, is what opens it up to accusations of conspiracy-mongering. So far there hasn't been any "clear evidence," that Bezos is colluding not only with WaPo's EIC but it's CEO to lie to the public about how much influence ownership has on the newsroom, just a lot of circular gesturing and unsupported mouth sounds about "patterns" when all the academically-researched patterns suggest Sanders is completely off-base. [1][2]People don't get to complain about the NRA's incestuous relationship with Fox News, big pharma's influence on every major network, or what have you only to turn around and say that those pointing out Bezos' influence on WaPo are being "conspiratorial", while ignoring heaps of clear evidence.
Bernie is not highlighting the issues with media coverage for any purpose than to accuse them of treating him unfairly.Speaking of disingenuous. The point is that ERA loves to talk about how horribly compromised the media is on a fundamental level, but when Bernie does it people are suddenly willing to go to bat for them again
This is fucking stupid as fuck. If you know there's any degree of truth to it, why would you call them whiners?
Two editorials. Are you serious. Opinion pieces are not news reporting. Did you even read the second oneLike I just looked up washington post during the iraq war build up. Here's a piece telling everyone that the evidence is irrefutable
Here's one acknowledging reader's disdain for how many pro war op-eds WaPo has released before telling them to relax and love the bomb
My point is that just because they aren't full blown fox news doesn't mean they have our interests in mind.
Those of us who write editorials have no influence over editors and reporters who cover the news and who are committed to offering the fairest and most complete journalism possible about the standoff with Iraq. They in turn have no influence over us.
Did YOU read the article?Two editorials. Are you serious. Opinion pieces are not news reporting. Did you even read the second one
If your issue is that they had conseverative editors writing opinion pieces, well then, your issue is that you don't think credible newspapers should ever give a voice to conservative voices.
But in 2001 and 2002, conservative voices had not reached a point where they were just being thinly veiled fascists. It was a very popular political stance to be for the war, even among Democrats. What you're saying is that WaPo should have completely ignored the trends of the time and reject voices that spoke for millions and millions of people.
Yes, they ended up ultimately being wrong, but damn hindsight sure is a powerful thing and it's much easier to make those calls now then it was right after 9/11.
And there was a hell of a lot more than two editorials. Shit, the second one I linked was in response to all the people complaining about several op-eds.We respect our readers who believe that war is the worst option. But we believe that, in this case, long-term peace will be better served by strength than by concessions.
The context is that political media has always been shit and Sanders has a right to criticize them. I don't care that he's doing a "conspiracy theory" around Bezos.WaPo ate shit for ten years on the back of that 2003 editorial btw. Neither Barron nor Bezos were involved (or even there), so it's strange to dredge that up now in the context of making Bernie's bleating about unfair coverage look any better than garbage.
The context is that political media has always been shit and Sanders has a right to criticize them. I don't care that he's doing a "conspiracy theory" around Bezos.
The reason this is a headline today is 90% because this morning's headline was his quote about bezos and amazon.The context is that political media has always been shit and Sanders has a right to criticize them. I don't care that he's doing a "conspiracy theory" around Bezos.
If it wasnt clear I agree with this.Like I just looked up washington post during the iraq war build up. Here's a piece telling everyone that the evidence is irrefutable
Here's one acknowledging reader's disdain for how many pro war op-eds WaPo has released before telling them to relax and love the bomb
My point is that just because they aren't full blown fox news doesn't mean they have our interests in mind.
You mean the far left doesn't have representation in WaPo. Democrats and liberals are left leaning, and there's plenty of liberal voices at WaPo. As of 2019, the DSA has 56 thousand registered members.According to you, Washington Post shouldn't ignore the trends of the time and reject voices that speak for millions of people but that's exactly what they do to the left. The left is crucially underrepresented in WaPo despite being a large, up and coming movement which was primarily spearheaded by Bernie Sanders, who they seem to dislike.
He called out a specific publication floating a conspiracy involving a specific person. That's a lot different than talking about media in broad generalities.Speaking of disingenuous. The point is that ERA loves to talk about how horribly compromised the media is on a fundamental level, but when Bernie does it people are suddenly willing to go to bat for them again
You admitted back on gaf that you voted for Trump.
No you and others are ignoring that, when asked about the problem of incredibly wealthy people who own major media outlets having influence over narratives, he answered with a number of different wealthy owners running these institutions and how hes never been asked about how he plans to fix wealth inequality, etc. Instead you and others focus on the one ending line he said about WaPo and Bezos not writing very nice articles about him, a totally besides the point tongue and cheek comment to tie off what he was talking about. Watch the video, he specifically talks about the influence and biases of these outlets primarily before making one comment about himself.Bernie is not highlighting the issues with media coverage for any purpose than to accuse them of treating him unfairly.
We aren't defending the media. We are pointing out this is yet again a repeating conspiracy theory that Bernie is using to stole his supporters into believing and creating a narrative.
I don't even care.
How many people clearly didnt watch the speech in here but spewing this is hilarious and telling. Bezos and Wapo was like the third institution he mentioned in response to the question about billionaires owning news media.He called out a specific publication floating a conspiracy involving a specific person. That's a lot different than talking about media in broad generalities.
We actually do have people in here saying this.
No one said he didn't have the right to criticize the media.The context is that political media has always been shit and Sanders has a right to criticize them. I don't care that he's doing a "conspiracy theory" around Bezos.
Yes. Exactly my point. Very good. I'm saying that I don't care because it's super fucking low stakes and Bezos shouldn't own a fucking newspaper anyway so w/e. The only problem I have with it is that it obscures the actual problem with political media but if he actually went in on that shit people would crucify him.In other words, baseless accusations are cool as long as they're targeted at things you don't like.
Damn dude that sucks. Maybe if you keep insisting that Sanders is a dangerous demagogue for implying that an extremely influential newspaper shouldn't be owned by a mega billioniare because it may lead to corporate bias, or maybe already has, then at some point I'm sure we'll start listening.The reason this is a headline today is 90% because this morning's headline was his quote about bezos and amazon.
I feel like there's been nothing but dishonesty in saying folks are blind to media bias or that we shouldn't be critical of both editorial and news coverage. That stuff is all fine! But a lot of things can be okay at the same time:
*It's okay to be critical of news coverage. Sometimes it's really bad!
*It's okay to question fairness, it's a sign of critical thinking!
*It's also okay to call out brainless demagoguery and conspiracy-mongering from a popular presidential hopeful, it's a sign of holding them up to the standard they claim to set for themselves!
It's kind of frustrating to see that last point in particular get trampled over by specious reasoning and irrelevant examples.
Ah gotcha no worries.If it wasnt clear I agree with this.
People are being very transparent in this thread and it's a bad look.
You mean the far left doesn't have representation in WaPo. Democrats and liberals are left leaning, and there's plenty of liberal voices at WaPo. As of 2019, the DSA has 56 thousand registered members.
If you think that entitles them a seat at WaPo's editorial board, then you are existing in an entirely different reality than myself.
And yes, I think today's conservative op-ed writers are pieces of shit and I do wish that WaPo would use more discretion in their hiring choices. But disagreeing with their picks on their conservative writers today is still a far cry from calling the entire newspaper garbage. Thiessen has no influence on how WaPo reports the news, him being there has zero impact on how well run the news reporting department of the paper is.
Even worse, he spoke about it directly after talking about Fox News and Rupert Murdoch, trying to directly tie a line between the two.He called out a specific publication floating a conspiracy involving a specific person. That's a lot different than talking about media in broad generalities.
Yes. Exactly my point. Very good. I'm saying that I don't care because it's super fucking low stakes and Bezos shouldn't own a fucking newspaper anyway so w/e. The only problem I have with it is that it obscures the actual problem with political media but if he actually went in on that shit people would crucify him.