Amy Goodman of Democracy Now: How the Media Is Ruining This Election

[Triana]

[Uncle Joe]

1. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Triana.

[Harriety]

2. Exactly!

[TIME TO PANIC]

3. K & R!

Bring back the Fairness Doctrine!

[They_Live]

13. + 1000

[reformist2]

4. Excellent point. If the media had reported Bernie proportionately to what he deserved, who knows

what his numbers would be today.

But they ignored him, and most people who don't frequent the internet, or seek out alternative forms of media, to this day they barely know who he is. (This may partly explain why older voters seemed so resistant to support Bernie.) Obviously the media wasn't engaging in a total blackout, but enough of one to keep recognition of Bernie's message to a minimum.

If our media is so biased that voters find it hard to find out who the major candidates are, let alone what the candidates stand for, can we really call ourselves a free society?

[KPN]

12. Well, the good news is that

Younger folks rely on the Internet for information, so that will all change with time ... and all those older people check into heaven.

[Indydem]

19. Keep telling yourself that.

The media. The voting machines. The Super Delegates. The DNC.

It is everyone's fault except Sanders. Never any acceptance for the fact America doesn't like your candidates ideas.

[reformist2]

20. Most Dems voting still had only a hazy notion of who Sanders is. A lot of people are not online much

[oberliner]

38. He's been on Meet the Press frequently

Along with many other news programs.

[AlbertCat]

65. Never any acceptance for the fact America doesn't like your candidates ideas.

The why did Hillary espouse them all?.... after Sanders drew huge crowds with them?

[Indydem]

71. Oh bull.

She's never espoused 1/3 of what Bernout Has pie in the sky ideas about.

Keep telling yourself that.

[afertal]

72. It's Hillary...

...that should be singing "there'll be pie in the sky when you die!". Her promises are right up there with Woody's original target.

[AlbertCat]

89. Keep telling yourself that.

Uh huh....

It's so "untrue" that Saturday Night Live did a whole opening skit with Hillary changing into Sanders.


Of course we all know she doesn't mean it when she parrots Sanders.... or any liberal.



BTW.... Trump is leading over her....she's so electable and eveyone agrees with her!

[Raastan]

78. Isn't this a REPUBLICAN talking point?

something you would hear on FauxNews...

Most of what I see on HuffPost & DU is Bernie support

I stopped watching TV for news ages ago.

[MrMickeysMom]

5. What ever happened to it has changed the meaning of "what is news"

"When you mix fiction and news, you diminish the distinction between truth and fiction, and you wear down the audience's own discriminating power to judge."
–Bill Moyers

[reformist2]

6. Actual "news" content has dropped to a minimum, "opinion & analysis" (read: spin) has taken over.

Viewers can hardly learn anything new without some snide, snarky pundit's spin on it, implying how you should think about what they're telling you. It's very clever propaganda, since most people want to agree with their favorite pundits.

[elljay]

10. Weather, Kittens, Celebrities and Sports

There's no time for news after they cover the important stuff.

[cui bono]

34. And product placement!

[LiberalArkie]

11. Real news means a network must spend money on satellite time, actual reporters who can read,

people who can investigate. Opinion means you put a couple of people in front of a camera and talk. It is a lot cheaper.

Edit to add: About the same thing Obama said.

[OwlinAZ]

73. Opinion is cheap.

[snot]

7. Yes, Fairness Doctrine, AND

break up Big Media and restore the restrictions on consolidated media ownership.

And for gawd's sake, protect net neutrality!

[Triana]

8. ALL THAT. Yes. n/t

[jwirr]

86. You nailed it. IF we want to have freedom of the press this

is what we have to do.

[certainot]

9. the left, including goodman, ignore a dominating media factor

year after year and continue to do so

here's the math and it goes back over 25 years:

at a cheap $1000/hr x 15hrs/day x 1200 stations, rw talk radio is worth 4.68 BIL$/ year or 390MIL$ /month FREE for coordinated global warming denial, pro republican wall st think tank propaganda, deregulation, hate, swiftboating, and managing who is and who isn't acceptable for presidential office - trump is riding 25 years of that.

another thing that's ignored is that the rw radio monopoly that's been destroying democracy and managing media for 25 years depends heavily on these 90 universities, which rent their logos to 270 limbaugh stations to help them sell their crap.

[Enthusiast]

14. Kicked and recommended to the Max!

[Mira]

15. Even though I liked Obama last night at the dinner, and laughed

THIS is what should have been played.

[zentrum]

17. Good point.

[Jack Rabbit]

16. K/R

!!

[oberliner]

18. This is total BS

Bernie has been on every single news show repeatedly. He has given his stump speech over and over again on a myriad of different networks and programs. His post-primary/caucus speeches are often broadcast in full by CNN and MSNBC (and even Fox). If you follow politics even remotely, you are aware of what Bernie stands for. He has been spoofed on SNL and has made appearances on that show and countless others. I am not sure what date this Amy Goodman video is from, but its basic premise is simply not true.

And as for Trump, yes, he has received a lot of coverage, but a sizable portion of it has been mocking him. He says countless ridiculous things and the media (especially on CNN and MSNBC) expresses incredulity at his electoral success in light of his numerous awful remarks. He is laughed at by the CNN contingent and is openly and brazenly attacked by those on MSNBC on a nightly basis. Even Fox occasionally gives him crap for some of his more over the top comments.

On top of all of that, if anyone really wants to get informed, there is greater access to a wider variety of information today than there ever has been before. If you look at the breadth and depth of what is available online about the candidates and about the issues, it is simply unprecedented in US history.

[cantbeserious]

22. Your Opinion Only - Others See The World Much, Much Differently

eom

[oberliner]

23. It has never been easier to get accurate, unfiltered information about candidates

One can watch, in full, virtually every public event given by every presidential candidate during this entire election cycle.

One can go on any candidate's website and access all of the information the candidate wishes to put out, in exactly the fashion that the candidate wishes to present that information.

One can watch candidates giving stump speeches in every state, completely unfiltered and in their entirety. One can watch town halls, and question and answer sessions, many of which go on for hours. One can read transcripts of detailed one-on-one conversations with newspaper editorial boards across the country with every candidate.

There is no time in history where it would have been possible to access this much detailed information directly from every candidate - in addition to copious analysis from a wide variety of perspectives.

[cantbeserious]

24. Only For Those Privileged Enough To Afford Access To Alternative Media

eom

[oberliner]

25. Over 85 percent of Americans have internet access

That's higher than the percentage of people who have cable television.

[cantbeserious]

26. This Citizen Understands That The Media Is Owned And Controlled By Seven Or Less Corporations

Those corporations control the narrative despite how many citizens may have marginal internet access.

[oberliner]

27. It takes less than five seconds to find every speech Bernie has given over the campaign

There is a YouTube page called "Bernie Sanders Speeches and Events" that has all the videos in full.

There is a YouTube page called "Bernie 2016" that has every ad he's ever run along with a variety of his appearances, and that of his surrogates.

It takes no effort and no money to find and watch these speeches.

This is something that would have been impossible to do just a decade ago.

[Uncle Joe]

43. A handful of corporate media conglomerates; own 95% of everything the American People see

on television, hear on the radio or read in printed publications in a nation of 300+ million citizens, those are monopolies.

Their bias is beyond dispute; in the overwhelming quantify of time devoted to right wing propaganda, almost always cutting or editing progressive points of view, almost always interrupting a progressive just as they're making critical points, inserting their own conflict of interest corporate media propaganda spin on anything that is said.

They almost always cover Republicans first and corporate beholden Democrats second, while throwing scraps to progressive point of views.

Television is still the dominant medium for millions of Americans and too many Americans simply don't make the effort to educate themselves, in large part this is also an effect from decades of corporate media propaganda and brainwashing, putting the people to sleep.

This 30+ year corporate media conglomerate program to dumb the American People down and eliminate critical thinking has had astounding results.

[oberliner]

45. Those are dying mediums

The internet allows for the dissemination of independently made videos like the one you link to here that make a simple an effective point while completely bypassing those corporate conglomerates.

In fact, pretty much anyone can post a video on any topic and get their message out to the general public.

To say nothing of the fact that raw, unfiltered, information is widely available online in a way that was not possible in the past.

As I mentioned, one can watch every single speech that Bernie Sanders has given in its entirety if one had the inclination to do so.

This would not have been possible just ten years ago.

[Uncle Joe]

47. They're not dead yet.

The corporate media conglomerates still have great power in influencing/brainwashing millions of Americans.

The can spread lies, bullshit, propaganda, innuendo, create or magnify fear and hatred to tens of millions of Americans overnight, their programming; even outside of news programs can focus on how they want to manipulate the people on a daily basis.

The Internet is the rising star but the Internet requires some modicum of effort from the users to search for their information, to debate and read etc. etc. Television requires nothing of the sort, just turn it on, vegge out and let the tube hypnotize you.

A beast is most dangerous when it's wounded, the corporate media conglomerates' enabling the rise of Trump is a testament to this, they could have went the positive route and tried to uplift or enlighten the American People but instead slid further down the dark side and played Russian Roulette by glorifying Trump from day one of his announcement with way more attention than he deserved.

It didn't make any difference whether Trump said anything newsworthy or of substance, he was covered virtually 24/7 and they did screw Bernie over for most all of last year, he was barely mentioned on the critical nightly network new broadcasts getting a micro fraction of Trump coverage and Bernie was substantive, but the corporate media conglomerates were afraid of him and his message.

The difference in coverage is striking with Bernie they wanted to know intricate details of future policy enactments and then wrongfully criticized him when the publication; New York Daily News owned by a Hillary supporter didn't know what the hell they were talking about.

There is no denying the corporate media conglomerate's abandonment of journalistic integrity and responsibility in regards to covering this election in a fair, just or wise way.

[oberliner]

49. That's true

They do still have great power, but you must admit that access to information today is infinitely better than it was a few decades ago. As I mentioned, one can get every Bernie Sanders speech and watch it in full. The effort required to find one such speech is pretty minimal.

And while Trump has indeed garnered a lot of media attention (a lot being an understatement), much of it has been negative. If you watch MSNBC, for instance, your perception of Trump would be that he is an absolute buffoon, and a dangerous one at that.

With regard to the NY Daily News - they did a pretty extensive interview with Sanders and with Clinton, and I think if one reads the transcripts of either interview, one can judge for themselves how each candidate acquitted his or herself. Just a few years ago, access to these full transcripts would have been nearly impossible to acquire - now it can be easily done.

Yes, there is a great deal of spin on the major networks and even the lesser ones, but I marvel at how far we have come in terms of the availability of primary source material and opinion pieces from across a very broad spectrum. Not to mention, the ability to get first hand accounts from ordinary people who are on the scene at various events.

[stopbush]

80. Stop! You're upsetting the narrative that explains why Sanders is losing the primaries!

[Uncle Joe]

83. The corporate media conglomerates gave Trump billions of dollars in free advertising

beginning from day 1 of his announcement. Only in the past few months has it been more negative as Trump became a major threat in getting the Republican nomination.

They gave Trump saturation coverage while relegating Bernie to the back pages or ignoring him all together for most of last year, this can be more damaging than negative publicity insofar as persuading the masses is concerned.

Idiom: Better the devil you know

This is the shortened form of the full idiom, 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't', and means that it is often better to deal with someone or something you are familiar with and know, even if they are not ideal, than take a risk with an unknown person or thing.

http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/better+the+devil+you+know.html

Furthermore what one may view as negative publicity from a Democratic standpoint doesn't necessarily translate to a net loss in regards to Republican perception.

The New York Times, no friend of Bernie Sanders, did read the transcripts and found criticism of the New York Daily's News interview Bernie unfounded but don't tell that to the vast majority of corporate media coverage of this event, they didn't bother to read it or they didn't care.

Bernie Sanders probably knows more about breaking up banks than his critics give him credit for.

(snip)

In the interview, with The Daily News’s editorial board, Mr. Sanders does appear to get tangled up in some details and lacks clarity. Breaking up the banks would involve arcane and complex regulatory moves that can trip up any banking policy wonk, let alone a presidential candidate. But, taken as a whole, Mr. Sanders’s answers seem to make sense. Crucially, his answers mostly track with a reasonably straightforward breakup plan that he introduced to Congress last year.

(snip)

It makes sense for Mr. Sanders to hedge here about the Fed. The Daily News asks if the Fed has that power “now.” As we have seen, the Fed currently has a lot of power but maybe not all the power it might require to break up the banks without facing serious legal challenges from the financial industry. And Mr. Sanders is also correct that an administration can obtain that power — that is what his bill is for.

(snip)

Mr. Sanders is mostly cogent here. This is more or less how a breakup would work under his legislation. Doing what he outlines here would be far easier if Congress passed his breakup bill, or something like it. Mr. Sanders is on shaky ground if he thinks it would be easy to slash the size of the banks with Dodd-Frank alone. But, taking the interview as a whole, as well as his past positions, that does not appear to be the path he favors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/upshot/yes-bernie-sanders-knows-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html?_r=0

Most Americans don't read the transcripts, but they do see or hear extensive corporate media conglomerate coverage/propaganda around an event and this more than anything shapes their perceptions.

I agree with you in one respect we have come a long way with the growth of the Internet's ability to counter corporate media propaganda but we have miles to go before we're out of the woods.

One promising trend; that being Millennials; Bernie's strongest supporters having grown up with the Internet aren't as prone to being brainwashed by corporate media conglomerate propaganda.

[oberliner]

84. Is the NY Times not part of the corporate media?

Last edited Mon May 2, 2016, 04:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Because that article you linked to provides a pretty detailed defense of Bernie Sanders.

With regard to Trump, he did get a lot of coverage, but much of it was mocking him. He was not taken seriously as a candidate by much of the corporate media (and still isn't).

With regard to the Daily News interview, you are right that most don't read the transcripts but are shaped by media coverage of it. But that kind of thing happens to Hillary a lot as well - where her saying "bring them to heel" is repeated without anyone really providing or seeking out the fuller context of her remarks.

The difference now vs. twenty years ago is that people can actually find the un-filtered source material online if they are inclined to do so. I can read the full Daily News interview with Sanders or watch the full remarks by Clinton and reach my own conclusions about either.

[Uncle Joe]

88. The "Television" Networks didn't cover the New York Times angle on the interview,

nor did the Washington Post, they all fell in line with the New York Daily News take and the owner of that publication is a Hillary supporter.

The New York Daily News and the vast majority of the corporate media conglomerates were quick to obfuscate Bernie's statement in regards to the Treasury Secretary and the Fed.

In an exchange with the New York Daily News editorial board a few days ago, Bernie said he didn’t know if the Fed had authority to break up the big banks but the President does have such authority under the Dodd-Frank Act.

This drew an onslaught of criticism from the media: "Bernie Sanders Admits He Isn't Sure How to Break Up Big Banks," read Vanity Fair's headline. "This New York Daily News interview was pretty close to a disaster for Bernie Sanders," said The Washington Post.

"How Much Does Bernie Sanders Know About Policy?" asked The Atlantic. The Clinton campaign even said in a fundraising email "on his signature issue of breaking up the banks, he's unable to answer basic questions about how he'd go about doing it, and even seems uncertain whether a president does or doesn't already have that authority under existing law."

The criticism is bonkers. Bernie was absolutely correct when he said the President has the authority to break up the big banks under Dodd-Frank. He's repeatedly specified exactly how he'd use that Dodd-Frank authority to do so. His critics are confusing the Dodd-Frank Act with the Federal Reserve. Whether the Fed has the authority on its own to break up the biggest banks is irrelevant.
Clearly, Bernie has the Democratic establishment worried enough to try to twist his words into pretzels.


https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1192384144107513

The corporate media conglomerates didn't condemn Trump's early hate filled speech, they presented it as "he's winning despite this" they didn't state that he had no substance they wasted precious airtime covering him selling steaks and crap.

To his supporters this was gold, Trump is different and therefor must be better.

[oberliner]

91. Even some supporters of his didn't think it was his best interview

It's certainly fair for reporters to criticize him if they see fit. Certainly you aren't suggesting that all coverage of Bernie Sanders must be uncritically positive. There were folks who said he stumbled a bit, and there were other folks who said he did just fine. I think it's fair to say that while he did an excellent job with most of the interview, there were a few questions that he could've answered a bit better. Bernie Sanders isn't perfect, and it's okay for commentators to express dissatisfaction with things he says, just as it's okay for other commentators to argue that his answers were great. You know there are Sanders supporters out there who will defend him 100 percent on everything (just as there are Hillary and Trump and Cruz supporters who do the same for their preferred candidate). In this instance, both those who felt Sanders did not do well in the interview and those who felt he did do well in the interview were able to make their respective cases in major US publications. Also, anyone who wants to read the full transcript can do so and draw their own conclusions.

In terms of Trump, I do think that "he's winning despite this" is, in fact, the story. The "this" in question has been regularly identified as hate speech by folks in the mainstream media. What is surprising to everyone is how well he is doing in spite of (or because of) this rhetoric, and I do think it is the duty of the media to try to figure out why this is the case, instead of pretending that he is a joke candidate who will eventually fall away, which is how he was covered in the beginning.

[Uncle Joe]

95. I don't have a problem with criticism of any candidate if I view it as legitimate. Of course

everything is subjective but that's my right to cry foul when I perceive it.

The New York Daily News had an inherent conflict of interest as the owner is a Hillary supporter, they grotesquely distorted the interview, actually bungling it themselves.

The New York Times did a better job of reporting on it but television made no such allowance and television is still the predominant medium.

Of course this all occurred days before the New York Primary and timing is everything.

The television networks have done a poor job of condemning Trump's hate speech and regardless of what he said or did, they continuously gave him a platform while all but ignoring Bernie and his substantive, inclusive message.

The television networks legitimized Trump as a serious candidate from the very beginning with billions of dollars in free advertising.

Since last summer, I virtually couldn't turn on CNN without it being about Trump.

The corporate media conglomerate television networks have spent this primary campaign season predominately establishing frames, memes and pushing that on the people, not serving to enlighten them.

They tried to hide Bernie and his true "anti-establishment" message because they feared what it would do to their bottom line, giving short shrift to how it would aid the vast majority of the American People.

They promoted Trump despite his hate speech and idiocy because it plays along the oligarch lines of divide and conquer.

[oberliner]

96. Going to respectfully disagree with your points

But I very much appreciate the thoughtful discussion!

The NY Daily News did not have a conflict of interest. The editorial board is independent of Mort Zuckerman and are capable of holding their own opinions even if they don't align with the owner of the newspaper. Having read the Q&A transcript, I think it was actually quite fair. Sanders was given an opportunity to expound on a number of issues, and in particular the ones that are of interest to him. The questions were thoughtful and respectful, as Bernie himself pointed out several times during the discussion. The Daily News did a similar Q&A with Hillary, and I don't think there was any noticeable difference in the way the two candidates were treated by the questioners.

I think the first take was that he didn't do a great job with a couple of the question and so this was discussed a bit in the media. This discussion led to others coming to Bernie's defense and suggesting that he actually did well and that the criticism was unfounded. This seems like a fair exchange of ideas and there are points to be made on either side of this argument.

With respect to Trump, I agree that his coverage was ubiquitous. CNN and other networks talked about him non-stop. But, to be fair, he was saying and doing such outrageous things that it is somewhat understandable. It was certainly more interesting than hearing about a canned speech from Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush. Trump has run a campaign that is unique and startling and he really has turn the Republican party on its head.

I really don't think it is fair to say that Bernie was hidden. As I pointed out, he has been on Meet The Press on a fairly regular basis. I could be wrong about this, but I think he has done more interviews with more networks than Hillary (it certainly feels that way). I could recite to you his stump speech almost verbatim at this point. His presence has been well-established to the point that he has been spoofed regularly on SNL, to great acclaim. He has appeared on shows like The View and Ellen and other talk shows in addition to a host of more serious news programs.

I do agree with you that the MSM is in it for the ratings, but I would asset that this has always been the case. The difference now is that there are so many other sources for information outside of the MSM that are so easily accessible. The media is much more responsive and interactive and it is so easy to get virtually any information one wants to get, without any gatekeepers standing in the way. I can watch interviews Bernie Sanders gave 20 years ago with C Span, just as I can watch one of his campaign appearances in its entirety from yesterday. This, to me, is revolutionary in terms of information access.

Anyway, that's my take on all of this. I realize that we disagree on some key points, but I hope that you will consider the points that I have raised (as I have considered yours).

[Uncle Joe]

97. The Editorial Board knows who their owner is and which candidate said owner supports.

Perhaps you will be able to find an editorial board for any paper bucking their owner's choice of candidate but I doubt it and if you can there certainly won't be many.

The Tyndall Report which tracks hours given of news coverage to the various candidate would take issue with your belief that Bernie wasn't hidden.

WASHINGTON – Sen. Bernie Sanders has made big gains in Iowa, leads most New Hampshire polls and fares better than Hillary Clinton in general election matchups against Donald Trump and other Republican White House hopefuls.

But the insurgent campaign that has drawn the biggest crowds on the presidential campaign trail has been all but ignored on the flagship television network newscasts, according to Tyndall Report, which tracks nightly news coverage by NBC, CBS and ABC.

“The corporately-owned media may not like Bernie’s anti-establishment views but for the sake of American democracy they must allow for a fair debate in this presidential campaign,” said Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager. “Bernie must receive the same level of coverage on the nightly news as other leading candidates.”

ABC’s “World News Tonight” has devoted 81 minutes to Donald Trump’s campaign so far this year compared to a mere 20 seconds on Sanders through the end of November. NBC’s “Nightly News” afforded 2.9 minutes of coverage to Sanders since January. The “CBS Evening News” provided viewers 6.4 minutes of coverage on the Vermont senator.

“The network newscasts are wildly overplaying Trump, who regularly attracts between 20-30 percent of primary voter support, while at the same time wildly underplaying Sanders, who regularly attracts between 20-30 percent of primary voter support,” according to a report Friday by the journalism watchdog group Media Matters for America analyzing the Tyndall report data.

Media Matters called the lack of coverage of Sanders a “rather stunning revelation.”

Writing for The Washington Post, media analyst Callum Borchers also looked at network news coverage. “If you’re not winning, saying outrageous things, or embroiled in an email scandal, it can be difficult to garner the attention,” he wrote.


https://berniesanders.com/press-release/why-the-bernie-blackout-on-corporate-network-news/

Bernie appeared on Sunday morning talk shows but was kept invisible when it came to nightly network prime time news broadcasts.

This is the fundamental problem with the corporate media conglomerate televised news, they don't even pretend to perform a public service, on the surface the excuse they use is that "outrageous statements" is newsworthy and therefor deserves coverage, "it gets ratings"

That in it self is a tragic statement in regards to the direction our nation is heading, turning Presidential campaigns into an extended "reality T.V. program," but I don't believe that's ratings to be their true motivation.

The corporate media conglomerates have an inherent conflict of interest against Bernie's message; which threatens them on multiple levels and this is their true motivation behind blacking him out and when he surged regardless in Iowa and New Hampshire why they preemptively began promoting frames as to where and with whom he couldn't/wouldn't win, "Hillary's firewall" they wanted to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This was an extended first class propaganda program and it greatly succeeded, this is also why the corporate media conglomerates love to cover the "horse race" but not the actual critical issues of day, the former can be controlled or manipulated, the latter might come back to bite them.

Whether it's being the candidate most aggressively advocating the repeal of Citizens United, eliminating or curtailing super-pacs, raising taxes on the mega-wealthy, being the least likely candidate to wage war, taking on Big Pharma, the for profit "health" insurance industry, fossil fuel industry because of anthropological climate change, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, all of these and more proposals by Bernie create an adverse condition for the corporate media conglomerates, their parent ownership, well paid upper management and pundits along with their major commercial sponsors.

There is no doubt that Bernie's message of equalizing the playing field gets under their skin, too many times I have seen their pundits cut in, interrupt or misdirect Bernie's surrogates just as they were making critical points during their discussions.

Thanks for the discussion and peace to you.

[stopbush]

77. Like Amy Goodman's show?

[Mira]

29. It used to be --- in a Presidency far far away

I could turn on the TV any given time and place a bet that for if it would go a full minute without mentioning the name Monica Lewinski.
Now I can easily do that same bet with the name Donald Trump.

Not true for Sanders.

[oberliner]

30. The Media is more than just TV

The internet gives the average American more access to more information than ever before.

[Mira]

33. Yes - tru dat - yet there is a message in this quote:

When I see many of the folks Andy Borowitz is talking about staring into their phones, it is mostly not so that they can get "more political information"

[oberliner]

35. I don't think the educational system is the problem

But that's a larger discussion.

[Skittles]

48. it is definitely part of the problem

[cui bono]

36. Please provide a link to stats for "Bernie has been on every single news show repeatedly"

and how much airtime he's gotten compared to others since he announced.

Thanks!

.

[oberliner]

37. OK

I'll use NBC's Meet The Press as an example, since it it one of the most prominent news shows on one of the main broadcast stations.

A search on YouTube for "Bernie Sanders Meet The Press" has these videos come up on the first page:

COMPLETE INTERVIEW: Chuck Todd Interviewes Bernie Sanders On "Meet The Press" (4/24/2016)

COMPLETE INTERVIEW: Chuck Todd Interviewes Bernie Sanders On "Meet The Press" (4/10/2016)

COMPLETE INTERVIEW: Chuck Todd Interviewes Bernie Sanders On "Meet The Press" (3/27/2016)

[FULL INTERVIEW] Bernie Sanders Interviwed by Chuck Todd On "Meet The Press" (2/21/2016)

COMPLETE INTERVIEW: Chuck Todd Interviewes Bernie Sanders On "Meet The Press" (2/7/2016)

COMPLETE INTERVIEW: Chuck Todd Interviewes Bernie Sanders On "Meet The Press" (1/31/2016)

COMPLETE INTERVIEW: Chuck Todd Interviewes Bernie Sanders On "Meet The Press" (1/24/2016)

COMPLETE INTERVIEW: Chuck Todd Interviewes Bernie Sanders On "Meet The Press" (1/17/2016)

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bernie+sanders+meet+the+press

[shadowmayor]

44. I agree with you

Lot's of easy information out there. Trouble is, most low-information voters don't watch meet the press, or any TV news, or read papers or surf the web for political information. Yet, they do vote. What helps them decide how to vote isn't the same as it is for people like DU surfers or others who are plugged in. As for information on what a candidate will do, it's often nothing more than a sound bite - kinda like the Republican Health Care plan alternative to the Affordable Care Act - it's talked about a lot, but it doesn't really exist. It's why people think Paul Ryan is a serious man who can crunch the numbers, when in fact he's a just newer version of Gingrich - a fool who was aptly described as what a stupid person thinks a smart person sounds like. And the media kisses his arse repeatedly.

[oberliner]

46. The low-information voter is not a new phenomenon

I agree with you that most people don't watch Meet the Press or seek out political information on the web, but that's not the fault of the media. In, say the 1980s, the mainstream media could get away with a lot of BS that they simply cannot get away with today, because now someone online will immediately call them out on it. To me, this is a very powerful development and forces the MSM to be accountable in a way that they did not have to in the fairly recent past.

Edit to add: I realize the latter part of what I said is more in response to another post on this thread and not yours. As far as what you wrote, I think it's unfortunate that people don't spend what would amount to 20 minutes to listen to the stump speeches of the candidates online before deciding who to vote for. I just think it's great that they could quite easily if they wanted to.

[Festivito]

50. Total BS back. Early on, Bernie got nothing whereas each new Republican and Hillary got coverage.

This lack of early coverage gives way to Hillary's early lead that is harder and harder to break as states disenfranchise the nearly doubled in size percentage of independent voters leaving the decision to a smaller either pro status quo or simply non-astute voters still remaining locked in the Democratic party.

Now that the disenfranchisement is in place, they are more than willing to give Bernie some coverage. Especially in places, like Sunday morning, where he won't be seen by church-goers who would see his message as more important than their usual abortions, gods, gays and guns fallback.

[oberliner]

56. As he grew more popular, he got more news coverage

He has been on every network on weekday evenings as well as on Sunday.

[Festivito]

57. The others had 10s maybe 100s attending, Bernie had 1000s and no coverage -- while the others did.

And the result happened as I just posted.

[oberliner]

59. WashPo (Aug 2015): Bernie Sanders draws 28,000 people in Portland

Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, who has been drawing eye-poppingly large crowds on the campaign trail, on Sunday night attracted his largest audience yet: about 28,000 people in Portland, Ore., according to staff at the venue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/10/bernie-sanders-draws-28000-people-in-portland-his-campaign-says/

MSNBC (July 2015): Bernie Sanders draws biggest crowd of any 2016 candidate yet

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-draws-biggest-crowd-any-2016-candidate-yet

CNN (July 2015): Bernie Sanders draws nearly 10,000 supporters

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/01/politics/bernie-sanders-crowds-wisconsin-2016/

USA Today (August 2015): Bernie Sanders' L.A. Rally Draws Thousands

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2015/08/11/31453811/

NBC News (July 2015): Bernie Sanders Draws Crowd of 10,000 in Wisconsin

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bernie-sanders-draws-crowd-10-000-wisconsin-n385641

That's not zero coverage. That's every mainstream media outlet with articles about his large rallies. And this is summer of 2015.

[Festivito]

60. Those! Two, three, four MONTHS after he announced! JUST AS I SAID!

The press GAVE Hillary an early lead.

[oberliner]

69. CNN (April 30): Bernie Sanders is running for president

Watch CNN's Wolf Blitzer interview Sen. Bernie Sanders on "Wolf" on Thursday at 1 p.m. EDT.

Washington (CNN)

Bernie Sanders is in.

The independent Vermont senator railed against the political machine — blasting "ugly 30-second ads," billionaire big-money donors and other "soap opera aspects of modern campaigns" — in a press conference kicking off his candidacy outside the Capitol on Thursday.

"I think the American people are tired of that," Sanders said.

He said he is running to thwart trade deals like the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership and to overhaul business tax rules so corporations operating in the United States cannot shelter their money overseas.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/29/politics/bernie-sanders-announces-presidential-run/

Video is included at the link.

MSNBC (April 30): Full video: Bernie Sanders announces presidential bid

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/bernie-sanders-announces-presidential-bid-437024835557

CBS News (April 28): Bernie Sanders to announce his presidential candidacy

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-to-announce-his-presidential-candidacy/

CBS News (April 30): Bernie Sanders running for president, as Democrat

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-to-challenge-hillary-clinton-for-2016-nomination/

ABC News (April 26): Sen. Bernie Sanders Kicks Off Presidential Campaign

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-bernie-sanders-kicks-off-presidential-campaign/story?id=31322021

ABC News (April 30): Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont Announces 2016 Presidential Run: 'I Am Running for President'

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vermont-sen-bernie-sanders-announce-2016-presidential-run/story?id=30654408

[Festivito]

79. Nice, but: cable. Those who can't afford cable hear 20 seconds of Bernie in controversy, IF THAT!

Although, minutes of self-congratulatory RW mugs.

This is what the fight is about. The right to some economic freedom that is not a choice of which necessary option do we drop out of a car, internet, cable, medicine, ... even food. Cable gets dropped and all you get is a twenty-second chance that does not even sound like a chance even if you are lucky enough to have been tuned in to hear it.

[oberliner]

82. ABC, CBS, and NBC are not cable

They have all covered the Sanders campaign extensively. He has been interviewed repeatedly on each of those networks.

[Festivito]

87. Your links were to msnbc, not nbc, abc.go, cnn. Those are the cable outlets.

CBS might have been nicer, I do not recall. They went into being less well known when FOX bought their local stations and moved their station numbers to far off in the old UHF.

[oberliner]

92. Meet the Press is on NBC

He has been interviewed on that program numerous times dating back to the early summer.

[Festivito]

98. Again, my post #50. eom

[oberliner]

99. Meet the Press interviewed him in May of 2015

That was pretty early.

Here's the transcript:

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-transcript-may-31-2015-n367341

[Festivito]

100. Don't like patriot act, nice if we could have debates. Thank you. Goodbye.

That no debate thing while the Republicans had debates getting their message out. No Democratic party debates. Nope.

[Javaman]

52. The 2016 Candidates Who Are Making Headlines

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/graphic-whos-the-most-popular-candidate-mentioned-on-television/402451/

click on the "all data" button...

you will see that...

hillary lapses Bernie almost 2 to 1 in being mentioned in the media and tRump lapses hillary 2 to 1 as well.

The Discourse Suffers When Trump Gets 23 Times As Much Coverage as Sanders

http://www.thenation.com/article/the-discourse-suffers-when-trump-gets-23-times-as-much-coverage-as-sanders/

ABC World News Tonight Has Devoted Less Than One Minute To Bernie Sanders' Campaign This Year

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11/abc-world-news-tonight-has-devoted-less-than-on/207428

I can list a ton more if you like.

[oberliner]

55. Those links are from 2015

As Sanders became more popular he received more and more coverage.

He's definitely been on Meet The Press way more often than Hillary in 2016, for example.

[Javaman]

61. New York Times busted for anti-Bernie bias: The iconic, Clinton-endorsing newspaper slyly edits arti

Last edited Mon May 2, 2016, 01:45 PM - Edit history (1)

The media bias against Bernie Sanders examined in 4 charts
http://blog.infegy.com/the-media-bias-against-bernie-sanders-examined-in-4-charts

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/16/new_york_times_busted_for_anti_bernie_bias_the_iconic_clinton_endorsing_newspaper_slyly_edits_article_to_smear_sanders/

Media Displays Open Contempt as Bernie Sanders Racks Up Major Victories
http://usuncut.com/politics/media-continues-to-ignore-bernie-sanders/

Here’s Washington Post’s Coverage of Bernie Sanders Since the Debate. Do You Spot an Agenda?
http://usuncut.com/politics/washington-post-bias-against-bernie-sanders/

The New York Times, bias and Hillary Clinton
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/267692-the-new-york-times-bias-and-hillary-clinton

Is the media biased against Bernie Sanders?
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/7/11378858/sanders-media-bias

Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours
http://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/

Biased mainstream media miss the real campaign story: Bernie Sanders
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/biased-mainstream-media-miss-real-campaign-story-bernie-sanders-2016-04-05

Sorry, Corporate Media: The More Americans Hear Bernie Sanders, The More They Like Him
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/13/sorry-corporate-media-more-americans-hear-bernie-sanders-more-they-him

CBS bias against Sanders apparent in on-air coverage of Floridian focus group; just one instance of many
https://medium.com/@yvonneclaes/cbs-bias-against-sanders-apparent-in-on-air-coverage-of-floridian-focus-group-just-one-instance-of-c00c2592e8b5#.bol91cz4e

Ben Jealous Calls Out CNN Bias: ‘There’s a Certain Tilt’ to Their ‘Spin’ Coverage of Hillary
http://www.mediaite.com/online/ben-jealous-calls-out-cnn-bias-theres-a-certain-tilt-to-their-spin-coverage-of-hillary/

[oberliner]

68. Breitbart?

Odd source to include.

In any case, look at all those independent news sources that are readily available online.

Nothing like that existed a decade or two ago - the MSM was all people had to get their info.

Now people can go to Common Dreams or US Uncut or even Breitbart!

[Javaman]

75. sorry about that one, caught that after I posted it.

however, you haven't commented on the links. I proved my point, yet that's not good enough.

Okay, then. we are done.

have a nice day.

[oberliner]

93. That's OK

My comment on the links is that they prove my point by their very existence.

There is a robust, easily accessible, alternative media that is unlike anything that has ever existed in history in terms of its breadth, depth, and ease of access.

[OwlinAZ]

74. Propagandist much?

[whereisjustice]

21. And when you come to DU, Trump is always in the pic of the day. That's different, you say? No.

It isn't. It's just desensitizing everyone and legitimizing him. Fuck him. Why come here to Democratic Party web site to see his face? Because DU is using Trump just like the rest of the media, for ratings and views. And in the process bringing him credibility while ignoring the necessary exposure we need for progressive values.

[underthematrix]

28. This is absolutely great and the truth

I retweeted this but added #ImWithHer because I'm not supporting Bernie during the DEM primary process

[wundermaus]

31. American Journalism is almost dead.

Thank you, Amy Goodman, for holding up a candle for a nation now plunging into darkness.

[oberliner]

39. That is preposterous

The American people are more informed than at any other time in our history.

[wundermaus]

40. You just made me laugh out loud!

Thanks you for a hearty chuckle!
The corporate controlled mass media has never spewed so much crap in human history!
Your killing me!

[oberliner]

42. One can access any news source from anywhere in the US and in the world online

There are sources from a wide variety of perspectives including numerous independent ones.

No such access would have been possible just a few decades ago.

One had their local paper and a few television stations.

Now you can watch live video from events around the world as they happen.

You can read opinion pieces from a host of sources, and even interact directly with the journalists themselves.

Again, none of this was possible even just twenty years ago.

[Stainless]

66. Come Clean oberliner........

After reading through all of your replies in this thread, it's patently obvious that you are a huckster and a shill. Am I right?

Everyone now knows that Bernie Sanders was virtually ignored, shunned and ridiculed by the vast majority of Media outlets even after he started winning primaries and caucuses. Your pathetic attempt to deny the facts and change history is almost laughable. The ability and ease with which people can access information worldwide also allows us to know that you are buffoonishly manipulating the facts about media manipulation!

[oberliner]

67. A huckster and a shill?

I think that is really unfair. I am trying to make reasoned points to support what I think is a valid point of view.

Maybe you meant your post as satire and are agreeing with me?

Hard to tell sometimes.

[OwlinAZ]

76. What you just said - that is preposterous

They are not informed about much of anything. It is a tragedy.
Even the business owners princes in my uber Repbublican little town are switching off the TV in places of business.
The tripe of cable news is not only obvious propaganda, it is repetitive and boring

[oberliner]

85. It is a simple indisputable fact

You can go online today and have access to more information than was ever available before at any other time in the history of human existence.

[Duppers]

32. Watching her on C-span now.

Excellent.

[Equinox Moon]

41. FANTASTIC! Amy Goodman! - This needs to go VIRAL!

Its called Truth!

[SujiwanKenobee]

51. OMG

How lucky for "Oberliner" to make a career out of sourcing news and having the opportunity and mental acuity to separate what's crap from what isn't.

I'm just trying to imagine those most in need, working multiple jobs or just impoverished for money or time "poring over the scads of information so easily found from all over the world and at their fingertips." I want to bet when and if there is opportunity, the info of choice is comedy or anything to take minds off misery. So much that passes for news is punditry and commentary that is biased by whatever proclivities the writer has or the direction that the interviewer decides to lead.

[Silver_Witch]

53. Excellent synopsis of

How the media has become only entertainment and not a source of information! We need the needs to become news again, rather than corporate feeding trough!

[Smarmie Doofus]

54. K and R She's right, but Sanders should be talking about this...

... directly. And he doesn't. ( He did very early on but seemed to have dropped it, probably on the advice of some paid consultants.)

Thus in his "twenty seconds" he's reduced to a caricature w. a few catch phrases ( "A handful of billionaires!!!&quot and media-for-profit escapes unexamined and unchallenged.

[saidsimplesimon]

63. interesting pen name

Smarmy is the same as Smarmie? I'll look it up.

[Smarmie Doofus]

90. A DUer gave it to me a million years ago. 2005 or 2009, most likely.

Someone was advocating that GOP candidate for mayor of NYC Bloomberg should be elected over our own DEM nominee , Fernando Ferrer. ( BTW: remember this when people here start squawking ....as they will very soon... that DU doesn't permit advocating for the election of a non DEM. The *FUCK* it doesn't.)

I eviscerated Bloomberg and the sad case that one Bloomberg-ite in particular ( There were actually quite a few here. And YES, their presence was * absolutely * permitted by admins here.) was straining to make. Facts and the unassailability of good argumentation were my weapons of choice. .

He/she responded that Ferrer was a "Smarmy Doofus". I requested a definition.

He/she responded: "You. *You* are a smarmy doofus." ( Which of course in an EXAMPLE, not a definition. But never mind.
Bloombergites on DU generally weren't and AREN'T among the sharpest knives in the top kitchen drawer.)

Anyway... I liked it a lot. I changed the "y" to "ie" to personalize it a bit.

And the rest is...... whatever the rest is.

[saidsimplesimon]

101. thank you, never mind

[SalviaBlue]

58. Right on, Amy!!

[snort]

62. Brilliant

[leftofcool]

64. I saw enough of Bernie to know I didn't like him.

[avaistheone1]

70. K&R

[Moostache]

81. K&R - Must see TV re-defined! (n/t)

[MrMickeysMom]

94. World News Tonight...

One out of three words is a lie... TONIGHT.

These people and their brethren of the corporation with their six figure salaries should have strings attached to their spines to show what they really represent.

We are all sick to death of what is shoveled into the very airwaves that we own.

[Rebkeh]

102. +1 K and R

Thank you, Ms. Goodman

[DianaForRussFeingold]

103. K&R Amy Goodman is great!