Okay MSNBC just demonstrated what's so angering about the media coverage

[Armstead]

It was an okay interview, although incredibly shallow, Clinton did fine.

But the whole setting, aura and subject matter of the interview was a textbook example of why out media and political system are rotting at the core.

Okay she is the frontrunner. She was, long before the election was a glimmer on the radar.

However, ultimately she is just ONE of several candidates in the race.

The other candidates have been making themselves available to the media for interviews But they .have to scratch for a mention. Sanders, O'Malley, et. al. have to settle with being sandwiched into the rat-a-tat format of news television, with brief perfunctory "face on the remote screen" interviews -- which mostly ask them about Clinton. A

But there's a huge difference in the way Clinton is portrayed. It is as if the ONLY REAL CANDIDATE has descended from the Clouds of Olympus to grace us mere mortals with an interview.

When Clinton decides to make an appearance, it is trumpeted as AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW, a Special Event. A whole 1 hour show dedicated to her. A special, warm and friendly set. The whole shebang.

And the interview itself? About the e-mail junk, with nary a word about real issues, and nary a mention of otehr candidates except for the current non-candidate Joe Biden.

They might as well have just called it "An Interview with the Democratic Nominee."

Bernie Sanders is leading a formidable challenge that has surprised everyone with the momentum it has gained so quickly. And the chords he has touched obviously resonate with a lot of people. And he is not some out of the woods fringie -- he has been repeatedly elected Senatora nd House member for decades.

Martin O'Malley hasn't caught fire, but he is also a legitimate political figure amd office holder with a track record. He is bringing fresh ideas, and plugging way and making some waves.

Then there's Chaffee who everyone is ignoring -- but who is a former senator, governor and was briefly a hero when he stood up against the rush to war, and changed parties. He is also a thoughtful guy, and has a contribution to make and deserves a fair hearing too.....And I guess Jim Webb, but he seems not to be real interested in the job.

It'd be nice if the media at least pretended this is about electing more than the next figurehead to be installed as the symbolic caretaker of Government Inc.

[Faux pas]

1. Kickin'

[morningfog]

2. It's all bread and circus. It's HIllary's turn, dammit.

[questionseverything]

3. something i thought was interesting from the interview

was that her lawyers decided which e mails to give to the state dept and which to delete

thinking back to bushco and the attorney scandal, what if he had done the same (instead of "losing" all of them), would we the people be ok with bush's lawyers deciding what we see?

it also bugs me hillary keeps saying..i turned over the server,,,,notice she didnt say, i turned over the scrubbed server...and mitchell did not question her about that

her handling of e mail should of been her easiest task at sos post, instead she has made it a non transparent mess

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

101. She was Secretary of State.

Shouldn't she have known better than some random lawyers what was a business email and what wasn't? Did she not understand her own job, that she couldn't figure out what emails needed to be handed over?

[questionseverything]

106. part of any gov't officials job is to keep their correspondence indefinitely

according to the presidential records act

and that is for 2 reasons

historical of course and in case they are needed for a court case or congressional inquiry (as in the US attorney scandal during bushco's time)...in neither of those cases is it appropriate for the subject of the inquiry (hillary in this case or her lawyer) to decide what is relevant

[Rosa Luxemburg]

119. Didn't Cheney burn his?

somehow a building tha the was responsible for - with documents - caught fire?

[questionseverything]

120. bushco's e mails were all "lost" by his IT guy

i do remember something about cheney a fire and his safe

[Ron Green]

4. She is one of them. That's the only thing.

Forget the emails; that's just something to fill the audio. They will work all the email stuff out without talking about any real issues.

She is one of them. Bernie is not, we are not.

That's what it's all about.

[Armstead]

5. That's the definite sense

"Hey Andrea, give my love to Alan (Greenspan). Had a great time at the party last week in the Hamptons, Hey, I suppose I have to go on TV and talk about this e-mail thing. And that Bernie Whatsiz name is starting to get some traction. Can you give me an hour?'

"Sure Hil. Just let me know the day. We'll put up a nice set, and I'll give you a chance to set the records straight."

"Thanks. Oh and can you do me a favor? Don't talk too much about those otehr guys. Don't want to be giving them any free publicity,."

"Sure thing. Done. Well let me know."

[MissDeeds]

6. That's it in a nutshell

We're being force fed candidates of their choosing. It's all Trump and Clinton, 24/7. At this point in 2007 they were shoving Hillary and Rudy down our throats, and that worked out so well for them.

[Unknown Beatle]

42. You're right.

Yesterday I was watching Rachel Maddow, I love her show, and I had to turn off the TV into the first fifteen minutes. She constantly talks about The Donald, mostly negative, but he still doesn't deserve that kind of air-time. I'm sick of watching nonstop Trump talking on TV.

[bvar22]

45. I love Rachel too,

but at the end of the day, she collects a Corporate Paycheck for doing what her bosses tell her to do,
....and she does.

[GoneFishin]

102. Yep. She does what they tell her to do. If you heard her radio show with co-host Liz Winstead

then you know that her wings are being clipped on MSNBC.

On her radio show she covered serious news stories laced with hilarious biting political humor.

I haven't been able to watch a full episode on MSNBC.

[emsimon33]

50. I used to really respect Rachel but now she just gets on my nerves

so I have stopped watching MSNBC unless Chris Hayes happen to be on before I turn the channel to Al Jazeera. I am tired of Donald Trump and I am tired of Rachel beating non-issues to death. I miss Ed!

[glinda]

53. I barely watch her anymore.

She appears to have allowed her personal interests/causes/peoples and agenda influence her coverage and not for the good IMHO.

[LovingA2andMI]

64. Rachel Maddow Show....

Has become a BORE. She repeats herself to the point of ad-nauseum, she acts as if a little tidbit is "Breaking News" (like Joe Biden expressing his feelings to a crowd where he was speaking Thursday night ---- ummm Joe did not say anything different than he has been saying for the last three weeks -- he's thinking about running for POTUS but has not made up his mind -- i.e. NOT BREAKING NEWS), the Wonkness has WORE OFF, Chris Hayes (the guy on the show in FRONT of hers) was her guest the other night (say what) and frankly --- she's NOT Ed Schultz or Keith Olbermann.


However, MSNBC is going down the tube regardless to Rachel being boring.

[CrispyQ]

70. She got approval from above that it's okay to go after Trump.

Just like when the whole 'liberal' crew went after Chris Christie. It was a non-stop Chris Christie take down for 3 hours on MSNBC every night. That's when I realized, TPTB don't want Christie, so it was okay for the 'liberal' media to go after him. Same with Trump.

[840high]

47. yep

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Are you reading the emails too?

No serious, some of them are like that...

[Armstead]

13. No

but I guess the darker aspects of my cynicism can sometimes come close to reality, unfortunately.

I hate when that happens.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Right now finding out why this trove has 7,000

many of them are one or two liners. GAD, even that practice has spread to the government. A lot of the shit that people used to do in person and maybe a pen and paper agenda, now they do over email, like confirm dinner reservations, or transportation.

Nope, not saving those... I feel sorry for graduate students... and I used to gnash teeth at some of the prattle you find in the archives. That was NOTHING compared to this, Though I suspect a thesis on what we ate the Ritz is possible now.



Though we were thinking of writing a story on the world expo after we saw a docu at the county fair, on how non important it is any longer. To my pleasant surprise, there are some emails concerning the importance of the World Expo at the SOS level... which begs the question... we get it, it's important. why the very low funding? That is kind of nice to find though.

[Armstead]

18. I must admit my gosspiy side wants to read them, just too busy

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. I am doing the due dilligence due to media... and shit

the first I opened mentioned Carlos Slimm by name. so looking for email on the gas station in Ensenada. Concurrently there were requests from the Mexican Congress to go after SEMPRA for violations of the foreign practices act. So... it is kind of odd that this would lead to a phone conversation with the richest man in Mexico. I suspect that was the reason... so far I have come empty on that.

[Fred Sanders]

105. Keep searching....the GOP salutes you...and empty you will keep on finding. Too bad for Sand.....

I mean the GOP...slipped up there!

Anyway, happy email fishing!

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. Fred trust me, the GOP gives two shits over violations of the Foreign Practices Act

they were kind of a annoyed when WALL-MART was fined for it. But I guess American companies should be able to go willy nilly bribing foreign officials right? RIGHT? So you do not find it odd that a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT was complaining of an American company, with ties in Mexico, bribing it's way in one of their States?

LONG LIVE THE CORPORATION. That is what this post of yours tells me. You really do not give a shit unless your team wins.. and that is kind of sad. Put party over nation... hmmm... sad, sad, sad

[Fred Sanders]

108. That....was....strange. Marxism in any version or form is not coming to America, so some more pragmatic folks are willing to settle for less.

If that causes outrage in some circles, some be it, because what has really changed much in those circles in 50 years?

It doesn't bother me a bit....nothing new under the Sun, Nadine.

On the other hand some version of neo-fascism definitely may be coming to America so it it is just my personal preference to pick my battles else-there. Decode that into what you like as well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. So you are ok with violations of United States Law? Is that it?

And you calling me a marxist is kind of odd. Not unusual, just odd coming from you

But hey, you are special and I do not mean it in a nice way.

You are way out of your league here Fred and have no clue what I am talking about. That's ok. I am not going to post the final article here if I find that material either. After all it is well... not worth wasting my time with pure partisans who are all for breaking all kinds of laws as long as they win.

[Fred Sanders]

111. No problem. No need to explain to me or others you do not mean things in a nice way!

[MerryBlooms]

118. Jury results:

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Mon Sep 7, 2015, 07:51 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

So you are ok with violations of United States Law? Is that it?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=575613

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Can this be any more rude or condescending?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Sep 7, 2015, 07:59 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Nasty. Just nasty.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Seems like troll vs troll to me.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Fred has spewed equal rude and condescending posts throughout this sub-thread. I doubt this alerter alerted on Fred Sanders, ie a partisan alert.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. Thanks, shows to me that some people will alert just on some personal attacks

seemingly, and not others.

[Armstead]

110. Marxism? That's a strawman

It's more like clearcut Liberalism/Progressive polices that the Democratic Party used to represent before selling its soul to the corporations and Wall St.

Perhaps you are referring to Marxist policies like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid....that kind of socialist stuff?

[Fred Sanders]

112. Those would be socialist stuff, good stuff, common throughout liberal socialist nations - see Europe.

How far do you want socialism to go in the political spectrum?

Nationalization of energy?

Government control of utilities?

Abolition of private real property?

Fixed currency valuations?

Economic planning centrally controlled?

Norwegian style socialism with a guaranteed minimum income, health care and social benefits, or Cuban style socialism? Canada style socialism, as in the NDP stsndard?


How far to the left,.......no one really seems to know!

What would be the specific economic and social policies.....just a few, for example?

[Armstead]

116. We used to have some of that

and it worked pretty well before the mania for deregulation and privatization began to take hold in the 80's.

Remember municipal utilities? Utility regulation?

Rather than throwing babies out ith the bathwater, we'd be a lot better off if the Democratic Party had defended and advanced the good aspects of liberalism/socialism instead of enabling the free-market pirates and GOP to strip down and commoditize public services and gut regulations that used to benefit and protect society.

[Fred Sanders]

117. Never understood how public utilities became privatized..I understand the history, but that was

a huge mistake contrary to the public interest....that is something that can be reversed, Canada provides some models of how to do it right.

"Hydro California": water, gas and electricity, an integrated, publicly owned for profit - with public rate setting hearings, where opponents of increases are funded by law to oppose.

Wern't 'Utilities' publicly owned in the original version of "Monopoly"?

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. Fred is fine with the violation of this

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA) (15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1, et seq.) is a United States federal law known primarily for two of its main provisions, one that addresses accounting transparency requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and another concerning bribery of foreign officials.

[Fred Sanders]

114. And I am I one touting the strawman!? Issue question: Would America nationalize the oil industry under a

President B. Sanders?

I take the position in the negative.

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. Where exactly did you get to that conclussion?

That straw man you are building should be fracked though. I am sure there is some oil in there.

[rhett o rick]

51. Bingo. Thanks. nm

[zeemike]

21. Yep one of them

She is maried to Alen Greenspan...so we know what team she is on.

[glinda]

54. The "Donor's Team"

[LiberalArkie]

25. Eggsactly. We don't even show up on the radar. Remember the homeless we walk by all the time.

That is how they see us. We just don't exist. Kind of like the janitor in a corporate building. It you don't take the executive elevator, you don't exist.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

104. Your comment reminds me

that All men (and women) are not born equal, that that was mere wishful thinking on the part of the Founding Fathers. But it's insidiously harmful as well, exactly like the notion of 'colourblindness' is to racial issues. Because it proclaims a non-reality that feeds the mythology of 'self-made' men, that we all start out at the same starting line, which is pure nonsense. From the moment of conception, we're all on different starting paths, and ones that are dictated by the wealth of our parents. Do we get prenatal checkup and vitamins? Are we getting secondhand recreational drugs used to numb the reality of the dismal way our poor are treated?

Even if we want to pursue that wishful thinking, it begins with a far stronger security net than actually exists in this country.

[VanillaRhapsody]

27. Bernie has been one of them for 40 years....he's been inside the beltway that whole time...

to claim he is not is ridiculous....

[Ron Green]

30. I think you miss my meaning of the word

"them."

[VanillaRhapsody]

76. No I havent.....he has been among THEM for 40 years..

[Armstead]

31. He hasn't been sitting at the cool kids table

He isn't part of the Elite Herd Mentality.

[VanillaRhapsody]

32. He has been caucussing with Democrats for 40 yrs....

sorry to disappoint you....but he IS one of "them" You want to claim he IS a Democrat simply because he is running on their ticket....but he is NOT one of them when it doesn't suit your narrative........although he has caucused at the "big table" under the big tent for 40 yrs!

[Armstead]

36. I think you're smart enough to perceive the difference

You're utilizing that fine old Catch 22. When Sanders does his job, he's "just another politician."

But the fact that he actually has principles that don't fit into the 3rd Way, DLC Corporate Template, and he challenges the status quo means he is a "fringe socialist" who is "unelectable" because he is "so far left that he is off the political beam."

Can't have it both ways.

The fact is that Sanders is addressing important issues in a way that have been verboten to the Corporate Democratic Party. They and Mainstream Media choose candidates who ignore those uncomfortable truths..

The fact is that he didn't choose to come to Washington and play it safe and "go along to get along" and cash in on the Big Money Game.

But his biggest failing, in the eyes of the Elite Kool Kids Table crowd is the same "fatal flaw" that O'Malley and any otehr candidate (except for Biden maybe) is that he isn't Hillary.

[VanillaRhapsody]

72. And I think you know better...

He has been a politician for 40 years......thats as inside as it gets.....he is one of "them" no matter how you try to slice and dice it..

[pangaia]

82. You are wasting you time.

[JDPriestly]

79. If Bernie were one of them, mostly. Interested in talking to the Rich and famous and not about us

or working people or jobs or college tuition or the environment or the homeless, he would have a lot of endorsements and political donations. He would have the money and big names behind him that Hillary has.

Bernie has been for what is right and good for America and against what is bad for us all along. He hasn't played the game for money and endorsements.

That is why we like Bernie. Finally someone is on our side.

[pangaia]

80. ....................

[VanillaRhapsody]

81. Indeed

[PatrickforO]

33. Sorry, but with off the rack clothing, mussed up hair

and a net worth of only $330K, Bernie is NOT one of them. That's why he's got my support.

[senz]

62. Plus, everything he says is anti-corporate power, anti-wealth.

Of course they won't accept him. When he was only a dutiful representative of a small state they could ignore his bouts of truth-telling. But lately he might be getting on their nerves...

Hillary,otoh, is their darling.

[CrispyQ]

71. And in 40 years, he still isn't a frickin' millionarie!

HRC's estimated worth is between $5-$25 million & she's been at it a fraction of the time. What the fuck is Bernie doing wrong? Oh yeah, he's not gorging at the trough.

[VanillaRhapsody]

74. And yet where is the major legislation he is

creditted with? In 40 years....shouldnt he have some major legislation that he SPONSORED and passed that the whole country associates with him? We have been paying his salary for 40 years....yet in all that time there isnt anything we can think of that we all know rhat has "Bernie" written all over it. Even Al Gore got us the Internet publically available....what does he have to show for 40 years that actually passed and was major enough to be memorable?

[Fawke Em]

93. No because people like Hillary won't vote in favor of anything

that helps the little person.

[VanillaRhapsody]

94. Awwwww...okay

Thats,really weak sauce....Was Hillary there 40 years with him?


Perhaps its because Berie is an Idealist and doesnt concern himself with what is achieveable....what is "real"?

[raouldukelives]

46. We live in the most reality Wall St will allow.

If the truth is bad for corporate business, fighting against that truth is in the best interest of the shareholders.

Those who invest in and support Wall St have made a conscious decision to choose short term personal comfort for themselves over democracy for all people.

They are well represented by corporate media, lobbyists, think tanks and politicians.

Thankfully, we still live in the most democracy they haven't figured out how to cut off. Yet.

With every dollar and hour logged in service that final nail will soon be hammered into place.

Investors are winners. Corporations are now people. Four legs good, two legs better, no legs best.

[VanillaRhapsody]

75. Thankfully....Bernie is going to ride in

And fix all of that!

[raouldukelives]

97. Sadly, only individually can we stop it.

Each individual investor is making a conscious decision to fund those who deny democracy for all others.

Bernie can't change selfish people who care nothing for the lives of others into people who start considering the lives and futures of others when they decide to invest in conservative rule.

[VanillaRhapsody]

99. Huh?

[raouldukelives]

100. Some believe in democracy, some in Wall St.

Thanks to the best efforts of the latter, we exist in the most democracy they will allow.

The wealthier the corporations, the less democratic our politics.

It's why there are no liberals in Wall St. It would be like a member of PETA investing in dogfights. They very act of denying democracy to others precludes one from claiming they legitimately care about it.

Oh but you do hear them harp about how much how they care. Usually on breaks between labors for Wall St firms.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Armstead.

[Angry Dragon]

8. kick

[99th_Monkey]

9. Case in point

as I was reading your OP, msnbc had a whole segment called "Ready for Keynes in 2020".

ANY thing but Bernie Sanders will do just fine.

Sorry voters: no serious discussion of current issues for you.

[Armstead]

12. Just curious

Keynes or Kanye West?

Keynes might actually be substantive...or not. What did they conclude?

[99th_Monkey]

14. Kanye West. sorry, no issues for you still. -nt-

[Armstead]

17. I thought that a major economic/political theory might be too deep for them

Even non-economists like me know what that represents, as a major debate in role of government.

But I guess Kayne is more important to our daily lives.

[PatrickforO]

34. Kanye is who they WANT to be more important to our daily lives.

But, Armstead, you're clearly thinking just a bit too much!

Calm down. Why not just go home and watch reality television?

That would be better for us all, because you're making us think and that's uncomfortable.

C'mon...be a good 99 percenter. Get AWAY from the keyboard...

Good. That's good. There. Now, you've pleased the billionaires. They have just what they KNOW you need! A nice cut in benefits, and maybe a little hike of the interest rate!

Don't you feel better now?

[Puglover]

10. K n R

[SoapBox]

16. It's been an eye opener, when watching who is coming out to endorse her.

The entrenched, the Beltway Bubble Crowd, DINO's, Third Wayers, Banksters, Billionaires...

Enough said and time for a BIG change.

Go Bernie!

YES, we can!

[VanillaRhapsody]

83. Yes it has. Hundreds of endorsements...

Were is Sanders list these days?

[MyNameGoesHere]

19. I am

sour grapes when my team is losing too.

[Armstead]

22. It's not a question of sour grapes when the game is rigged from the start

If there were the same rules applied for Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley, Chaffee and (I guess) Webb, and Hillary won, I'd say "Rats." but feel like my side lost fair and square.

But when the refs hand the ball to a candidate, walk her up to the basket and lower the net for her, I think that's a legitimate cause for complaint.

[VanillaRhapsody]

85. They have? I thought the major malfunction

Was that no one was opposing her....now there are several...and added together they still do not match her popularity. You just cannot face that she IS popular!

[AgingAmerican]

65. What about when the other 'team'

is rigging the election? Is it 'sour grapes' then?

[gordianot]

20. The purpose is for media to set the agenda for reporting.

They report several types of stories:

1. The gotcha moment when someone says something incredibly stupid or you can be linked with someone who said something incredibly stupid.
2. When a public official expresses anger or a segment of the viewing audience is encouraged to be angry.
3. When there is a valid threat of legal action actually filed against a public official.
4. When insults are traded between noteworthy persons.
5. Stories that are weak on verifiable facts (when facts are obvious the story gets dropped).

To be avoided at all costs by media.
1. The distribution of actual facts.
2. Wide spread public dissatisfaction based on stories with reasonable and verifiable facts.
3. Stories that shed light on sponsors, corporate news organizations or the owners of media organizations.
4. The consequences of incorrect, inaccurate, or contrived stories.

[Ron Green]

29. Yes. Additionally, culture war stories are de rigeur:

Killer cops and cop killers (but not the underlying causes), LGBT rights v. religious freedom, dangerous immigrants, etc.

Fear and nostalgia are fundamental.

[Boomerproud]

49. All they care about is attention which equals ratings which equals $$$$$

Ever since the news media found out what brings in advertisers and what doesn't (the bright, shiny object, corruption, confrontation, personal scandal) facts and information are just too boring for them, no matter how important they are.

[oberliner]

24. Sanders and O'Malley have both had one-on-one interviews with MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/exclusive--sanders--1st-interview-as-candidate-437215299581

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/one-on-one-with-martin-omalley-481528387906

[Armstead]

28. I said they get interviewed somewhat

Ed was good to Bernie.....but we all know what happened to Ed.

Overall, as I said the other candidates make themselves available, and do get on to an extent.

But they are simply sandwiched into brief little standard-format quickie interviews of no more importance than any other guest. They don't get an hour with gauzy set, and promos running breathlessly for two days previous.

And they usually get asked about "How are you doing against Clinton? Will you say something mean for us?"

[oberliner]

41. But the flip side is that HRC gets savaged by the media a lot too

Every day there is some negative story about her in the MSM it seems.

[Armstead]

43. You're right there....That's their sensationalist side

They have templates, it seems. They either ignore politicians, or look for conflict and sensationalism....God forbid actual issues should enter the picture

[still_one]

26. SHALLOW is what the MSM is all about. Now back to the real news regarding Lindsey Lohan........

[restorefreedom]

35. we knew it would be cushions and flowers

no challenge. and heaven forbid anyone mention that there are others running, others who are doing well and may get the nom.

[Armstead]

37. In this case it WAS

It was such a lovely set they chose to interview her on.

[restorefreedom]

38. it was lovely

the only thing missing was the servant girl holding a giant leaf to fan her and some studly guy with some grapes.

[raindaddy]

39. The very reason to avoid her like the plague..

Flowers, softball questions and a warm friendly set from the corporate owned network MSNBC is the devil's handshake!

[Fast Walker 52]

40. great post-- totally agree and the M$M is killing us

[Mike Nelson]

44. She was fine, but...

...every MSNBC "talking head" had something negative to say about her... Bush would go on TV and be unable to put a coherent sentence together - most said he was "strong" and effective.

[cer7711]

48. They don't call it "manufactured consent" . . .

. . . for nothing, as Noam Chomsky has long noted.

Bernie Sanders for president! Elizabeth Warren for . . . ANYTHING she wants.

One way or the other--revolution is coming . . .

[99th_Monkey]

59. +100 nt

[DrBulldog]

52. Yes, the fix is in. The establishment Democrats are going to shove Queen Hillary down our throats.

Last week, in a 5-minute remote interview with Bernie, Andrea Mitchell refused to even smile once at him, keeping a sullen look fixed on her face. This week it's a long face-to-face interview on a special set just for Hillary. It has become so painfully obvious and corrupt. And I haven't even mentioned Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and Howard Dean and Ed Rendell and Claire McCaskill and . . .

[glinda]

56. yup

[99th_Monkey]

60. Exactly. Andrea could not even dane herself to be in the same room with Bernie

Split screen, cold, baiting Bernie at every turn to attack Hillary,
which Bernie masterfully deflected to get back to REAL ISSUES
facing the American people.

[madamesilverspurs]

55. BUT ---

Out of all the candidates, Dem and Rep, she is the only one who is targeted by a congressional committee dedicated to the singular purpose of destroying her candidacy. She has been repeatedly absolved of culpability for Benghazi, the purported 'reason' for their 'investigation', yet they continue. Their present denial of a witness's request to to have her testimony heard in open session suggests a reluctance to have the full truth exposed, and that is worrisome.

Any candidate subjected to such congressional harassment deserves an hour-long interview. ANY candidate, of any party.

As for media unfairness, Bernie has grounds for enormous complaint, especially given media's devotion to Trump's serial "press conferences" (aka free campaign airtime). Without doubt, Bernie Sanders is far more worthy of the attention the media is slavishly wasting on Trump, and we would all be better served by more Sanders' exposure.

But Clinton's situation is different, primarily because of the "investigation"; and she is hardly a 'media darling' with so many media personalities who have spent decades joined in the effort to eviscerate her and her husband. The media participated in smears against her when she was first lady, and some in the media today are helping to push the current smear tactics. It's been going on for longer than some of those reporters have been alive. She got a whole hour. Big whoop.

[Gothmog]

57. You got to be kidding

This was a very good interview.

If you want anyone to take Sanders seriously, you need to provide a good explanation as to how Sanders will be viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will be spending another billion dollars. Sanders will not be taken seriously until he demonstrates broad support outside a very limited group of supporters.

This thread was a very good thread about this issue http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251569927 From the article cited in the OP, I noted that several groups will not take Sanders seriously until he demonstrates electablity

If Sanders can get past the scrutiny, he’ll have to grow his appeal. Most Democrats aren’t liberals and many Democrats aren’t white, but so far, Sanders is the candidate of white liberals and just a handful of blacks and Latinos. Without a large share from either group, Sanders can’t compete in vital states like South Carolina and Nevada, where they dominate voting. But going beyond his base is more difficult than it looks. For as much as black Americans might like his policy positions—which fit their enthusiasm for a stronger safety net—they’re also strategic voters, not ideological stalwarts. Electability is key, and as a consequence, they tend to back the establishment choice: Al Gore over Bill Bradley; John Kerry over John Edwards. On occasion, blacks will back a factional candidate, like Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. But Jackson had the reverse problem—he couldn’t win enough whites.

In other words, to win as a challenger in the Democratic Party, you have to bridge the gap between two different parts of the party. And this is hard. So hard, in fact, that it’s only been done twice in the modern era: Jimmy Carter in 1976, and Obama in 2008, who won over black voters with his surprise win in the Iowa caucuses. If Sanders wants to repeat the feat, he’ll have to do two things simultaneously: Beef up his operation in Iowa and New Hampshire, and invest in South Carolina with time and resources. He needs to cultivate visible allies in the black political community and build a dedicated presence with black civic institutions. He may not win the black vote, but with effort, he can deny Clinton the advantage of unified black support.

[Armstead]

67. You're missing the point

I posted my own response to that article, but that's beside the point of this OP, which was about media coverage of the candidates.

You are correct. Sanders has to make the case that he can be electable, and answer all those questions.

So does Clinton and every other candidate.

But how the other candidtes they supposed to make their case when they are shunted off to the corner by the media (with the help of the Democratic establishment), and/or portrayed as marginal from the start?

When the supposed frontrunner is prepackaged as the predestined winner a real debate and contest is rigged from the start. When the Predestined candidate is given an hour of air time, a special set and a that other hoo-ha, while Sanders or O'Malley get three or four minutes of rat-a-tat questioning, usually about Clinton.

Who says Sanders -- or any other legitimate candidate -- is not "electable" without even being given a shot to prove it? Actually Sanders has demonstrated by his early performance that he can generate support and loyalty among large groups of people.

In other words, how the hell are other candidates supposed to make their case and prove their viabiliy, when they are not allowed into the ring in the first place?

[stevenleser]

77. No, you're missing the point. There is no point to spending tons of time interviewing a non viable

candidate with low support in the polls and no pathway (at this point at least) to the nomination or general election victory.

But the fact is, the media HAVE been giving Sanders a lot of attention, much more than his numbers suggest he deserves, specifically because a horse race is good for ratings and the media would love to have this at least be portrayed as a horse race.

It's not. For all the reasons that other poster showed you and more.

[Armstead]

91. That's bullshit...I suppose Obama should have been dismissed early

I know, you're going to say but Obama had blaj,blahnblah.....

But early on he was considered a longshot who could not unseat the unbeatable Clinton....And Clinton was the best hope to beat any Republican.

Who's to decide where that fine line between there being a "point" in allowing candidates to receive reasonable coverage? I know, the fact that Sanders has been ELECTED REPEATEDLY BY OVERWHELMING MARGINS doesn't matter because Vermonters are Martians. And his performance so far has surprised everyone in it strength. He's not some fluke vanity candidate. But I guess there's no "point" in acknowledging that.

And, even though I support Sanders, I think O'Malley is a viable candidate who has a strong record and has many attractive qualities. But there's no "point" in letting the public see him either?

And, though there's no groundswell for Chaffee, he too is a legitimate elected official who deserves a hearing.....(Webb? Well he hasn't been working at it real hard.)

[Gothmog]

87. I did not miss your point, I disagreed with it

The Sanders campaign is not being treated seriously by the media because few people have any confidence that the Sanders campaign is viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million. and the RNC candidate will be spending another billion dollars. The Clinton campaign can raise money and is running a real campaign right now with people working on a ground game and doing such normal campaign functions as fund raising and polling. I have no doubt that the Clinton campaign will be able to raise sufficient funds to be viable. Heck, I was at a bundlers event this week where I got to meet the COS of the Clinton campaign. Being bundled is actually kind of fun in that I got to meet the person running the Clinton campaign and ask her questions.

If you want the media to take the Sanders campaign seriously, then Sanders needs to run a real campaign and show voters that he would be viable in the general election. The Mitchell interview with Clinton was a good interview about serious issues.

I like Sanders and according to the online quiz/test, I am closer in my views to Sanders than Hillary Clinton. However, I am in deep red state and I have to be practical which means supporting a viable candidate. I keep asking the question as to the viability of Sanders for the same reason that was stated in the Slate article. Sanders will not be able to appeal beyond his very narrow existing base without showing that he can win.

As for being given a chance to prove viability, we are in the primary process. At some point soon, voters will be voting and electability will be an issue for many voters (again see the Slate article). Sanders will need to come up with a better explanation as to viability at some point soon if he wants to win these voters. Until Sanders makes that case, do not be surprised when the media gives more attention to viable candidates.

[Armstead]

92. We're free to disagree. But my point was...

that whatever merits or flaws Sanders has, he has pulled off something amazing already, that merits more than the limited, superficial and dismissive coverage he has achieved so far.

And, while O'Malley has not yet so far manged to do anything similar, if you look at the field objectively, his inherent qualifications are certainly strong enough to merit coverage. Maybe he could break through.

Chaffee too...It's possible that he might be a more attractive candidate if people had a chance to see and hear him. (Personally I doubt it, but I'm not the final arbiter either.)

And -- although I don't want to be seen as supporting anyone in the Klown Kar -- Ben Carson is showing strength on the GOP side but gets ignored because he's not an insider or a Trump....And there are other serious (though dickheaded) candidates in the GOP who deserve to be seen and heard, much as it pains me to say that.

Maybe there'd be more support for all of them if it wasn't all just this drumbeat of Clinton, Trump,Trump, Hillary, Bush, Hillary, Trump, Hillary, Trump, Sanders, Trump...etc.

[Gothmog]

95. We can agree on a few things including that the Democrats running for POTUS are all good people

While we may disagree on many things, we can agree that the clown card analogy does not apply to the Democratic candidates (with the possible exception of Webb) and any of these candidates for the Democratic nomination would make a better POTUS compared to any of the members of the GOP clown car.

I am realistic in part because you have to be if you are a Democrat living in Texas. I looking for a candidate who will be viable. I hate Citizens United but we have to deal with the current system and today fundraising is important as are things like polling. I do not fault the current media coverage of Sanders and others in part because they have not demonstrated viability. In my state, Sanders would not be viable and in fact my county party chair was not treated kindly for the sin of attending the Houston Sanders event to see who was there.

This is the primary process and I am keeping my mind open. I will support the Democratic nominee. If your candidate wants to be competitive, then some of the suggestions in the Slate article are good things to look at. Texas is a Super Tuesday primary state there is a great deal that can happen between now and then. People like me will need to see some real evidence that Sanders would be viable in a general elections campaign and that includes fund raising.

[Enthusiast]

58. Kicked and recommended to the Max! Boycott MSNBC!

[IHateTheGOP]

61. I didn't know MSNBC talked about anything but Trump!

[senz]

63. MSNBC is owned by Comcast and GE. Comcast wouldn't be where it is if not for

the 1996 Telecom Act, signed into law by President Clinton.

[LovingA2andMI]

66. MSNBC in 2015 (and likely in 2016) =

Toilet Water. Yep, Toilet Water. Although Toilet Water has a necessary function, most folks try to do their best to avoid it due to possible germs.

Avoid MSNBC.

Find Al-Jazeera America, RT News America, Free Speech TV, Independent Progressive News Outlets Online or last resort - CNN.

[PowerToThePeople]

68. It is NOT media, it is Oligarch Propaganda. n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

69. Really good analysis.

You laid it out really well, Armstead.

[stevenleser]

73. She's the overwhelming front runner and is being treated as such

Unfortunately, so is Trump, and I see a lot of complaining about all the coverage he gets but when you are leading, that's what happens.

This is not new.

[PoliticAverse]

78. And the media coverage had nothing to do with Trump being the front runner? n/t

[stevenleser]

122. You are confusing cause with effect. He said something outrageous and it got coverage.

Not least of which because he is already a famous person.

Members of the GOP base decided they liked the things he said and started supporting him and his numbers rose.

Usually that kind of thing backfires. It hasn't for Trump.

Bernie could say something outrageous and it would get coverage too. So could O'Malley. It probably wouldn't help him though.

[Joey Liberal]

84. I'm for Bernie! Screw MSNBC

I prefer to watch Free Speech TV over MSNBC or CNN anyway.

[ion_theory]

86. K&R. Just an establishment circlejerk. n/t

[dmosh42]

88. Most of the airtime on (Comcast) MSNBC is devoted to Trump & Repukes! Case closed!

[rladdi]

89. Once you understand the news media, commentators are for the Republicans you will get it.

All the cable channels are pressing for a Republican win.

[abelenkpe]

90. Cut the cord

Cable television and cable news are dead.

[Scruffy1]

96. Exactly

I have never been a TV watcher and rarely had one in the house. I find I am much better informed than those who watch it. Also, very few of the younger people I know ever watch it. This constant whining about the media is silly. It is what it is wned by corporate America, including NPR. The media will never be for the people, and it needs to be circumvented, which is the tough part. And besides which, what makes you think those talking heads who spend hours doing make up have anything between their ears?

[JustAnotherGen]

98. I caught a little bit of the interview

Then turned it off. It was boring.

I'm not even remotely excited about anything Clinton has to say because we already know the answers to her questions. That's part of having a long history on the national level - its a good thing and it's a bad thing.

She has name recognition.
That means for Life long Democratic Party member who aged into voting in 1991 - I don't have to listen/watch/read because blah blah blah . . . I already know the answers.

A little different response than you've received thus far . . . But there are some in the party who are hostile to the Washinhgton D.C. Status quo and hostile to anyone currently there and part of the establishment. 4 of the 5 meet that description with the leader of the four being Clinton.

[Katashi_itto]

103. K&R!