The pundit class continues to misunderstand Bernie Sanders - and it shows

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

In part, the media underestimates Bernie because it can’t understand Bernie. The new ad quotes CNN’s Nia-Malika Henderson saying it’s “really hard to imagine who the Bernie Sanders voter is at this point”. And it’s true: if you are, like Henderson, a Yale graduate living in Washington DC, or you are, like the New York Times’ Sydney Ember, a former financial analyst for an investment bank, the source of Bernie’s appeal must be mystifying. That’s because Sanders returns again and again to issues that are of little interest to the political media, like environmental policy, social welfare, and education.

Consider MSNBC. Combing through their home page a few days ago, I found that nearly every story was about Trump, Ukraine and impeachment. The one headline about climate change, an issue so important that it should be dominating every day’s deadlines, was “Watch London climate change protest involving 1,800 liters of fake blood go horribly wrong,” hardly a substantive discussion of science or policy.

(snip)

If you see MSNBC as “the left” and Fox as “the right”, then Bernie Sanders must be some strange aberration that doesn’t make sense. In fact, he’s just a person with a well-refined sense of what matters and what doesn’t. Sanders has been accused of mirroring Donald Trump in his scathing attacks on the media. But while Trump’s objection to the media is that they spend too much time exposing his crimes and lies, Sanders’ objection is that they don’t elevate the voices of ordinary people and they don’t inform the public about the most important issues.

(snip)

The reason the media doesn’t understand Sanders, then, is in part that they do not understand the problems he is speaking about or why they matter. To cover him fairly would require them to re-examine their entire values and priorities. And that wouldn’t be good for ratings.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/the-pundit-class-continues-to-misunderstand-bernie-sanders-and-it-shows

This is a good read.

[George II]

1. The pundit class continues to misunderstand Bernie Sanders - and it shows:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=303603

[TidalWave46]

2. At this point it seems pretty obvious that Sanders and crew don't understand the media.

No, the media isn't going to match the narrative of a video put out by a "fan." <- brought up early in the article.

If the claim is that they don't understand a career politician, maybe it's the messenger.

None of it matters. It's all a waste of resources. We have a primary going on.

[ehrnst]

3. Indeed. (nt)

[LongtimeAZDem]

58. This +1

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. If you're running for office it's up to you to make yourself understood.

If the "pundit class" (Bernie's fans seem to like to divide people up into "classes," all of them bad) allegedly doesn't understand Bernie, it's because Bernie has failed to make himself understood. It's the job of the media to report the message, not to explain it. That's up to him. As long as his comm people consist of the likes of David Sirota, he'll always be preaching only to the choir.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Climate change, decades of stagnant wages, our high cost of health care, U.S. childhood poverty,

our crumbling infrastructure, the cost of higher education, the expense of the military industrial complex, wealth disparity in America, for profit prisons in the "land of the free" and monopolization of various industries just to name a few examples; are these messages or critical issues affecting the American People?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Of course, and we're aware of those things because the media report them,

not because of Bernie.

[Uncle Joe]

9. What percentage of total airtime time do you believe

pundits cover these issues?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. I don't count the minutes, but since I know about these things

in some depth without listening to Bernie's speeches, I must have learned about them somehow. I'm pretty sure it must have been from newspapers and TV.

[sheshe2]

34. ...

[LanternWaste]

14. I doubt you'll give us your own objective analysis of that question.

I do however, imagine you'll state an allegation and fail to support it with any objective evidence or numbers. It's part and parcel of Moving the Goalposts. Again.

[Uncle Joe]

16. Media Matters just on the issue of climate change

How broadcast TV networks covered climate change in 2018

Broadcast TV news coverage of climate change plummeted 45 percent from 2017 to 2018, even as the climate crisis steadily worsened. The major news programs on the broadcast networks aired a combined total of just 142 minutes of climate coverage in 2018, or less than two and a half hours. Almost three-quarters of that coverage aired in just the last three months of the year. The networks did a particularly poor job of explaining how climate change exacerbates extreme weather; none of the networks' news reports on the major hurricanes of 2018 even mentioned climate change. The networks’ coverage was also lacking in diversity: Only 9 percent of the people featured in climate segments were people of color, and only 19 percent were women.

Key findings:

(snip)

Nearly a third of the time that the networks spent covering climate change in 2018, or 46 minutes, came from a single episode of NBC's Meet the Press on December 30 that was dedicated to discussion of climate change.

(snip)

The links between national security and climate change were discussed only once in 2018, in an NBC segment. ABC and CBS did not mention that climate change poses serious threats to national security.

Solutions or actions offered in response to climate change were mentioned in only a fifth of climate segments aired on ABC, CBS, or NBC.

(snip)

This large drop occurred despite 2018 providing plenty of compelling reasons to cover climate change: extreme weather affecting much of the globe; new scientific research raising alarm bells; landmark climate reports being published by both the United Nations and the U.S. government; and the Trump administration continuing to undermine climate protections.

NBC was the only network to air more minutes of climate coverage in 2018 than in 2017 -- an increase of 23 percent. The other broadcast networks each spent less time on climate change in 2018 than they did the year before.

(snip)

https://www.mediamatters.org/donald-trump/how-broadcast-tv-networks-covered-climate-change-2018

I was hoping to find something specifically regarding "pundits'" discussion of the issues on cable; CNN, MSNBC and FOX but this will do for now.

I have business to take care of but will be back later today and add to this finding.

[sheshe2]

30. What percent...

What percent of his time in office has he spent to actually, not talk about, but enact and get any one of these issues passed. Over thirty five plus years in office. What laws has he passed?

[Uncle Joe]

31. What percent...

of the time did the Times cover Hillary's emails in six days compared to the issues?

But two researchers, David Rothschild and Duncan Watts, took on an in-depth analysis of the mainstream media that will add to the 2016 debate. Their findings, published in the Columbia Journalism Review, focus on the New York Times’s election coverage. Their starkest discovery: “In just six days, the New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all the policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election.”

(snip)

Watts and Rothschild analyze the Times’s election coverage more broadly, but “Hillary’s emails” stands out as one of the starkest examples. It illuminates a larger problem in the coverage: The researchers found that the Times devoted much more online and print real estate to the campaign horse race and personal scandals for both candidates than it did to their policies on topics such as health care and taxes.

(snip)

Both Watts and Rothschild say they’re not picking on the Times or knocking its coverage. They chose the publication because of its journalistic influence and reputation. Basically, if the Times is messing up, then what the heck is everyone else doing?

(snip)

Watts also suggests that as the mainstream media frets over the influence of such sources, it has somewhat underplayed its own still-vital role in shaping the public narrative. “That’s very true of the narrative around the election: all about personalities and scandals,” he said. “It was not about policy and substance — and it could have been.”

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/7/16747712/study-media-2016-election-clintons-emails

[sheshe2]

32. Why bring Hillary up?

You did not answer my question. Hillary had no part in my question.

You change the subject to suit your needs.

Answer the question.

[Uncle Joe]

33. It pertained to my unanswered question

on post #9, and as a little evidence in regards to my post #29 on this thread,

What percentage of total airtime time do you believe

pundits cover these issues?

A consistent pattern by the media.

You never answered my question.

[sheshe2]

35. No. Sorry.

You never verbally take part in the discussion.

You post links to articles. That have nothing to do with the question asked.


Bait. Switch.

[Uncle Joe]

37. The OP and multiple posts

on this thread are my discussion.

Did you read the conversation up-thread to which you threw a question at my original question?

Your first post on this thread was a "bait and switch."

[sheshe2]

38. You changed the topic from Bernie to Hillary.

[Uncle Joe]

43. You changed the topic from this

my post#7

Climate change, decades of stagnant wages, our high cost of health care, U.S. childhood poverty,

our crumbling infrastructure, the cost of higher education, the expense of the military industrial complex, wealth disparity in America, for profit prisons in the "land of the free" and monopolization of various industries just to name a few examples; are these messages or critical issues affecting the American People?

Poster # 8

Of course, and we're aware of those things because the media report them,

not because of Bernie.

Then my question #9 to which you first responded to never answered but thrown instead with a question thereby trying to change the topic with your first post.

"What percentage of total airtime time do you believe

pundits cover these issues?"

[sheshe2]

46. You changed the topics.

You are getting angry and I will not engage your anger.

Nite.

[Uncle Joe]

47. I'm not

angry but I am getting sleepy.

Have a good night sheshe.

[Uncle Joe]

45. P.S.

I don't even know why that bothers you by me bringing up the dysfunctional way the media myopically focuses on drama and scandal at the expense of the critical issues affecting the American People whether the target be Bernie or Hillary?

[sheshe2]

48. Hill handled it like a pro.

She neither whined or cried … CORRUPT CORPORATE MEDIA.

Women rule!



Women in government are our future. We have strength. We have stamina. We have guts and we do not seek glory. We get the job done.

[Me.]

56. He Did Name A Couple Of Post Offices

[vsrazdem]

5. Obviously Bernie has made himself understood to the people that count, the voters, otherwise

he would not have the the largest amount of donatations of any candidate. Who cares if the media understands Bernie, its the voters that matter.

[George II]

21. When you get people to make 800+ individual contributions averaging $3.14 you're going to have....

...."the largest amount of donations of any candidate".

[vsrazdem]

23. Bernie has over 1 million individual donors. The most individual donors or any candidate.

[comradebillyboy]

51. So what. His campaign has been slowly sinking for the last 6 months.

Votes count, donations don't.

[vsrazdem]

57. Agree, votes count.

[jalan48]

6. I think the corporate media understands Bernie very well.

[Uncle Joe]

10. I actually believe they do as well jalan.

[jalan48]

11. For elites living in a bubble things aren't so bad.

[tblue37]

13. K&R for visibility. nt

[LanternWaste]

15. I s'pose that's one way to justify a steady downward trend in the polls.

Blame the media.

Again.

[corbettkroehler]

17. And A Steadily Meteoric Rise In Fundraising

smoking Biden and outpacing the presumed tied-for-first-or-second Warren.

By referring to slanted poll numbers which show a "decline" while Sanders outraises even himself in 2015 (when his average donation was $27 (now $18)), you make our point for us.

[TwilightZone]

18. The recent decline is pretty clear without the need to "slant" anything.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

He's down about three points in the poll average in the past two weeks, largely, it would appear, because he's losing support to Warren, as are most of the others.

Fundraising is not directly related to relative support. Money isn't everything.

[George II]

24. Inasmuch as 76% of his contributions are "unitemized", how do we really know where...

Last edited Wed Oct 9, 2019, 07:21 PM - Edit history (1)

...all that money came from or how much each of those contributions were?

FEC.gov:

$36,209,080.00 Individual contributions
$ 8,547,727.00 Itemized individual contributions
$27,661,353.00 Unitemized individual contributions

76% Unitemized

Plus, when he encourages his contributors to make hundreds of $3 contributions, sure that's going to lower the "average" contribution. For example, there's one woman in Michigan who made small contributions an average of ELEVEN TIMES A DAY in the first two quarters. "Small donor"? I think not - her aggregate total was a coincidental $2800!!!!

[corbettkroehler]

50. Nice Try At Deflecting

Since you just accused one of the longest-serving sitting United States senators of lying to the press, lying to his throngs of supporters and committing a felony by lying to the Federal Election Commission, let's shoot for the moon.

Here are the facts:

1) In the same calendar period of 2015, Bernie's average donation was $27. This year, he raised more than during the same period last cycle even with a much larger field of candidates and at $18 a clip. Dismiss this if you like. The working class donors who could have used that money to pay bills know how much it means.

2) No matter HOW the donations are itemized, Sanders outraised Biden, the nominal frontrunner, by $10 million, significantly more than the margin between the two during the previous calendar quarter. Dismiss that if you can! $10 million! If that doesn't spell "candidate in decline", I don't know what would. If he were in decline, surely he would not have raised as much as the former VP.

Since you consider the fundraising numbers moot, let's focus on another stubborn fact:

3) His army of volunteers made 1 million calls in under 9 days to close September and open October. That has precisely NOTHING to do with this fundraising numbers. Could a candidate in decline pull that off in such short order?

[George II]

54. He's only been in the Senate for 12 years.

[corbettkroehler]

61. I Meant "Sitting Member Of Congress" - Care To Dispute The Other Arithmetic?

I still await a cogent argument to my rebuttal that Sanders' support has GROWN rather than waned. Since there isn't one, I'll take silence as tacit acknowledgement.

[George II]

62. Cute ploy, but it's not going to work.

[corbettkroehler]

63. Neither Is Your Insistence That Sanders' Support Has Waned

Facts matter - no matter how you try to spin the fact that Sanders outraised Biden by $10 million. If the numbers were reversed, and Biden outraised Sanders, I have no doubt that you would cite the fundraising as proof positive that Sanders' support has waned.

[obamanut2012]

55. Sanders isn't even close to being one of the longest serving Senators

And, if you want to argue and add all his time in Congress together? Still not even close to being anywhere near those who have served the longest. He has only been in Congress since 1991.

And, to be fair, longevity in Congress doesn't make something better or worse than someone else.

[corbettkroehler]

60. Years In Congress Plus Avoidance Of Ethics Complaints (And I Mentioned "Sitting")

My point was that serving in Congress since 1991 is a big deal. If a long-serving Republican were attacked like Bernie has been in this thread regarding his fundraising numbers, many pearls would be clutched.

I still haven't read ANYONE dispute the simple facts that:

1) Bernie outraised the nominal frontrunner by $10 million; and
2) His margin in outraising Biden versus the previous calendar quarter was YUGE.

Convince me how that proves that, just as was predicted 3 months ago, his support has waned. I defy you. Since I can guarantee failure on your part in this regard, give us all a break and don't even try!

[George II]

64. Have you ever seen this?

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/098/201908280300047098/201908280300047098.pdf

[corbettkroehler]

65. Since the reply deadline has passed without a maelstrom, I'm sure all is well

Because you KNOW that if there were a major problem, the media which already is slanted against Sanders would be all over it. Besides, the main point of this thread was the measurement of the supposed waning of his support. On that regard, this FEC letter is evinces nothing.

[George II]

22. Roseanne Roseannadanna: "It's always something."

[sheshe2]

36. I miss her.

[George II]

40. She was one of a kind. Good job finding that gif, I was looking for one like that, couldn't find it

[sheshe2]

42. She was pricless.

Thanks~

[PhoenixDem]

19. Everyone misunderstands poor wittle BS

Translation: Everyone who doesn't bow down to the BS is stupid.

[TwilightZone]

20. It's his campaign's job to make him understood.

Perhaps they should spend more time doing that and less time attacking/blaming the media, the DNC, and other Democrats for the challenges that all candidates face and that are part of every campaign.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. Exactly. I don't see any of the other candidates whining about

not being understood by the media.

[George II]

41. I'm beginning to think that not even his presidential ambitions, but another Gilda Radner....

[Kurt V.]

28. Does the pundit class understand anything other than punditry. .. no.

[Uncle Joe]

29. The pundit class specializes in drama and this gives sociopaths like Trump an inherent advantage

for sociopathy is highly dramatic and all that means to the corporate media conglomerates are higher ratings and lower taxes for the wealthy.

If the pundit class; specialized on the in-depth critical issues; affecting the American Peoples' daily lives, and spent only half as much time on that as the latest "outrage" of the day the Democratic Party could/should dominate and the corporate media conglomerates know this or at the very least they should know it.

[Newest Reality]

53. That was double-plus good.

I would add, and some may object, the question, (and by comparison to valid, alternate media) generally, who do the pundits represent? The pundits?

When it comes to corporate media, who do they and their outlets and pundits represent, fundamentally?

[Happy Hoosier]

39. Voters seem to having trouble connecting as well. NT

[George II]

44. No they don't. Perhaps BS and his campaign "class"* misunderstand the way ALL campaigns are covered?

*everything seems to be put in "classes" by some.

[betsuni]

49. Calling the media elites without using the actual word.

Last edited Thu Oct 10, 2019, 03:44 AM - Edit history (1)

"Class." Us and Them. Both sides.

MSNBC is a "leftwing version of Fox News"? No, Maddow explains during her interview on "The View" that Fox is a political campaign to get Republicans elected and move the party to the Right, convinces the audience that everything else is fake news and that's why they are so loyal. MSNBC is run as just a TV network, the audience consumes lots of different news sources, why they aren't so loyal. Totally different things.

I guess the author thinks everything's like right-wing media where they get talking points and everyone repeats them. It doesn't even make sense when he criticizes Maddow for being too interested in Russia. It's news.

Climate change has been in the news since Greta Thunberg spoke at the UN. Activists are doing the job of getting topics out there. Social media is there.

It's like anything else. Sometimes the media's very, very bad (emails, Iraq War, etc.) and sometimes it's good. I'm shocked when "Nightline" does actual reporting. Yesterday they aired a good story about the epidemic of missing Native American women. Usually it's crap about celebrities, murders, and depressing stories about a sick child or sad animals.

On edit: Just saw a PBS story about unions in Las Vegas and Nightline story about melting glaciers in the Alps due to climate change.

The only carefully planned political conspiracy funded by oligarchs is the right-wing media empire. The bland, unoriginal, conventional, ridiculous things about this country is what Paul Fussell talks about in his 1991 book "BAD, Or, The Dumbing of America."

[beachbumbob]

52. Perhaps they understand him all too well?

[LongtimeAZDem]

59. Sanders is like a left wing Spiro Agnew

"His (Nixon's) words and policies were subjected to instant analysis and querulous criticism ... by a small band of network commentators and self-appointed analysts, the majority of whom expressed in one way or another their hostility to what he had to say ... It was obvious that their minds were made up in advance. I am asking whether a form of censorship already exists when the news that forty million Americans receive each night is determined by a handful of men ... and filtered through a handful of commentators who admit their own set of biases"