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

[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.