Why Bernie Sanders Is Absolutely Correct About the Washington Post--and Corporate Media Overall

[ehrnst]

40. They run a whole lot more 'negative stories' on Trump. Does that also 'discredit' WaPo?

Trump seems to think so.

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/301285-media-and-trump-bias-not-even-trying-to-hide-it-anymore

About credibility... An author who runs an org that harvests emails (which are used to ask for donations to support the org) from petitions to various media outlets to "Stop the media bias against Bernie" has a financial stake in getting people to believe that the media has a bias against "progressives."



Commondreams is a lefty 50c(3), and as such is not constrained by journalistic standards.

"FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation."

As if their mission statement would allow them to say anything positive about WaPo.... That would be like expecting FoxNews to say anything positive about FAIR, even though FoxNews has "Fair and Balanced" in it's tagline.

And the FAIR 'analyst" who is also a Commondreams contributor (not mentioned in the commondreams article) gets another click, with that cite doesn't he?

This exerpt from the article you reference is a shining example of nuetral, unbiased data driven research, isn't it?

Baron, Sullivan, Cillizza and countless other employees of corporate media are well-paid while publicly maintaining their denial in the service of corporate power. So, with the virtues of the Washington Post on parade, Emperor Bezos must be decked out in the journalistic finery of his new clothes, even when the self-interest and implications of billionaire leverage over media are stark naked.

Then again, your opinion of what is "unbiased" differs greatly from the journalistic community. If you were interested in unbiased media statistics and criticism, you'd be reading Poynter for your information.

Now as to the "negative stories" that FAIR (also not without bias) lists (from the height of primary season back in 2016, interestingly, it doesn't have any such stats on negative stories about HRC. An actual unbiased research org would have those stats. I guess negative stories about politicians they don't like isn't "bias" ) it seems they think that any story that doesn't fawn on Sanders, but simply reports what he said to be "negative."

I can't find a negative about Sanders in these stories (YOU referenced) they branded "NEGATIVE" - maybe, since you have thoroughly checked this out and confirmed that it's actually accurate, what they see here:

Why Obama says bank reform is a success but Bernie Sanders says it’s a failure
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/07/doddfrank0308/

OMG - a fact check of Bernie's numbers to the actual numbers of those in prison, and stating that some of this is decided at the state level, not the federal level. That's just disrespectful to fact check Bernie! It implies he might be mistaken!

Bernie Sanders pledges the U.S. won’t be No. 1 in incarceration. He’ll need to release lots of criminals.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/06/bernie-sanders-pledges-the-u-s-wont-be-no-1-in-incarceration-hell-need-to-release-lots-of-criminals/

More statement of fact - I assume that WaPo was supposed to quash any mention of the NRA tweeting praising a candidate, because it doesn't flatter a candidate? Perhaps they're also supposed to ignore it when David Duke praises Trump? Well, Trump would say so..

The NRA Just Praised Bernie Sanders — and Did Him No Favors in Doing So
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/07/the-nra-just-praised-bernie-sanders-and-did-him-no-favors-in-doing-so/


And the most partisan senator of 2015 is … Bernie Sanders!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/07/and-the-most-partisan-senator-of-2015-is-bernie-sanders/

Is saying that Bernie sided with Democrats most of all a negative? I guess if you didn't bother to read past the headline, or you hate Democrats, then calling this article a 'negative' would make sense - especially since "bi-partisan" is a dirty word for many Sanders supporters...

The index measured how many times a senator sponsored or co-sponsored a bill with the other side. The rankings mean Sanders almost exclusively signs onto bills with Democrats, and Cruz with Republicans. (Sanders is technically an independent, but for this purpose, he was categorized as a Democrat, the party with which he caucuses.) The other senator still in the race for president, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), ranked 28th most bipartisan.

I guess pointing out what they considered to be negative in all the articles would have been too much work, and really, they know their audience isn't looking for facts - just confirmation of their bias.

And they think that other journalists confirming what Marty Baron said as some kind of 'proof' that Baron is lying...

Bernie's media problem is Bernie's words and Bernie's actions being subject to the same fact checking and the same followup questioning that other candidates get. He wants to be exempt from this reality of campaigning, as though he's above it. He's convinced people that by virtue of him saying something, it's fact. And his die hard fans oblige happily - and quash any dissent or any criticism, no matter how fact based reputable the source, as "attacks."

Trumps fans do the same for Trump.