Bernie v. the media vs. the DNC: a bit of a stumper

[icehorse]

If one was a skeptic, one might conclude that the media was in the pocket of the 1%:

http://www.newyorker.com/?p=3183434...0&spJobID=883104440&spReportId=ODgzMTA0NDQwS0

Additionally, I think Bernie asks a legitimate question when he asks if super-delegates ought to think about changing their minds and getting in line with their constituents?

 

[Deathbydefault]

Funny how T.V. media thinks they're stopping people from voting for Bernie when most people who support him don't even watch televised news.
The biggest media outlet in America, The Young Turks, is on YouTube. They are very pro Bernie Sanders.
Also, unlike the T.V. news, they do their damn job and report facts, not speculation and bought opinions.

Additionally, I think Bernie asks a legitimate question when he asks if super-delegates ought to think about changing their minds and getting in line with their constituents?

Super-delegates are not democratic at all, and they contribute to why the USA is considered an oligarchy.
Bernie is well aware of this and is trying to make others aware as well.

 

[Underhill]

If one was a skeptic, one might conclude that the media was in the pocket of the 1%:

http://www.newyorker.com/?p=3183434&mbid=nl_032816 Borowitz Newsletter (1)&CNDID=29178504&spMailingID=8717308&spUserID=MTA5MjQwNjEzOTM5S0&spJobID=883104440&spReportId=ODgzMTA0NDQwS0

Additionally, I think Bernie asks a legitimate question when he asks if super-delegates ought to think about changing their minds and getting in line with their constituents?

Umm, the media is... literally... in the pocket of the 1%. Owned by and managed by the 1%.

 

[icehorse]

Umm, the media is... literally... in the pocket of the 1%. Owned by and managed by the 1%.

Well sure. Let me refine that a bit. Yes, media-owners are rich. It seems more and more clear that ALL of them are tainted by outside lobbying (and bribery and blackmail...)

 

[Underhill]

Well sure. Let me refine that a bit. Yes, media-owners are rich. It seems more and more clear that ALL of them are tainted by outside lobbying (and bribery and blackmail...)

Maybe, but how many of them actually need to be? I mean how hard is it to come to the conclusion that the media company you own should nudge the population towards policy decisions that benefit you?

Lobbyist would seem redundant.

 

[icehorse]

Maybe, but how many of them actually need to be? I mean how hard is it to come to the conclusion that the media company you own should nudge the population towards policy decisions that benefit you?

Lobbyist would seem redundant.

So if you own a media company, how would Hillary benefit you and Sanders not?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well sure. Let me refine that a bit. Yes, media-owners are rich. It seems more and more clear that ALL of them are tainted by outside lobbying (and bribery and blackmail...)

There's another factor...
They tend to be Democrats, & this gives an incentive to support the party elite, rather than outsider like Bernie.
And they likely believe that Hillary has a better chance in the general election.
It doesn't matter that most Democrats (the little people) prefer Bernie....it's about the power of the old guard & winning.

 

[Underhill]

So if you own a media company, how would Hillary benefit you and Sanders not?

Quite a bit. Lower taxes, less regulation... generally more corporate friendly.

 

[Underhill]

There's another factor...
They tend to be Democrats, & this gives an incentive to support the party elite, rather than outsider like Bernie.
And they likely believe that Hillary has a better chance in the general election.
It doesn't matter that most Democrats (the little people) prefer Bernie....it's about the power of the old guard & winning.

Is that true any more? Few media companies are owned by any single entity, most are corporate giants these days.

Most media is now controlled by 9 companies.

News Corporation (the Fox family of channels), The Walt Disney Company (which includes the ABC, ESPN and Disney brands), CBS Corporation, Viacom, Comcast (which includes the NBC brands), Time Warner, Discovery Communications, EW Scripps television

I know News Corp is controlled firmly by Rupert Murdock, but are their liberal equivalents chairing these other companies? Bob Iger controls Disney for example, and I can't find any mention of political affiliation. The same is true of CBS's chairman, Moonves as well as Phil Dauman at Viacom, at which point I became sick of the search...

https://www.boundless.com/political...nization-and-ownership-of-the-media-394-5665/

 

[Revoltingest]

Is that true any more? Few media companies are owned by any single entity, most are corporate giants these days.

It needn't be about ownership.
Management & journalists exercise control.

 

[Underhill]

It needn't be about ownership.
Management & journalists exercise control.

Some, but people used to say this in the 90's and at that time I think it was true. Today I see no evidence of a prevailing Democratic bias.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some, but people used to say this in the 90's and at that time I think it was true. Today I see no evidence of a prevailing Democratic bias.

I do....but then, I listen to NPR a lot.
Perhaps you're watching a lot of Fox News, eh?

 

[Underhill]

I do....but then, I listen to NPR a lot.
Perhaps you're watching a lot of Fox News, eh?

We've been through this at least once.

 

[Revoltingest]

We've been through this at least once.

Could be.
My memory is.......uh....what were we talking about?

 

[icehorse]

I listen to NPR as well, and I find their coverage skewed too.

 

[Underhill]

The difference I've noticed with NPR is that they at least make the effort to be unbiased. Is there a bit that sneaks in from the presenters? Probably, I think that is impossible to avoid. But the fact that they try very hard to make unbiased coverage decisions makes them vastly better than most other sources. I would say the same is true for CNN. I can't say that for Fox, CNBC or even the BBC (although they are better than Fox or CNBC). Most radio news programs (at least between here and Indiana) are much worse.

 

[Revoltingest]

The difference I've noticed with NPR is that they at least make the effort to be unbiased.

How can one know the others don't make such an effort?
Bias is where it is, whether it's intentional or not.
But NPR is special, in that they publicly make the claim of neutrality during their fundraisers.
Bias flourishes where they think they're immune to it.

 

[Underhill]

How can one know the others don't make such an effort?
Bias is where it is, whether it's intentional or not.
But NPR is special, in that they publicly make the claim of neutrality during their fundraisers.
Bias flourishes where they think they're immune to it.

No, it really doesn't. It flourishes where they nurture it (ie Fox News). It sneaks by when companies try to avoid it.

The stats back this up. The last study on the subject said NPR talked more about republican issues and candidates by a slim margin than they did about democrats. They had more republican guest on the show than democrats. So while the host may allow some bias to sneak into interviews, they make a conscious decision to try to avoid it wherever they can. Other private networks often have an agenda. There is no question that NPR does not.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, it really doesn't. It flourishes where they nurture it (ie Fox News). It sneaks by when companies try to avoid it.

The stats back this up. The last study on the subject said NPR talked more about republican issues and candidates by a slim margin than they did about democrats. They had more republican guest on the show than democrats. So while the host may allow some bias to sneak into interviews, they make a conscious decision to try to avoid it wherever they can. Other private networks often have an agenda. There is no question that NPR does not.

NPR has no agenda?
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Btw, it isn't about who the guests are....it's about what the hosts say & do.
People on the left will tend to not notice the bias because it will appear neutral to those with shared opinions.
As an outsider (extremist), I see a different picture.

 

[Underhill]

NPR has no agenda?
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Btw, it isn't about who the guests are....it's about what the hosts say & do.
People on the left will tend to not notice the bias because it will appear neutral to those with shared opinions.
As an outsider (extremist), I see a different picture.

I am sure you do. I see those "bias" as simple honesty.

'Mr Trump, are you f'ing nuts?', seems like a reasonable question. But the fact that nobody ask him such an honest question so many of us want an answer to is unequivocal bias.

If I had my way, the media wouldn't get too friendly with anyone. Every question should be designed to get to the heart of the issues, and expose insanity wherever it is found. But nobody would ever go on that show. So I am stuck listening to NPR, who simply tries not to step on any toes and still gets slammed for bias.