Home› A Moving Train

Good Bernie Sanders interview TYT

shadow_flagshadow_flag Posts: 3
in A Moving Train
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggFitmOTSok
SMILE
«1

Comments

  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,038
    Excellent- thanks for posting it, shadow_flag.

    Great section on how the media intentionally works against Bernie, doing their damnedest to try smear his campaign. Bernie, strong. Media, weak.

    Reconfirms what we already know: Hillary is the establishment candidate with corporate sponsorship. Media = the establishment.

    "If you were to lose would you support the establishment candidate [Hillary]?" Great answer. Watch the video!

    Excellent response to climate change.

    Hillary and Bill have raised a billion dollars for this campaign? How do you support that?

    ..."working class people and young people being to understand that it is imperative that they participate in the political process". Hugely important point.

    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    the corporate media has rendered the american public blind ... it's why we can't have discussions about how the US has contributed to terrorism ...
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675
    Where in the interview does it discuss the media being biased against Bernie? I'd like to see it but don't want to watch 33 minutes of Bernie to get there.

    I hear this all the time, but I struggle with seeing it myself. The Huff Post couldn't be anymore outrageously pro Bernie in its reporting (not commentary which is worse) and it has the 4th most hits of any news site. So it's not exactly underground.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    mrussel1 said:

    Where in the interview does it discuss the media being biased against Bernie? I'd like to see it but don't want to watch 33 minutes of Bernie to get there.

    I hear this all the time, but I struggle with seeing it myself. The Huff Post couldn't be anymore outrageously pro Bernie in its reporting (not commentary which is worse) and it has the 4th most hits of any news site. So it's not exactly underground.

    you don't have to watch long ... i think the length of the video is tied into the entire episode of which Bernie is the beginning ...

    i would say for sure that Sanders has media bias ... either that or incompetent media outlets ... both of which are plausible ...
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675
    edited March 2016
    polaris_x said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Where in the interview does it discuss the media being biased against Bernie? I'd like to see it but don't want to watch 33 minutes of Bernie to get there.

    I hear this all the time, but I struggle with seeing it myself. The Huff Post couldn't be anymore outrageously pro Bernie in its reporting (not commentary which is worse) and it has the 4th most hits of any news site. So it's not exactly underground.

    you don't have to watch long ... i think the length of the video is tied into the entire episode of which Bernie is the beginning ...

    i would say for sure that Sanders has media bias ... either that or incompetent media outlets ... both of which are plausible ...
    I'll watch it.. But here's the thing. We should have no expectation of unbiased media. Media has never had an obligation to report something fairly. During the first 200 years of our existence (and 100 years of colonial times) newspapers were organs of political parties. That was their raison d'etre. Somewhere in the last 40 years or so, we've developed this sense that the media is an impartial arbiter when that's never been the case. I'm not saying it's right, just don't expect it.

    Which media outlets are biased against Sanders and can you point some articles that support that argument? I don't mean from like the National Review or Brietbart, I mean a major outlet. Huff Post used to be mainstream, but I"m not sure about that anymore.

    Here's a good one from Huff post.. Look at the friggin' headline. And this was not an opinion piece, it was from a 'staff reporter'. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-aipac-israel_us_56f072eae4b09bf44a9e34a1
    Post edited by mrussel1 on
  • PJfanwillneverleave1PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    TYT is regarded as NSFW.
    Is anyone in agreement?
    With that aside - it is pretty good channel to watch.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    mrussel1 said:

    polaris_x said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Where in the interview does it discuss the media being biased against Bernie? I'd like to see it but don't want to watch 33 minutes of Bernie to get there.

    I hear this all the time, but I struggle with seeing it myself. The Huff Post couldn't be anymore outrageously pro Bernie in its reporting (not commentary which is worse) and it has the 4th most hits of any news site. So it's not exactly underground.

    you don't have to watch long ... i think the length of the video is tied into the entire episode of which Bernie is the beginning ...

    i would say for sure that Sanders has media bias ... either that or incompetent media outlets ... both of which are plausible ...
    I'll watch it.. But here's the thing. We should have no expectation of unbiased media. Media has never had an obligation to report something fairly. During the first 200 years of our existence (and 100 years of colonial times) newspapers were organs of political parties. That was their raison d'etre. Somewhere in the last 40 years or so, we've developed this sense that the media is an impartial arbiter when that's never been the case. I'm not saying it's right, just don't expect it.

    Which media outlets are biased against Sanders and can you point some articles that support that argument? I don't mean from like the National Review or Brietbart, I mean a major outlet. Huff Post used to be mainstream, but I"m not sure about that anymore.

    Here's a good one from Huff post.. Look at the friggin' headline. And this was not an opinion piece, it was from a 'staff reporter'. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-aipac-israel_us_56f072eae4b09bf44a9e34a1
    well ... i'm sure someone else could do a better job of pointing to the bias ... i just remember reading about how clinton won Arizona the day after but nothing about sanders' wins in the other states that same night ... nor the voter suppression in az ...

    i'm not sure I would put the huff post in the same vein as nbc, cbs, fox, cnn, abc ...

    as for your point about no expectation on unbiased media - i would objectively agree however, considering how many people assume stuff coming out of the corporate media as 100% fact - it's still relevant in that the majority of people do not factor bias in the reporting ...
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675
    polaris_x said:

    mrussel1 said:

    polaris_x said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Where in the interview does it discuss the media being biased against Bernie? I'd like to see it but don't want to watch 33 minutes of Bernie to get there.

    I hear this all the time, but I struggle with seeing it myself. The Huff Post couldn't be anymore outrageously pro Bernie in its reporting (not commentary which is worse) and it has the 4th most hits of any news site. So it's not exactly underground.

    you don't have to watch long ... i think the length of the video is tied into the entire episode of which Bernie is the beginning ...

    i would say for sure that Sanders has media bias ... either that or incompetent media outlets ... both of which are plausible ...
    I'll watch it.. But here's the thing. We should have no expectation of unbiased media. Media has never had an obligation to report something fairly. During the first 200 years of our existence (and 100 years of colonial times) newspapers were organs of political parties. That was their raison d'etre. Somewhere in the last 40 years or so, we've developed this sense that the media is an impartial arbiter when that's never been the case. I'm not saying it's right, just don't expect it.

    Which media outlets are biased against Sanders and can you point some articles that support that argument? I don't mean from like the National Review or Brietbart, I mean a major outlet. Huff Post used to be mainstream, but I"m not sure about that anymore.

    Here's a good one from Huff post.. Look at the friggin' headline. And this was not an opinion piece, it was from a 'staff reporter'. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-aipac-israel_us_56f072eae4b09bf44a9e34a1
    well ... i'm sure someone else could do a better job of pointing to the bias ... i just remember reading about how clinton won Arizona the day after but nothing about sanders' wins in the other states that same night ... nor the voter suppression in az ...

    i'm not sure I would put the huff post in the same vein as nbc, cbs, fox, cnn, abc ...

    as for your point about no expectation on unbiased media - i would objectively agree however, considering how many people assume stuff coming out of the corporate media as 100% fact - it's still relevant in that the majority of people do not factor bias in the reporting ...
    Media coverage is all about expectations. Bernie was expected to do well in UT and ID and he did. AZ was supposed to be close and it was a steam roll and that's where the big delegates were that night. Bernie got PLENTY of positive coverage when he won Michigan and he was supposed to lose. Don't forget VA and NC went heavily to Hillary the same night and they are swing states. But they got lost in the shuffle due to Michigan.

    The other thing about AZ and why even Sanders' campaign isn't arguing that they should have won.. the issues with voting were in Maricopa County overwhelmingly. And specifically in minority districts. Hillary beat Bernie 58-40 in Maricopa. What that means is that voting issues were either neutral or likely disproportionately affected HRC.
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,038
    The media bias against Bernie is obvious. I think to deny it or excuse it or walk around it can only be an indication of not really following this thing very closely. Watch the video. Even just the first 10 or 15 minutes. There are plenty of examples there. It's obvious and undeniable.

    Media = Establishment = Corporate Power

    Hillary is supported by establishment controlled Media. She receives her financial support through corporate power establishment. This too is undeniable.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    mrussel1 said:

    polaris_x said:

    mrussel1 said:

    polaris_x said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Where in the interview does it discuss the media being biased against Bernie? I'd like to see it but don't want to watch 33 minutes of Bernie to get there.

    I hear this all the time, but I struggle with seeing it myself. The Huff Post couldn't be anymore outrageously pro Bernie in its reporting (not commentary which is worse) and it has the 4th most hits of any news site. So it's not exactly underground.

    you don't have to watch long ... i think the length of the video is tied into the entire episode of which Bernie is the beginning ...

    i would say for sure that Sanders has media bias ... either that or incompetent media outlets ... both of which are plausible ...
    I'll watch it.. But here's the thing. We should have no expectation of unbiased media. Media has never had an obligation to report something fairly. During the first 200 years of our existence (and 100 years of colonial times) newspapers were organs of political parties. That was their raison d'etre. Somewhere in the last 40 years or so, we've developed this sense that the media is an impartial arbiter when that's never been the case. I'm not saying it's right, just don't expect it.

    Which media outlets are biased against Sanders and can you point some articles that support that argument? I don't mean from like the National Review or Brietbart, I mean a major outlet. Huff Post used to be mainstream, but I"m not sure about that anymore.

    Here's a good one from Huff post.. Look at the friggin' headline. And this was not an opinion piece, it was from a 'staff reporter'. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-aipac-israel_us_56f072eae4b09bf44a9e34a1
    well ... i'm sure someone else could do a better job of pointing to the bias ... i just remember reading about how clinton won Arizona the day after but nothing about sanders' wins in the other states that same night ... nor the voter suppression in az ...

    i'm not sure I would put the huff post in the same vein as nbc, cbs, fox, cnn, abc ...

    as for your point about no expectation on unbiased media - i would objectively agree however, considering how many people assume stuff coming out of the corporate media as 100% fact - it's still relevant in that the majority of people do not factor bias in the reporting ...
    Media coverage is all about expectations. Bernie was expected to do well in UT and ID and he did. AZ was supposed to be close and it was a steam roll and that's where the big delegates were that night. Bernie got PLENTY of positive coverage when he won Michigan and he was supposed to lose. Don't forget VA and NC went heavily to Hillary the same night and they are swing states. But they got lost in the shuffle due to Michigan.

    The other thing about AZ and why even Sanders' campaign isn't arguing that they should have won.. the issues with voting were in Maricopa County overwhelmingly. And specifically in minority districts. Hillary beat Bernie 58-40 in Maricopa. What that means is that voting issues were either neutral or likely disproportionately affected HRC.
    i'm not sure I buy you're first point ... pretty sure clinton was favoured heavily in arizona prior ...
  • PJfanwillneverleave1PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    brianlux said:

    The media bias against Bernie is obvious. I think to deny it or excuse it or walk around it can only be an indication of not really following this thing very closely. Watch the video. Even just the first 10 or 15 minutes. There are plenty of examples there. It's obvious and undeniable.

    Media = Establishment = Corporate Power

    Hillary is supported by establishment controlled Media. She receives her financial support through corporate power establishment. This too is undeniable.

    Trump is supported by the media as well and he does not even own them.
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    This again, really?

    http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/251193/how-the-news-works#latest

    The mainstream media is owned by 6 corporations. Every presidential candidate accept money from corporations, except for Sanders. Mainstream media will NOT voluntarily cover a presidential candidate who is against the entire idea of accepting corporate money and who is running on a platform of overturning Citizens United. The only reason they are NOW reporting about Bernie is because he is now a serious threat to establishment politics. He has so much massive support the MSM HAVE to talk about him.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675
    ^ now we're linking to other threads? How far we've fallen..

    The media wants to maximize profit. Plain and simple. You think too hard on this and spin yourself in circles. Why do you think Palin got so much coverage in 2008? Eyeballs. It's always about eyeballs (or clicks, today). Trump has had millions of dollars of free coverage because he is outrageous. Your accusations go against the very nature of economics. You should take macro econ to start.
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    edited March 2016
    Mrussell, it's been nice. But I'm not going through a ridiculous circle jerk w/ you again about this subject nor any other objective topic, like w/ the Arizona voter fraud last week. Done.
    Post edited by Free on
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,038
    mrussel1 said:

    ^ now we're linking to other threads? How far we've fallen..

    The media wants to maximize profit. Plain and simple. You think too hard on this and spin yourself in circles. Why do you think Palin got so much coverage in 2008? Eyeballs. It's always about eyeballs (or clicks, today). Trump has had millions of dollars of free coverage because he is outrageous. Your accusations go against the very nature of economics. You should take macro econ to start.

    mrussel, really, this is more than just a Palin or Trump style media spin we're talking about. The mainstream media is working against Bernie Sanders because, as Free pointed out Hillary is in tight with corporate America and Sanders is not. It's really that simple. No need to take an econ class to see that.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,038
    And by the way, I've been curious about this mrussel, why are you working so hard here against Sanders? How is he a threat to you? I don't get it.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675
    Free said:

    Mrussell, it's been nice. But I'm not going through a ridiculous circle w/ you again about this subject nor any other objective topic, like w/ the Arizona voter fraud last week. Done.

    No problem. Go back to researching how Hillary sabotaged JFK Jr's plane over Nantucket. Good luck with that one.
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    mrussel1 said:

    Free said:

    Mrussell, it's been nice. But I'm not going through a ridiculous circle w/ you again about this subject nor any other objective topic, like w/ the Arizona voter fraud last week. Done.

    No problem. Go back to researching how Hillary sabotaged JFK Jr's plane over Nantucket. Good luck with that one.
    At least I'm not in the closet.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675
    Free said:


    mrussel1 said:

    Free said:

    Mrussell, it's been nice. But I'm not going through a ridiculous circle w/ you again about this subject nor any other objective topic, like w/ the Arizona voter fraud last week. Done.

    No problem. Go back to researching how Hillary sabotaged JFK Jr's plane over Nantucket. Good luck with that one.
    At least I'm not in the closet.
    I don't give a shit if you're gay. More power to you.
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    :lmao:
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    a great example of how corporate media works is global warming ... there is a reason why americans are the least informed about global warming ...

    what is strange is that someone who believes media outlets are all about dollars can't understand the notion that corporate interests would look to derail a presidential candidate that may affect their profits ... that's as basic an economic principle as it gets ...
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675
    polaris_x said:

    a great example of how corporate media works is global warming ... there is a reason why americans are the least informed about global warming ...

    what is strange is that someone who believes media outlets are all about dollars can't understand the notion that corporate interests would look to derail a presidential candidate that may affect their profits ... that's as basic an economic principle as it gets ...

    I believe Fox drives an agenda from its Roger Ailes's perch, but are you telling me that Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and others on MSNBC or even CNN are having their show's agenda's written by someone in the executive wing who is trying to tamp down global warming discussion? I'm not buying that. The reason something like global warming has so many non-believers is that the right has been effective in creating hostility to traditional news sources and subsequently creates its own narrative. And then CNN and others are so sensitive to the screams of 'BIAS' that they feel obligated to point out the counter arguments, no matter how misinformed. And why are they sensitive? Because it costs them eyeballs and advertising dollars. I don't believe it's nearly as nefarious as others may think. I
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    mrussel1 said:

    polaris_x said:

    a great example of how corporate media works is global warming ... there is a reason why americans are the least informed about global warming ...

    what is strange is that someone who believes media outlets are all about dollars can't understand the notion that corporate interests would look to derail a presidential candidate that may affect their profits ... that's as basic an economic principle as it gets ...

    I believe Fox drives an agenda from its Roger Ailes's perch, but are you telling me that Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and others on MSNBC or even CNN are having their show's agenda's written by someone in the executive wing who is trying to tamp down global warming discussion? I'm not buying that. The reason something like global warming has so many non-believers is that the right has been effective in creating hostility to traditional news sources and subsequently creates its own narrative. And then CNN and others are so sensitive to the screams of 'BIAS' that they feel obligated to point out the counter arguments, no matter how misinformed. And why are they sensitive? Because it costs them eyeballs and advertising dollars. I don't believe it's nearly as nefarious as others may think. I
    so ... only Fox has a corporate agenda ... none of the other networks works on the same principles!? ... and that you think the other networks concerns on "bias" is more of a driver than parent corporate interests!? ...

    like 90% of the US media is owned by like 6 corporations ...

    the list of topics that most americans are ill-informed on vs. the rest of the world is significant ... you think that is just chance? ...
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675
    polaris_x said:

    mrussel1 said:

    polaris_x said:

    a great example of how corporate media works is global warming ... there is a reason why americans are the least informed about global warming ...

    what is strange is that someone who believes media outlets are all about dollars can't understand the notion that corporate interests would look to derail a presidential candidate that may affect their profits ... that's as basic an economic principle as it gets ...

    I believe Fox drives an agenda from its Roger Ailes's perch, but are you telling me that Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and others on MSNBC or even CNN are having their show's agenda's written by someone in the executive wing who is trying to tamp down global warming discussion? I'm not buying that. The reason something like global warming has so many non-believers is that the right has been effective in creating hostility to traditional news sources and subsequently creates its own narrative. And then CNN and others are so sensitive to the screams of 'BIAS' that they feel obligated to point out the counter arguments, no matter how misinformed. And why are they sensitive? Because it costs them eyeballs and advertising dollars. I don't believe it's nearly as nefarious as others may think. I
    so ... only Fox has a corporate agenda ... none of the other networks works on the same principles!? ... and that you think the other networks concerns on "bias" is more of a driver than parent corporate interests!? ...

    like 90% of the US media is owned by like 6 corporations ...

    the list of topics that most americans are ill-informed on vs. the rest of the world is significant ... you think that is just chance? ...
    Being ill informed is a function of our laziness and celebrity culture rather than lack of information being available. The fact that 90% of the media is owned by 6 companies (taking your word for it) creates a situation where rationally, the companies would seek to maximize its viewership, not make the content homogeneous. In fact, it's the opposite today. You get to choose the news source that appeals to your bias. Hate Obama? Well I've got Breitbart, Drudge Report and Red State.com ready for you. Hate the GOP? Well then click on over to HuffPo (#4 btw in hits), Daily Kos, Slate, Salon, Rolling Stone, any number of publications will preach to your choir.

    Our parents got their news from 60 minutes, Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings and truly center sources. It was ABC, NBC and CBS. That's it. Plus your daily newspapers. It's not that way today. And I would argue that has created this ignorance factor, rather than homogeneous news.
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,038
    How many Americans even watch the news or keep up on current events besides the 15 to 30 second sound bite that passes as "news"? I doubt this is universal. My European friends seem to think their countries are better informed. The British BBC and Guardian, for example, seem to me to provide more comprehensive, in depth and well rounded information. But we don't encourage people to be well informed. We provide "news" that is basically entertainment. Our schools generally do a poor job of teaching critical and skeptical thinking. How many high school students are encouraged to dig deep than CNN or MSNBC? It's more about training worker bees and we don't need or want our worker bees to be too concerned about what's going on, right? The media sources that tend to dig deeper are generally not even known about by the average American because of that very lack of sound education. So you get these little sound bites that paint a picture of what Bernie Sanders is about and before you know it, he's being labeled things he is not (socialist as opposed to democratic socialist, etc.).
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675
    brianlux said:

    How many Americans even watch the news or keep up on current events besides the 15 to 30 second sound bite that passes as "news"? I doubt this is universal. My European friends seem to think their countries are better informed. The British BBC and Guardian, for example, seem to me to provide more comprehensive, in depth and well rounded information. But we don't encourage people to be well informed. We provide "news" that is basically entertainment. Our schools generally do a poor job of teaching critical and skeptical thinking. How many high school students are encouraged to dig deep than CNN or MSNBC? It's more about training worker bees and we don't need or want our worker bees to be too concerned about what's going on, right? The media sources that tend to dig deeper are generally not even known about by the average American because of that very lack of sound education. So you get these little sound bites that paint a picture of what Bernie Sanders is about and before you know it, he's being labeled things he is not (socialist as opposed to democratic socialist, etc.).

    I agree with everything you are saying, except for the part in Bold. I don't believe there is a centralized plot to keep Americans uninformed so that Exxon can hit its quarterly numbers, or Fox can get you to watch American Idol again. That is very Orwellian and there are too many media sources out there that find conspiracy in everything.

    Let's flip to the other side. How many people on the right were convinced that Jade Helm was simple the precursor to martial law in this country and Obama disbanding the states for long term Federal rule. The right wing media was all over it. Every day... It was so bad that the crazy ass governor of TX made a statement that he would instruct the Rangers to "monitor them". Jade Helm ended and the right wing congratulated itself for stopping the federal takeover. Everyone center to the left thought they were fucking nuts. And they were. We just have to be careful not to fall into the same trap.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    mrussel1 said:

    polaris_x said:

    mrussel1 said:

    polaris_x said:

    a great example of how corporate media works is global warming ... there is a reason why americans are the least informed about global warming ...

    what is strange is that someone who believes media outlets are all about dollars can't understand the notion that corporate interests would look to derail a presidential candidate that may affect their profits ... that's as basic an economic principle as it gets ...

    I believe Fox drives an agenda from its Roger Ailes's perch, but are you telling me that Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and others on MSNBC or even CNN are having their show's agenda's written by someone in the executive wing who is trying to tamp down global warming discussion? I'm not buying that. The reason something like global warming has so many non-believers is that the right has been effective in creating hostility to traditional news sources and subsequently creates its own narrative. And then CNN and others are so sensitive to the screams of 'BIAS' that they feel obligated to point out the counter arguments, no matter how misinformed. And why are they sensitive? Because it costs them eyeballs and advertising dollars. I don't believe it's nearly as nefarious as others may think. I
    so ... only Fox has a corporate agenda ... none of the other networks works on the same principles!? ... and that you think the other networks concerns on "bias" is more of a driver than parent corporate interests!? ...

    like 90% of the US media is owned by like 6 corporations ...

    the list of topics that most americans are ill-informed on vs. the rest of the world is significant ... you think that is just chance? ...
    Being ill informed is a function of our laziness and celebrity culture rather than lack of information being available. The fact that 90% of the media is owned by 6 companies (taking your word for it) creates a situation where rationally, the companies would seek to maximize its viewership, not make the content homogeneous. In fact, it's the opposite today. You get to choose the news source that appeals to your bias. Hate Obama? Well I've got Breitbart, Drudge Report and Red State.com ready for you. Hate the GOP? Well then click on over to HuffPo (#4 btw in hits), Daily Kos, Slate, Salon, Rolling Stone, any number of publications will preach to your choir.

    Our parents got their news from 60 minutes, Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings and truly center sources. It was ABC, NBC and CBS. That's it. Plus your daily newspapers. It's not that way today. And I would argue that has created this ignorance factor, rather than homogeneous news.
    it's a bit of a chicken and the egg argument ... although I definitely agree with the laziness of the general public ... there is still manipulation going on ... ever read "trust us, we're experts" ...

    corporations have a long history of trying to control messaging ... how that doesn't translate to media outlets to maintain profitability across all sectors to you escapes me ...
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675
    polaris_x said:

    mrussel1 said:

    polaris_x said:

    mrussel1 said:

    polaris_x said:

    a great example of how corporate media works is global warming ... there is a reason why americans are the least informed about global warming ...

    what is strange is that someone who believes media outlets are all about dollars can't understand the notion that corporate interests would look to derail a presidential candidate that may affect their profits ... that's as basic an economic principle as it gets ...

    I believe Fox drives an agenda from its Roger Ailes's perch, but are you telling me that Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and others on MSNBC or even CNN are having their show's agenda's written by someone in the executive wing who is trying to tamp down global warming discussion? I'm not buying that. The reason something like global warming has so many non-believers is that the right has been effective in creating hostility to traditional news sources and subsequently creates its own narrative. And then CNN and others are so sensitive to the screams of 'BIAS' that they feel obligated to point out the counter arguments, no matter how misinformed. And why are they sensitive? Because it costs them eyeballs and advertising dollars. I don't believe it's nearly as nefarious as others may think. I
    so ... only Fox has a corporate agenda ... none of the other networks works on the same principles!? ... and that you think the other networks concerns on "bias" is more of a driver than parent corporate interests!? ...

    like 90% of the US media is owned by like 6 corporations ...

    the list of topics that most americans are ill-informed on vs. the rest of the world is significant ... you think that is just chance? ...
    Being ill informed is a function of our laziness and celebrity culture rather than lack of information being available. The fact that 90% of the media is owned by 6 companies (taking your word for it) creates a situation where rationally, the companies would seek to maximize its viewership, not make the content homogeneous. In fact, it's the opposite today. You get to choose the news source that appeals to your bias. Hate Obama? Well I've got Breitbart, Drudge Report and Red State.com ready for you. Hate the GOP? Well then click on over to HuffPo (#4 btw in hits), Daily Kos, Slate, Salon, Rolling Stone, any number of publications will preach to your choir.

    Our parents got their news from 60 minutes, Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings and truly center sources. It was ABC, NBC and CBS. That's it. Plus your daily newspapers. It's not that way today. And I would argue that has created this ignorance factor, rather than homogeneous news.
    it's a bit of a chicken and the egg argument ... although I definitely agree with the laziness of the general public ... there is still manipulation going on ... ever read "trust us, we're experts" ...

    corporations have a long history of trying to control messaging ... how that doesn't translate to media outlets to maintain profitability across all sectors to you escapes me ...
    You're right, corps do have that history. I'm sure you remember Yellow Journalism from your HS history days. Garrison and Hearst were the greatest purveyors of lies to advance their interests. It's the point I've made in the past, that there should be no illusion of fair journalism. It's never been the case in the States nor should we expect it. But I think the bias is associated with the political parties. And the political parties are connected to the corps OR special interest groups. It's not a top down management of message IMO. Liberals are just as guilty of it as the right is.
  • callencallen Posts: 6,388
    polaris_x said:

    a great example of how corporate media works is global warming ... there is a reason why americans are the least informed about global warming ...

    what is strange is that someone who believes media outlets are all about dollars can't understand the notion that corporate interests would look to derail a presidential candidate that may affect their profits ... that's as basic an economic principle as it gets ...

    Americans aren't the least informed. Many may ignore or dismiss data but it's available and distributed.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675
    callen said:

    polaris_x said:

    a great example of how corporate media works is global warming ... there is a reason why americans are the least informed about global warming ...

    what is strange is that someone who believes media outlets are all about dollars can't understand the notion that corporate interests would look to derail a presidential candidate that may affect their profits ... that's as basic an economic principle as it gets ...

    Americans aren't the least informed. Many may ignore or dismiss data but it's available and distributed.
    For Americans, informed and badly misinformed can be the same thing. In statistics, it's called Confirmation Bias. You know the answer you want, so you seek information to support the preconceived conclusion. And shockingly, you find it.
Sign In or Register to comment.