2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPlease spare us the stupidity that the media is biased against Bernie.
The media is so anti-Hillary it's not even funny. First, they obsess constantly over the email story that was never anything and will never be anything. And the same Berners complaining about the media know this because the post 8000 media stories about the emails every day.
And then, for months the media have been pretending that this is an actual contest when it's been over since March. Bernie's been able to take advantage of that pretty well too. Every time there's a new "super Tuesday" Bernie acts like it's going to be the decisive day of the primaries. Then he gets his ass kicked and totally forgets about how the last one was supposed to be decisive, now it's the next "super Tuesday" that is the real important one, and the media lap it up.
Remember New York? For weeks Bernie went around saying he was going to win New York and that would be the decisive state. He got destroyed in New York, of course, but it wouldn't even matter if he had won. Hillary could have lost New York and still easily won the nomination. The whole thing has been a false narrative, he's lost over and over and the media keep giving him "do-overs".
It's not that the media is evil, it's that they want ratings. Hyping up Clinton non-scandals are good for ratings. Pretending that the Democratic primary hasn't been over for months is good for ratings. What's not good for ratings is the boring truth: Hillary effectively clinched in March and the emails are a small red-tape infraction that people only care about because the media is obsessed with it.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)but that's what makes your OPs so fun
YouDig
(2,280 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)you want to pretend there is more than one kind of MSM.
what you know or think may or may not be a factor in what you
are trying to put across,
but it is somewhat charming that Clinton supporters have a hard time
with certain issues and historical aspects, making it difficult to post a coherent remark.
assuming, of course that their oversights are simply a mistake.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The voters thinks differently.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)people heard Trump and Sanders speak, the less the people liked them. Sanders got a ton of media coverage leading up to the New York primary. And that's when his momentum started to slow down. He seemed like a grouchy old man in New York. The media started to actually ask him difficult questions.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)do not have time to research politicians pick Hillary because name recognition. Her record is a disaster.
Snarkoleptic
(6,002 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Snarkoleptic
(6,002 posts)Especially telling when you watch his eyes as he seems to be receiving negative feedback from someone (Comcast censor/producer?) to his left.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)They always cry "liberal media!" because the media DARES to report negative stories about Republicans/Conservatives. Well, they also report POSITIVE stories, equally (because I read them all the time). This is how Faux News came into being.
Just because the media DARES to report negative stories about Secretary Clinton (and also report POSITIVE stories since I read them all the time) then the media must be in the tank for her opponents.
Yes, the media is about ratings. It has to be because that's what pays their bills.
Do you want a media outlet that does nothing but praise Secretary Clinton? Then, start your own version of Faux News...
reddread
(6,896 posts)YouDig
(2,280 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)*whoosh!*
YouDig
(2,280 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)One long whine about how the media is soooooo mean to Secretary Clinton.
You only mentioned Senator Sanders in your subject line as a comparison tactic. In that, you failed.
...and your transparency page is showing. Not good for someone here since only April. I suggest that you should read this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
YouDig
(2,280 posts)Like this one.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512120989
So if you're honest in this, you'll go post in that thread too about how Berners whining about the media are just like right-wingers.
We'll see.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...especially from you. How's the reading of the TOS going?
YouDig
(2,280 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Maybe I will after I mow my lawn...
YouDig
(2,280 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Who have INDEED been biased towards Secretary Clinton (not Chris Hayes - not sure why he's included). Again, I watch almost all of those shows (except for Andrea Mitchell because I'm at work during her show) and, because both Tweety and Rachel are VERY close to the DNC establishment (something they wouldn't deny), a DNC led by one of the most un-Democratic chairpersons I can ever recall (and I've been in this rodeo since '72), Wasserman-Schultz, their bias is against anyone who might challenge that establishment in any way, like Senator Sanders has done.
Nice try, but another fail. You're really racking them up there. Are you done reading the TOS yet?
YouDig
(2,280 posts)I love the TOS. Especially the part about voting for Dems. How do you feel about voting for Dems?
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Always. I first became involved with the Democratic Party in 1972, when I stuffed envelopes and handed out campaign lit for Senator George McGovern at the age of 7 (and repeated that for Jimmy Carter 2x). My first POTUS vote was for Walter Mondale in 1984.
**On edit** I also voted for President Clinton 2x, his VP (for POTUS) and Secretary Clinton (for US Senator) in 2000, and again for Secretary Clinton in 2006 (and met and shook President Clinton's hand that year). Should Secretary Clinton get the nom in Philly, I will vote for her in November as well.
Your OP made no mention of specific media personalities, just the media in general (nor did you link in that post that contains the graphic in question). I responded to your OP, and your challenge to judge the graphic that set you off. I judged it to be (almost) accurate (I haven't seen CH showing bias one way or another, and I watch him every night). Sorry, but it just is.
You love the TOS? Love must be making you blind since you appear to not absorbed much from it. 5 hides in a month and a half kinda proves that, Sparky...
YouDig
(2,280 posts)I detailed in the OP. The idea that those people at MSNBC are anti-Bernie is just another of the many delusional excuses that Berners have made for their failed campaign. And you've shown your hypocrisy clearly by accusing me of being like conservatives when discussing media bias and then doing it yourself.
Glad you'll be voting for Hillary in November.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)All my responses went *swoosh*, clear over your head. I made my points. You failed to comprehend them on any basic level.
Thanks for playing, Sparky!
YouDig
(2,280 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to be org which translated to Greek theater picking on and abusing them. They so easily smear and harm reputations without facts.
Sanders has transferred his lifetime chip on the should to his supporters.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Another one that needs to read the TOS. 13???
Oh, and do you comprehend that you, and others from Camp Weathervane who have also been misbehaving, are actually chasing AWAY potential votes for Secretary Clinton in November?
Think about that...
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)TheFarseer
(9,328 posts)And Hillary had about 100% name recognition so saying almost anything about an election is going to help the 3% guy. So 24 hour political TV should never say anything about a presidential election to avoid being biased - brilliant. Btw, for about 2 months when they talk about the election, it's to ask when will Bernie drop out, so I don't think that is meant to be favorable.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)The have more recently started treating him like they treat Clinton and other democrats.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)The super PAC Correct the Record takes advantage of an Internet exemption rule, creating videos that look and sound like campaign ads, but are posted on its website and social media accounts. The rule exempts the videos from regulation. A recent anti-Trump video created by Correct the Record was aired 18 times for free on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. A typical spot run during commercial breaks on these networks costs upward of $25,000.
Light that one up and smoke it.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)or so we've been told
book_worm
(15,951 posts)while Bernie has gotten along relatively mild media criticism.
rock
(13,218 posts)Just biased against the truth if it costs them copy. I.e. they'll spin it any way you want (that makes them the most money). So, they're not biased against Sanders (as long as he'll draw ratings!).
JudyM
(29,294 posts)and she has demonstrated through her actions that she is makes abominable decisions, practices pay-to-play even with foreign policy/weapons sales, is a poster child for crony capitalism and campaign finance corruption, flaunts a double standard in following rules, shall I go on?
"Effective?" "Positive role model for young girls?" Please spare us the stupidity.