DID you see Bernie Sanders on Reliable Sources just now?

[napi21]

The topic was "How the Press Handles Politics". He did a GREAT JOB! He explained why it's harmful for the Press to only cover errors, mistakes, personalities, looks, etc. and not the ISSUE POSITIONS. He reminded the host that a poll taken last year asked "What party controls the House, the Senate, their State assembly, their Governorship?" The response proved that 60% of Americans either didn't know or got the answer wrong! He blamed the Press. He again committed to not using negative ads. Criticism is fine and Should be what all politicians use to differentiate themselves from their opponents, but NEVER personality, race, age, etc.

I HOPE he appears on many more MSM shows for exposure to a lot more people. I believe if people see &hesar his positions, he really could be President Sanders!

[Duckhunter935]

1. Bernie is great

And never takes the bait of attacking Hillary. The pundits get mad when he puts them back on real topics.

[awoke_in_2003]

34. Taking the high road...

The jackals in the media hate that

[daleanime]

2. Missed it....

will look for it later. Thanks for the heads up.

[brooklynite]

3. How could I see Bernie Sanders? Everyone knows the media is ignoring him...

...or so I'm told here.

[erronis]

7. Would everyone post an internet-available link when adding these topics, please?

I know we can go to the cloudy NSA/google engine to find it ourselves but just out of consideration.

Also, many of us don't have any t.v. (on purpose) since M$M and having to watch shows based on a "schedule" is too much like "programming."

[KoKo]

10. Here is the link to Bernie's Video at CNN's "Reliable Sources:"

Bernie Sanders slams press for campaign coverage

Reliable Sources | Source: CNN

Added on 12:05 PM ET, Fri May 22, 2015

Video At......

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/05/22/rs-candidate-bernie-sanders.cnn

[erronis]

13. Many thanks, KoKo and napi21!

[KoKo]

14. BTW: You need to go in about two minutes for the start of the whole thing....

There's a short snip of Bernie from the week before before the full interview with Bernie about the Media. It's a good watch.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

23. I half expected them to break away to cover Hillary arriving somewhere.....

Oh! And LOOK! The tab on the zipper of her dress isn't tucked in!!!

She's practically NAKED!!!

[hedda_foil]

25. Thank you for the link, KoKo.What a terrific interview!

I haven't watched Reliable Sources since the days of Mistuh Kurtz. Brian Stelter is a revelation to me... a breath of fresh air. If this interview is representative of his questioning style, I've got to start watching the show.

[Paka]

38. Great interview.

Thanks for the link. Those of us without a tv appreciate it.

[MrMickeysMom]

43. I'll bookmark this for later!

Thanks, KoKo

[Rockyj]

55. Thank you...

Senator Bernie Sanders always REMAINS a TRUE patriot & statesman!

[napi21]

11. I tried to find a web version and the closest I found

is here.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/reliable-sources-audio/id466789756?mt=2

Todays show isn't up yet, but it looks like they put the podcast up sometime the same day.

[AgingAmerican]

26. He is referring to this

[rhett o rick]

44. I am glad you agree that the Corp-Media (owned by major corporations) are ignoring the candidate

of the people. H. Clinton seems to be the corporations favorite to the tune of an anticipated $2 BILLION dollars.

So I ask you, why would a Democrat choose the corporate candidate over the people's candidate when the Democratic Party is supposed to be the people's party.

[brooklynite]

48. Perhaps because the "people's candidate" won't be able to get the people to vote for him?

And having racked up 18 million votes last time, I'm guessing that Hillary Clinton will be the "people's choice".

[rhett o rick]

50. She is clearly Wall Streets choice. The billions they have to buy the election

may be hard to overcome but the Populist Movement will not be denied.

Sad that you don't care if the Plutocratic-Oligarchs buy this election and you choose to side with them.

There are two sides to this class war and you apparently choose the side of the 1%.

[brooklynite]

51. Actually, there are three sides...

...you're forgetting the Republican candidate, the polling suggests Clinton can beat, and nobody suggests Bernie can.

[rhett o rick]

53. I didn't forget the Republicons. The Oligarchs will give them some support but they

will be happy with a Clinton win.

[daleanime]

54. So in your opinion Bernie is a weaker candidate then any of the possible republicans....

then she should have no problem winning the Democratic primary. Well, I guess I mean the voting primary, since she has already won the money primary.

[brooklynite]

58. Any of the Republicans likely to win the nomination? Yes.

[daleanime]

59. And Hillary can beat them?

[brooklynite]

60. Based on polling and the political profile of the States in play? Absolutely.

[daleanime]

61. Then it should be no problem......

for her in dealing with a Sanders campaign.


Too bad for me that I would rather do the right thing then the easy thing. Hillary's got a couple of billion to keep the lights on, all I can do is roll up my sleeves.

[AgingAmerican]

62. If Bernie beats Hillary

He slaughters the GOP candidate.

[frylock]

83. it's laughable to believe otherwise

[DJ13]

56. Actually, there are three sides....you're forgetting the Republican candidate

You're forgetting how the elites play the game.

They spend on the Republicans, and they spend on the "sure fire" Democrat.

They cant lose that way.

Same money, same fiscal policies as a result.

[Dustlawyer]

57. The Plutocrats prefer the Democrat in their pocket to the Republican.

A Democrat will help to blunt their Party's opposition and the Republicans will still support it, case in point, the TPP!

[LanternWaste]

70. I like to take benign statements and pretend they're de-facto positions too.

I like to take benign statements and pretend they're de-facto positions too. It let's us use the reductio ad absurdum fallacy and assist the pretense that we too are making a valid point.

[morningfog]

76. Snarky and dismissive, but not quite accurate.

Bernie gets a good bit of air time, thankfully. But his air time is all him. He is doing interviews, providing commentary, debating, etc.

What the media refuses to do is discuss his candidacy as legitimate. They do not report on his campaign or him. He's doing it. See the difference?

[brooklynite]

79. I see..so Bernie shows up out of the blue and knocks on the door at CNN?

CNBC?
MSNBC?

If your complaint is that nobody's covering his thoughtful policies, here's a hint: they're not covering the thoughtful policies of any other candidate (Republican or Democrat)

[redstateblues]

77. That excuse

Will not last long. He's had lots of coverage lately.

[frylock]

82. get some new material ffs

[woo me with science]

4. Bernie is doing this nation a crucial service.

He is reteaching Americans what a representative electoral process is supposed to look like.

He is reminding us what we have a right to expect from applicants to be our representatives, and from our media....

...and exposing by sheer contrast how sick and insulting and predatory the standard, manipulative MO of our corporate politicians and their mouthpieces really is.

He is exposing the difference between real representative government and the fake, contemptuous "democracy theater" of oligarchy.

[locks]

5. Yes I did

so good to hear a candidate talk about the issues and not the personality attacks

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

52. Yes, it's quite refreshing I must say. And Bernie probably doesn't have pollsters tellin him what isues he should duck.

[floriduck]

6. Bernie did his usual awesome.

I'm still doubtful that corporate-owned media will give him coverage further into the race UNLESS he makes Hillary look like the Wall Street shill that she has always been.

[erronis]

8. How about we get the personality/ownership discussion out there and let Bernie deal with issues?

My guess is that anyone who relies on M$M has already bought into that network's lede. There's really no reason to spend money or effort on the mostly-RW/corporate media.

I'm not sure any more about NPR (don't see PBS). Some of my liberal friends are quite strongly convinced that they are no longer impartial.

That leaves, as little as I know, the internet to try to get facts and real news out there. Of course, only watching the sites that we have an affinity for is a dangerous bubble-inducing situation.

[Agschmid]

45. It's highly doubtful that is his strategy, he has said as much.

[MADem]

9. I hope that they put that up on the web--sounds like it would be worth seeing!

It's a great message to put forth, and I'm so glad he was given the opportunity to express it.

[KoKo]

12. Napi....You can Cut and Paste the Video Link to Bernie into your OP from here:

Bernie Sanders slams press for campaign coverage

Reliable Sources | Source: CNN

Added on 12:05 PM ET, Fri May 22, 2015

Video At......

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/05/22/rs-candidate-bernie-sanders.cnn

[jwirr]

15. That was a good interview. And come to think about it - that is the difference between the "news"

today and the news pre-raygun. Issues. They did not ignore the mistakes but they also talked about the issues.

[Jackpine Radical]

18. That was before the media got totally co-opted as a propaganda mechanism

for the Owner class.

[jwirr]

19. Yes.

[whereisjustice]

16. Good interview, good discussion, highly recommended viewing eom

[PearliePoo2]

17. Senator Sanders just makes total sense.

Every thing he says is so simple, basic and true.
How could everyone NOT get this?
K&R

[Spitfire of ATJ]

20. He usually gets introduced as "Bernie Sanders - Hillary Challenger".

[Gregorian]

21. I have ONE representative who speaks for me. ONE!

You would think that maybe one quarter of Congress would represent people like me.

I am fearful that Bernie isn't the beginning of something new, but the last of something that was.

[hrmjustin]

22. Sanders was great.

[greytdemocrat]

24. No

The response proved that 60% of Americans either didn't know or got the answer wrong! He blamed the Press.

He's wrong there. Blame the 60%

[AgingAmerican]

27. They don't know

Because the press doesn't do it's job.

[Cosmocat]

36. That is the symptom,not the cause

people eagerly lap up the republican bullshit/reality TV bullshit, THAT is the problem.

So, the press advances republican memes, horse race and sideshow bullshit.

If people had the first lick of sense, and held the media/republicans accountable, it would be different.

[whatthehey]

88. Then how do we 40% know? Are those avenues closed to the 60% for some reason?

Paying attention for example, giving a shit for another? Other than Fox's laughably "isolated errors" of refering to all disgraced politicians of either party as Democrats, even the most worthless redneck rag or gabfest mentions the party affiliation of legislative and executive bodies from time to time. Want to bet how many of that 60% know the name of their starting QB instead? Because they give a shit about that.

[Cosmocat]

35. AGREED!

nm

[Purveyor]

28. Video: Bernie Sanders Slams Press For Campaign Coverage On CNN's Reliable Sources

[eloydude]

29. It's perfect... Just perfect lead..

"Sanders asks why his only coverage is for attacking Clinton"

Thank you M$M, for answering his own question....

[bigwillq]

30. No (nt)

[ZX86]

31. There is no love lost between Hilliary and the corporate media.

She should join Bernie in shaming the media for their presidential campaign coverage that obsesses on gossip, manufactured scandal, and horse race dynamics.

[7962]

32. I dont blme the press, i blame the idiots for not paying any attention.

It amazes me how many people dont even know who their GOVERNOR is.
But they damn well know who every Kardashian is banging

[napi21]

33. I won't exonerate the public completely, but the Press is most guilty.

THEIR JOB is to inform the public of important issues & stories. They seem to think the only things of interest are car wrecks, shootings, riots, gossip, etc. That was proven when Bernie blamed the Press for not covering the issues, and the host's response was "What will keep the viewer's interest and keep them from turning the dial?"

I grew up in the Walter Cronkite era when NEWS was NEWS. Then the networks decided the news should make money for them, nd it all went to sh*t.

[sufrommich]

37. I grew up in the Cronkite era too. The worst thing that ever happened

to our news media was 24 hour so called news channels. They're right on par with reality shows and their only fear is that your remote control option will eat into their advertising revenue.All politicians need to stop playing along with the farce,including Hillary. They need to be called out every single time they pull this shit.

[7962]

40. Thats the problem, No one WATCHES the news like they used to!

regardless of what 'news' is on. Look at their ratings, nothing like 30 yrs ago

[KingCharlemagne]

39. 10% of the population owns 80% of the wealth. So what fucking difference does it make

to the bottom 90% who the goddamned governor is?

[7962]

41. Well then, I guess you dont bitch about Fox.

Dont you think Bernie Sanders would be a lot bigger factor if people were paying attention? Why do you think Hillary and Jeb are in the lead? Simply because more people know their name.

[rhett o rick]

46. Propaganda works that's why it's used. The Plutocratic-Oligarchs buy propaganda and

that's why the public hears about Clinton and Bush.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

42. I don't have a problem with Bernie doing this at all...

...he's doing the eventual Democratic nominee a huge service in this regard.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[rhett o rick]

49. You think the billions "donated" by Wall Street will win out over the power

of the People?

Support democracy, vote Sen Sanders.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

63. No. You think that.

I think the most popular and qualified of the nominees will win the Presidency.

...and she'll do an amazing job.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[rhett o rick]

64. But Sen Warren isn't running. Funny how people suddenly believe in the system if

it looks like it is good for their candidate. I don't doubt that the billionaire will get Clinton elected. And I don't doubt that she will do an amazing job. And she might even do somethings to help the 99%, but I think she will support her billionaire friends and supporters.

And I think you recognize that but seem to root for the billionaires. Do you think they will be generous? Maybe let us eat cake?

Sen Sanders is the people's candidate and while the Oligarchs may buy the election, they can't stop the Populist Movement.

We are in a class war and it seems like you are not on the side of the 99%.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

66. You're hilarious, rhett

I love hyper-leftist bravado. It's pretty amusing.

It will be even more amusing when Hillary rolls to her natural, overwhelming, victory for the Democratic nomination, going up against Rubio (most likely), or maybe Walker or Bush. Just FYI, Warren isn't running because Hillary is in the race.

So let me be clear. You don't speak for the majority of the people, much less 99% of them, other than in your own little mind. Money doesn't cast votes in elections - if it did, only Republicans would ever win. People do - which is why Democrats win. But when I say Democrats, I don't mean frustrated old Communists who spend 95% of their time bashing Democrats, either. And if you start campaigning against the Democratic nominee in the general, I certainly hope that Skinner suspends your posting privileges.

By the way, I like Senator Warren. She's far more rational that your support would lead one to believe. In fact, if Bernie or Warren actually by some act of God made it to the Presidency, I don't doubt that you'd immediately start bleating about them "betraying" you. That's how you roll. That's what you did to Obama.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[rhett o rick]

67. Insulting me won't make any difference. Maybe makes you feel taller. I don't for a minute

think that you believe that money has no effect on elections. You've chosen to side with the billionaires and gloat. That's your choice. Funny that you call me a radical for fighting for the 99%. I guess that's where the Democratic Party has moved today. Killing innocent people via drone or poverty is normal, and fighting for peace and no poverty is radical.

Gloat while you can and maybe the billionaires will use their fortunes to make Clinton the president, but sooner or later the Populist Movement will win.

You are not fooling anyone by pretending that $2 BILLION dollars won't influence the voters.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

68. Please, rhett... you spew insults almost faster than you breathe

(or at least what you perceive as insults)

I don't call you a "radical for fighting for the 99%". I call you a radical because you actually BELIEVE you're fighting for 99% of the people in this country. Here's a clue: whenever 99% of Americans want something done, it gets done. Your natural constituency, who you speak for, is about the 5%.

Yes, I understand rhetorical bravado. And really, I have less a problem with moving the nation in the direction of taking care of the least among us. However, your pretense that Democrats are somehow as awful as Republicans, would be insulting if it weren't so funny.

And yes, donations can help. But they're by no means determinative. And often, it's not that money makes a candidate popular, but rather that popular candidates get given money.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[rhett o rick]

69. I am having trouble with your "reality based" logic. First of all it's a fact of politics and

of life in general that money buys influence. That's the basis of advertising and donating to campaigns. Why are some people so upset with Citizens United? Because it opens the flood gate of money to buy elections. Secondly, why would corporations donate to a popular candidate other than for quid pro quo? Corporations are required to make profits and view donations to campaigns as investments.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

73. When was the last time money bought your influence?

I'm curious.

As far as I can tell, all money really buys is an audience. If you don't have a winning message, it's completely wasted. Your audience will give you nothing.

By the way, it's not actually corporations themselves that make the donations. If you were at all informed you would know that both corporations and unions are forbidden by Federal law from donating to political parties or candidate committees. Rather, the money comes from their organizations' individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families - or their PACs, which are similarly funded.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[rhett o rick]

74. Oh plez. Corporations have all their execs give to the campaign. That's not fooling anyone

is it?

When I say you rely on insults, this is what I mean, "If you were at all informed you would know ". Of course you are making the assumption that I don't know that.

Support Sen Sanders, the candidate for the people.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

80. It's not an "insult" to use the clear meaning of your words in context

You said, and I quote directly: "Secondly, why would corporations donate to a popular candidate other than for quid pro quo?"

Which is written with the clear misunderstanding that "corporations donate", when doing so is explicitly illegal. So there is no assumption here, other than directly using your words.

If you want to walk it back, that's fine. But don't go pretending you're getting the vapors over me pointing out what you said.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[rhett o rick]

85. Your word games don't change the facts that corporations donate millions by "encouraging" their

executives to donate. You choose to side with the corporations and not the people. Goldman-Sachs uber alles.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

86. If you want your words to mean something other than they explicitly mean...

...then it's not someone else's "word games" to use those words in context.

Because you use scare-quotes, you also clearly don't understand that the millions that this "encouragement" of people to donate, cannot include any threat or retaliation if you don't. Unions do the very same "encouragement", which is nothing more than simply asking people for political donations to a PAC. This is why many companies, including Goldman-Sachs, donate to both political parties. It's because some of the employees are democratic, and others are republican.

Further, there is absolutely no evidence that this represents the preponderance of political donations in this country. Millions is about right, while independent expenditures represent billions.

The real problem isn't corporations. It's a handful of billionaires who own corporations.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[LanternWaste]

71. Almost as amusing as pretending "qualified" is an objective term.

"I love hyper-leftist bravado. It's pretty amusing."

Almost as amusing as pretending "qualified" is an objective term beyond the enumerated qualifications already in place.

Actually, more than almost...

[LordGlenconner]

75. It really has become parody

The melodrama that will play out on these pages when it becomes clear "Bernie" is not going to be the nominee is not to be missed.

There's not enough popcorn in the world...

[rhett o rick]

78. Sen Sanders may not be able to overcome the huge financial donations that HRC will get.

I don't understand how some here see that as a Democratic victory. The Democratic Party is supposed to be the party of the people and yet some here relish the fact that our party can be bought by Goldman-Sachs and don't give a crap about the poverty our children are living in.

How sad that some choose to side with the big money. And they have the nerve to call themselves Democrats.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

81. Actually, I won't gloat when he loses

I really have no problem with Bernie. Some of his supporters, on the other hand, who bash Hillary with the same tired Republican lies... well that annoys me.

You want to complain about Hillary's voting record? Fine. You won't win, but fine. You want to start bitching about Benghazi or pretending that the Clinton Foundation is some terribly nefarious scheme like the Republicans do? Then screw you.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[rhett o rick]

84. I have never once mentioned Benghazi nor will I ever. I do mention that she betrayed the

Democratic Party, the American people, and the millions in Iraq whose lives were ended or ruined because she wanted to help her friend George W. Bush sell his lies about WMD in Iraq. She chose to give up her Democratic principles and join the Republicons in the need to kill a million innocent Iraqi's because they had WMD. She knew better but chose to join the Republicons.

The conservatives loved the Iraq war. It made them a lot of money. Billions. They have no empathy for the lives lost.

[LordGlenconner]

89. I'm very meh on Hillary

Last edited Thu May 28, 2015, 01:11 PM - Edit history (1)

But the "Bernie" supporters here are changing that.

Your role as self appointed "decider" of what makes one a real Democrat and what makes one not a real Democrat could not possibly be less relevant to me.

[YOHABLO]

47. Back when I was editor of my high school year book, I made sure at least two pages were

dedicated to the Watergate Scandal that rocked the nation and brought down Richard Nixon. I thought it was the right thing to do. I wanted people to remember an era and it's significance in U.S. history. You think today high school year books are dedicating any room for politics? I doubt it.

[woo me with science]

65. K&R. He points out the perversion of our democracy itself.

He points out how deliberately sick the corporate messaging has become.


My new favorite example is all the Third Way lecturing in this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026725626

that it's RUDE to bring up Hillary's war policies on Memorial Day!

You see, it's a plastic, corporate holiday now, for cheering empty platitudes about peace from the very politicians who vote for the wars of profit and orchestrate the bloodshed.

[Luminous Animal]

72. I think you will like this from Howard Zinn

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Society/MemorialDay_Zinn.html

Whom Will We Honor Memorial Day?
by Howard Zinn, 1976
from the Zinn Reader


Memorial Day will be celebrated ... by the usual betrayal of the dead, by the hypocritical patriotism of the politicians and contractors preparing for more wars, more graves to receive more flowers on future Memorial Days. The memory of the dead deserves a different dedication. To peace, to defiance of governments.
In 1974, I was invited by Tom Winship, the editor of the Boston Globe, who had been bold enough in 1971 to print part of the top secret Pentagon Papers on the history of the Vietnam War, to write a bi-weekly column for the op-ed page of the newspaper. I did that for about a year and a half. The column below appeared June 2, 1976, in connection with that year's Memorial Day. After it appeared, my column was canceled.

Memorial Day will be celebrated as usual, by high-speed collisions of automobiles and bodies strewn on highways and the sound of ambulance sirens throughout the land.

It will also be celebrated by the display of flags, the sound of bugles and drums, by parades and speeches and unthinking applause.

It will be celebrated by giant corporations, which make guns, bombs, fighter planes, aircraft carriers and an endless assortment of military junk and which await the $100 billion in contracts to be approved soon by Congress and the President.

There was a young woman in New Hampshire who refused to allow her husband, killed in Vietnam, to be given a military burial. She rejected the hollow ceremony ordered by those who sent him and 50,000 others to their deaths. Her courage should be cherished on Memorial Day. There were the B52 pilots who refused to fly those last vicious raids of Nixon's and Kissinger's war. Have any of the great universities, so quick to give honorary degrees to God-knows-whom, thought to honor those men at this Commencement time, on this Memorial Day?

No politician who voted funds for war, no business contractor for the military, no general who ordered young men into battle, no FBI man who spied on anti-war activities, should be invited to public ceremonies on this sacred day. Let the dead of past wars he honored. Let those who live pledge themselves never to embark on mass slaughter again.

"The shell had his number on it. The blood ran into the ground...Where his chest ought to have been they pinned the Congressional Medal, the DSC, the Medaille Militaire, the Belgian Croix de Guerre, the Italian gold medal, The Vitutea Militara sent by Queen Marie of Rumania. All the Washingtonians brought flowers .. Woodrow Wilson brought a bouquet of poppies."

Those are the concluding lines of John Dos Passos angry novel 1919. Let us honor him on Memorial Day.

And also Thoreau, who went to jail to protest the Mexican War.

And Mark Twain, who denounced our war against the Filipinos at the turn of the century.

And I.F. Stone, who virtually alone among newspaper editors exposed the fraud and brutality of the Korean War.

Let us honor Martin Luther King, who refused the enticements of the White House, and the cautions of associates, and thundered against the war in Vietnam.
Memorial Day should be a day for putting flowers on graves and planting trees. Also, for destroying the weapons of death that endanger us more than they protect us, that waste our resources and threaten our children and grandchildren.

On Memorial Day we should take note that, in the name of "defense," our taxes have been used to spend a quarter of a billion dollars on a helicopter assault ship called "the biggest floating lemon," which was accepted by the Navy although it had over 2,000 major defects at the time of its trial cruise.

Meanwhile, there is such a shortage of housing that millions live in dilapidated sections of our cities and millions more are forced to pay high rents or high interest rates on their mortgages. There's 90 billion for the B1 bomber, but people don't have money to pay hospital bills.

We must be practical, say those whose practicality has consisted of a war every generation. We mustn't deplete our defenses. Say those who have depleted our youth, stolen our resources. In the end, it is living people, not corpses, creative energy, not destructive rage, which are our only real defense, not just against other governments trying to kill us, but against our own, also trying to kill us.

Let us not set out, this Memorial Day, on the same old drunken ride to death.

[L0oniX]

87. ^^^this^^^

plastic, corporate holiday now, for cheering empty platitudes about peace from the very politicians who vote for the wars of profit and orchestrate the bloodshed