I can only figure out one reason the press would be so solidly behind Hillary.

[JDPriestly]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280148402#post43

This on top of the Washington Post's clearly pro-Hillary stance.

This on top of MSNBC's clearly pro-Hillary stance.

This on top of the fact that virtually no media favors Bernie.

Bernie's proposals are not that extreme.

So why is the media, virtually all of it so pro-Hillary and so anti-Bernie?

I'm pretty good at figuring things out. I have gotten scores of 99% on arithmetic reasoning tests all of my life, and here is my THEORY. iT'S JUST A THEORY, BUT IT IS PRETTY GOOD.

N E T N E U T R A L I T Y

The bias is very clear and universal, and it is the only issue I can think of on which Hillary could be bought and sold. Whatever she says about net neutrality, forget it. What other issue could the press find so important that they would risk their reputations for fairness on it.

Because if there is one thing certain, in this primary contest, the press has been supremely and extremely unfair to Bernie.

Your comments please. What else could it be?

Hillary is a lousy speaker. She doesn't hold a lot of rallies for that reason. She is competent and has some experience. But she is in no way as good as Bernie. Not as competent, not as experienced.

The press has something more at stake here. I can only think of net neutrality. Some of the spokespeople for the press genuinely like Hillary.

But think of how quickly Bernie's best supporter in the press, ED SCHULTZ, disappeared from MSNBC.

Please consider this fairly.

[Skwmom]

1. The media has been this way for years. They are corporations with corporate interests. n/t

[JDPriestly]

3. Also true.

[FreakinDJ]

51. Media stands to gain enourmously from the TPP

Copy rights are extended by 20 years and enforced harshly. In fact of Hillary's early corporate donors Media dominated the list

[stillwaiting]

2. The same people that own the media own Hillary.

That's the way I see it.

So, it makes perfect sense for their media to have treated Bernie the way they have the entire Primary.
And, it makes perfect sense for their media to have crafted narratives THROUGHOUT the Primary that favored the inevitability of HRC.

[JDPriestly]

4. Also true.

[HooptieWagon]

5. Bingo.

6 corporations control something like 90% of all the traditional media. They're going to back the corporatist candidates.

[shadowandblossom]

39. The corporatist candidate was Marco Rubio. That's not who they backed.

They backed Trump because he got them ratings and ratings bring in dollars.

[shadowandblossom]

38. That's probably why they're always flinging poop at her.

Clinton's relationship with the media is, I think, almost infamous. They don't like her. They are rough on her. That's no secret. Many have speculated why.

A simpler explanation is that the story is not selling to viewers anymore. It's not a race anymore and that's not sexy. Viewers don't tune in, ratings are low. If ratings are low they aren't motivated to cover him. It seems people are watching Trump instead (thus all the free coverage he gets, ratings get you coverage.)

[Arkansas Granny]

6. The media covers what gives them the biggest share of the audience and controversy always leads.

I'll bet that if you really looked, you would find that Trump gets more media attention than both Democratic candidates combined.

[Lucinda]

14. Yep.

It's really that simple.

[bettyellen]

15. Definitely! And I don;t think they love Trump at all. Lots of Hillary's coverage has been harsh, to

be fair. It didn't seem that they got serious enough about Bernie to really go after him yet. But they love a horse race- will try to make things look closer than they are at all times to get the attention.

[JDPriestly]

23. Sorry if you missed the posts that discussed the numbers of minutes given to each candidate by

the networks. Sanders was far, far beyond the others in time spent discussing him or his campaign or airing items that were about him.

Sorry if you missed that. I'm sure other DUers will back me up on this.

But you are right. The media is pushing Trump and that is scandalous.

[bettyellen]

30. Trump is getting the lions share, and it sucks. I know Hillary definitely got more time during the

last debate- the Univision one, but I think they asked her more of the provocative and stupider questions. Why isn't she likable? What about Trump? Benghazi? Ugh. Bernie was lucky to only be slammed about immigration that night! Anyway, I think they both have figured out that they need to be aggressive and keep talking past the buzzer if they want to finish their thoughts. Hillary is getting away with it more often, but both try.

Wish there was a format where they could do allow them to finish, and then even out the timing in the end. Because I prefer if they could finish their answers. FWIW, I think they have both been pretty amazing during the debates, except maybe the last one where they were both baited into playing defense.

[Else You Are Mad]

7. I think it is even more simple than that...

The reason the MSM is fully behind Hillary and so obviously against Sanders is because they are owned by multinational corporations that make millions themselves from ads from other multinational corporations that realize they have a much better chance of keeping the status quo and, therefore, make money under a president Clinton or President Trump over a President Sanders who would undoubtably cost the corporations billions in profits.

[Punkingal]

25. +1000

[Jarqui]

31. +1

That and the comfort knowing that the top tenth of 1%, of which they are a powerful member, will continue to control the US government for some time to come.

[Else You Are Mad]

34. Bingo...

The mental gymnastics that one must go through ones mind to convince yourself that the Clintons would be better for the non 1% than Sanders must be intense.

[Snotcicles]

8. Charter Cable is about to purchase Time Warner for $55 billion if the FCC can ram it through. nt

[JDPriestly]

17. There you go.

[AzDar]

9. They have the same Masters.

[Samantha]

10. I think you might be entirely correct but there probably are at least two other factors

Last edited Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Bernie Sanders opposes the TPP and is the only politician speaking of stopping it. The MSM is salivating to see this implemented, as many of its lobbyists helped write it! Comcast has forbidden any hosts on MSNBC to be against this proposed "trade" bill and to speak out against it. That is why Ed had to go.

But getting down to why they personally are opposed to Sanders, I think they believe they will see a steep increase in their salaries, and that is exactly what they are against! All politics is both personal and local....

It is the money -- for the establishment and for its employees.

Sam

[JDPriestly]

20. Right.

[merrily]

27. Your post says Bernie Sanders favors the TPP. I don't think that is what you meant to say.

[Samantha]

35. I am sorry - I certainly didn't mean to say that

I am just so tired these days I make terrible mistakes. I am going to go back and fix it. Thanks.

Sam

[merrily]

49. Awww, get some rest, please!

[KoKo]

11. Net Neutrality...

probably figures in. I think Bernie would do everything he could to appoint those to the FCC who would be far different from what Bush and Obama have. We have Murdoch, Carlos Slim and Jeff Bezos controlling our major newspapers and Comcast, Clear Channel, Time-Warner, Murdoch, etc. controlling the Cables/Networks. These controls need to be broken up and a new form of the "Fairness Doctrine" targeting responsible, apportioned election coverage reinstated . Bernie's threats of "breaking up the big investment banks" is enough to light a fire under the Media Conglomerates who figure they will be next.

Another DU'er felt that the Repubs would want nothing better than see Hillary hobbled by scandals having to do with the Clinton Foundation and other baggage she and Bill carry from years past if she wins the nomination and, going forward, wins the Presidency. IOWD's we'd have a repeat of Bill and Hillary's first and second terms. If Trump is the nominee he won't back off attacks during the General Election. Even if its Cruz, or someone else, from a Brokered Convention, the attacks probably won't be much different from what Trump would dig up. The poster felt that this would mean more income for the MSM in viewers bringing in advertising revenue. It's Good for the MSM to have their ratings soaring like they are now with the 24/7 Trump coverage and possible riots to report on.

Poster above said that the Press has always been biased but I find this year to be the worst, I remember, for lack of coverage of important national and foreign policy issues. The loss of Ed Schultz's voice and others from MSNBC --plus, the lack of funding for building a larger Progressive Independent Media, (while what there is, struggles with constant fundraisers), hasn't helped, either.

Anyway, this is what I've observed.

[JDPriestly]

21. I totally agree with every word you have said.

Support Pacifica.

They put their shows on the internet. It's just a wonderful source of news although I personally strongly disagree with some of the viewpoints expressed there especially on Palestine and Israel.

http://www.kpfk.org/

There are lots of good news sources: Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, RealNews, Democracy Now and others.

But if we lose net neutrality we only get the corporate approved news unless we happen to live in an area in which Pacifica is available on the radio.

Hey, guys (as my two-year-old granddaughter loves to say), this is getting serious. What good is the right of free speech if all of the places in which you can express your opinion are owned by the very wealthy and very corrupt?

[delrem]

45. Absolutely.

I think most everyone gets it, too.
Support independent media. PLEASE DO - AND YOU CAN.
I mean, most everyone who has the wit to support Bernie no doubt gets it.

I keep getting "enlightened by the facts", not only natural facts but new facts that I don't control but that are controlled by people with money. Facts of particular human interest.

Like for example consider the case of David Brock and the enterprises that he's associated with now, and the enterprises he's been associated with. At first I didn't know much about Brock, the person, but was introduced to "Media Matters" as being something almost incontrovertible on DU. After all, "media matters" was brought into being in the darkest first years of George W. Bush, and it was easy to paint an opposition. I guess few looked at how David Brock was/is financed. Few looked at how David Brock got started - or even care, after he became a self-declared "Dem". And is now in Hillary Clinton's inner circle along with Robert Kagan and other like-minded souls.

I think Kos and Skinner are also paid from the same sources. They have the same associations. I think there's a record of this. So considering that Kos is Mr. NRN himself -> the one <-, I think people should also be aware that political movements/ideas can be co-opted by buy-ins, oftentimes entered into innocently.

[Jarqui]

32. A key reason Bernie was somewhat of a threat to them was he was able

to reach, for example, the millennials online. I believe that was a key reason they support Bernie heavily- because he was able to reach them through all the stuff they do online.

Making inroads on having some control over the net is going to be very high on their agenda and they knew Bernie would veto it.

As well with Bernie, they knew he was coming for more tax money from them.

It's part of the reason I'm a little down on this. Hillary is not going to change much of substance - little of what Bernie wanted. Trump isn't going to do it. So we'll wait another four years ... for the media companies to pick their candidates and protect themselves with tougher rules on the internet.

We may have missed a bigger opportunity than was realized.

[amborin]

36. Carlos Slim is a billlionaire from MC and gave milllions to the Clinton Foundation; he bailed out th

the ny times

[shadowandblossom]

40. again to the charity.

Yeah okay.

[delrem]

42. Is it a real charity or is it a private foundation,

100% controlled by the private interests of one political family?

OK, I'll grant that it's defined legally within some very lenient, not quite to say totally unregulated, bounds.

But Clinton =/= Gates, or even the sleazy Zukkerberg. Clinton private income all derives from politics, a massive amount from speeches given with exorbitant prices, to the tune of $160 million plus since Bill Clinton was president and Hillary was advertised as having it in the bag to be next, so there isn't the same intrinsic base for the Clinton Foundation as the Gates Foundation. People should think about this, about what is happening here.

For example, what Clinton Foundation monies are spent for what? How are contracts awarded? Who profits from the contracts? Are they no-bid? And so on. I'm sure that all the charitable spending is on worthy causes, but I question how it is done. I also question whether this is the best way for a politician to be pro-active about bettering the world, rather than putting her ass on the line and declaring that Single Payer Universal Health Care is the goal, regardless of the loss of potential profits for capital investment in the health care insurance business.

It's something to think about, at least.

But also, who is donating, and when? For example The House of Saud is a big donor, but nobody in a rational universe thinks that The House of Saud is at all "progressive" in any sense, not even some of the crazy senses that the term is endowed with in some of the more outlier of DU posts. So, when did the Saudi despots donate? Were they doing arms deals with the US gov't in that window of time, and were those deals assisted by a Clinton, acting as a politician? Are wars fought for profit being eased into existence by war profiteers, who donate to the Clinton Foundation charitable fund?

[shadowandblossom]

46. I read about it a long time ago and won't read what is likely to be more conspiracy or

or right wing talking points. Sorry but no. I know you don't care but it's a charity. I know you don't believe that and I don't care. If someday that is actually proved otherwise, fine. Until then I don't buy this stuff. Just pointing it out and drifting elsewhere because I have zero interest in engaging in this subject. Clinton is the devil. Whatever she does will be wrong and evil. I'm logging off now.

[delrem]

47. Well, thanks for logging off. /nt

[pansypoo53219]

12. always follow the money. no new tax cuts.

[felix_numinous]

13. Agreed-a corporatocracy cannot be maintained with a free press

We do not have a free mainstream press, it is obviously biased and obviously owned. The fact that Bernie Sanders has awakened a movement to counter this power structure reflects how many Americans can see through it, and want our representation to outweigh the rich minority.

[seabeyond]

16. Except they are not. They coddle Sanders and are amused at Trump.

[JDPriestly]

22. We have the statistics proving that the media has done everything possible to avoid giving airtime

to Sanders and has given maximum airtime (cable, TV time) to Trump.

This is not an opinion. The numbers have been posted on DU.

Sanders is by no means coddled. Trump is. Hillary is a bit.

This is an attempt to engineer a conservative win in the upcoming election.

Sorry to disagree with you, but facts are facts. This has been discussed an posted so many times on DU that I will not repost the numbers.

[seabeyond]

33. I think your statistics was like.... the first week of the campaign. Lol.

[BreakfastClub]

18. They strongly supported Obama over Hillary. Why is that?? nt

[sadoldgirl]

29. Because as an AA they felt sure that he would lose.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. I am not going to retype all that

http://reportingsandiego.com/2016/03/13/media-bias-and-public-perception/

but you are very correct

Oh and my mind they want trump... ugg, I need to do that research now though

[ibegurpard]

24. why?

Because the media is wholly owned by a few companies.
Thanks, Bill Clinton, for that by the way...

[merrily]

26. Follow the money. Five mega-corps own most US media.

[ibegurpard]

28. Thanks Clinton!

[senz]

37. Ben Bagdikian, who wrote of the media monopoly, died this past week.

His book The Media Monopoly, reprinted every few years for several decades, gives the history of the FCC and the U.S. media and then follows the consolidation of media ownership that got seriously underway with Reagan and then sped up after Clinton's 1996 Telecom Act.

[merrily]

48. .

http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?6172-Why-are-Third-Way-Democrats-even-better-for-Wall-Street-than-Republicans-are

Thanks, senz. Sounds like a great book.

[Uncle Joe]

41. I agree but to my way of thinking Bernie's economic, anti-Wall Street and campaign finance

reform policies are a prime reason as well.

All of these policies go against Corporate media conglomerate self-interests, that's why they have continuously used gender, race or age of the voters as divisions in referring to the "horse race" intentionally setting a frame or bubble for the American People to occupy, instead of substantially covering the critical issues that Bernie promotes.

CNN would rather spend two hours covering Trump selling steaks and crap, or promoting his legion of inanities.

Thanks for the thread, JDPriestly.

[JDPriestly]

44. Thanks to you. Helpful comment. Those issues are also reasons for the media's hostility.

[delrem]

43. Single Payer Universal Health Insurance, for all citizens. Guaranteed.

Whether the citizen is homeless or a 1%er.

Hillary says she cares, through her Clinton Foundation, for example. But her platform has been to protect the ground for investment capital in every sector, including that of private health care insurance.

Hillary Clinton has made this very clear.
___________________

War Profiteering.
Hillary's record is a bucket of tears thrown into a river of blood.
She's relentless. She followed her Iraq war vote with the destruction of Libya, she initiated the war to effect regime change in Syria. She proved that she totally identifies with the neocon direction of Kagan, Kissinger, and the dark side of US politics generally. It is part of her platform. It's what she's running on.

On war and war profiteering, Hillary Clinton is more solidly "establishment republican" than any out there.

[madokie]

50. Its her term

plus it's high time we have a woman president. Thats pretty much it in a hand basket

In my View there is no other candidate than Bernie that has a handle on what needs to be done going forward, Period.

[astrophuss42]

52. Agree completely

This is such a salient topic and I really have to thank you for bringing it up in this context. It's easy simply saying that the MSM is interested in maintaining the status quo but combined with net neutrality we also get a glimpse of how that could bring in the money.