Please 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.
= new reply since forum marked as read
?t=1464893961738&width=1251
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... 
...especially from you. How's the reading of the TOS going? 
Maybe I will after I mow my lawn... 
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?
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...
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!
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...
or so we've been told 
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.
