Why Bernie Sanders Is Absolutely Correct About the Washington Post--and Corporate Media Overall

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

As George Seldes commented long ago, "The most stupid boast in the history of present-day journalism is that of the writer who says, 'I have never been given orders; I am free to do as I like.'" Seldes noted that reporters routinely "know from contact with the great minds of the press lords or from the simple deduction that the bosses are in big business and the news must be slanted accordingly, or from the general intangible atmosphere which prevails everywhere, what they can do and what they must never do."

(snip)

Baron, Sullivan, Cillizza and countless other employees of corporate media are well-paid while publicly maintaining their denial in the service of corporate power. So, with the virtues of the Washington Post on parade, Emperor Bezos must be decked out in the journalistic finery of his new clothes, even when the self-interest and implications of billionaire leverage over media are stark naked.

What Bernie Sanders is pointing out is not—and he never said it was—a "conspiracy." The problems are much deeper and more pernicious, having to do with the financial structures of media institutions that enable profit-driven magnates and enormous corporations to dominate the flow of news and commentary.

The Post's Baron is ill-positioned to defend his newspaper against charges of anti-Sanders bias. Such bias has been profuse, and it began well before a pivotal moment in the 2016 campaign on the eve of the high-stakes Michigan primary in early March. Then, as FAIR analyst Adam Johnson showed, "the Washington Post ran 16 negative stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours."

(snip)

Journalists who have staked their careers on remaining in the good graces of corporate employers are certainly inclined to say in public that billionaire owners and huge corporations don't constrain their journalistic work. And in their minds, they might be telling the truth. As George Orwell wrote, "Circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks his whip, but the really well-trained dog is the one that turns his somersault when there is no whip."


https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/14/why-bernie-sanders-absolutely-correct-about-washington-post-and-corporate-media

[TwilightZone]

1. He already walked back his comments.

So, apparently he disagrees with the author.

"Emperor Bezos"

My, how witty.

[Uncle Joe]

2. He didn't "walk back," Bernie clarified.

"Walk back" is a corporate media conglomerate talking point.

Bernie never said there was a conspiracy or that Bezos was hands on behind it.

I believe this article makes the dynamic that Bernie was referring to crystal clear.

[TwilightZone]

3. "corporate media conglomerate talking point"

That is a laughable assertion. "Walk back" is a common phrase in many walks of life.

Not everything is a corporate conspiracy.

[ehrnst]

31. +1000.

[betsuni]

62. +1

[ehrnst]

36. Bernie has a bone to pick with WaPo

in particular because they had the gall to report on the labor dispute going on in his campaign.

Then before anyone could take Bernie aside and talk to him about how his public statements are now bound by labor law, which apparently he didn't know... he made this mistake in reacting to the WaPo story and his scolding of the employees that talked to WaPo:

“It does bother me that people are going outside of the process and going to the media,” he said. “That is really not acceptable. It is really not what labor negotiations are about, and it’s improper.”

Sanders said, ahead of a weekend Iowa campaign swing: “We are disappointed that some individuals have decided to damage the integrity of these efforts. We are involved in negotiations. And some are individuals that have decided to damage the integrity of that process before they were concluded.”

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2019/07/19/bernie-sanders-campaign-staff-wage-15-hour-union-elizabeth-warren-campaign-wages/1781159001/

I don't know if you've ever been a union member (I am) but employees are afforded many rights under Section Seven of the National Labor Relations Act. Protected concerted activities: “Employees have a statutory right to speak publically about their complaints or concerns with their terms and conditions of employment, including to the press, without employer authorization.”.

Sanders was saying, on the record, that union employees exercizing their rights was "not acceptable," "improper" and would "damage the integrity of that process."

I assume that he was very unhappy to hear that and might have had the urge to retaliate in some way for WaPo for having the gall to not quash a story about the much touted "first unionized POTUS campaign staff ever," which then impelled him to respond with those rather embarssing statements that showed a lack of understanding of labor rights.

However, that's doesn't make WaPo what he says it is.

[George II]

59. "Clarified"? Here are the two statements:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/13/bernie-sanders-bezos-washington-post-1461360

Original statement:

Speaking in New Hampshire on Monday, Sanders questioned why the newspaper “doesn’t write particularly good articles about me,” noting it is owned by Bezos, whose handling of labor practices at Amazon Sanders has consistently criticized. “I guess maybe there’s a connection..."

The "walk back":

"Do I think Jeff Bezos is on the phone, telling the editor of The Washington Post what to do? Absolutely not. It doesn’t work that way"

[stonecutter357]

4. LOL millionaires and billionaires !

[SouthernProgressive]

5. Even Sanders disagrees with this article.

Walk it back, back, way back!!!

[Uncle Joe]

6. Perhaps you have a link to Bernie disagreeing with this article?

[SouthernProgressive]

7. The article and recent events speak for themselves.

I love that Trump and Sanders have gone so far off the rails that they rely on the strategy of "don't believe your lying eyes!" "Fake News!" Very few are falling for the new anti-media cornerstone of his campaign. As Sanders implied, it would be stupid for someone to think Bezo's is telling the editors what to do.

Sanders and Trump have set their focus on the WP. It's sad to see. Populism sucks and this is a cornerstone of it.

[Uncle Joe]

8. That's what I thought, you don't.

"Fake news" is Trump's talking point, not Bernie's.

If you can't tell the difference between their messages, it's because you're not trying.

[TwilightZone]

10. Trump calls it the Amazon Washington Post.

Sanders said (until he backtracked) that negative coverage of him is potentially influenced by Bezos because of his complaints about Amazon.

The difference isn't as stark as you insist. The assertions are quite similar.

[Uncle Joe]

13. Bernie hasn't backtracked from that point.

Trump has called the media "the enemy of the people" Bernie has stated they're an inherent part of a free democracy.

Bernie does recognize inherent conflicts of interest, which the corporate media conglomerates all but ignore when giving their punditry or news coverage.

The difference is as a hostile corrosion of the First Amendment in the case of Trump and a much needed family intervention in the case of Bernie.

[ehrnst]

28. Trying to discredit WaPo didn't work for Nixon, and it won't work for Trump or Bernie.

Like Marty Baron said, there is a club of Democratic candidates that don't like some of the coverage they're getting.

Another case of Sanders thinking incorrectly that he's somehow being treated differently than the other candidates by the media.

[ehrnst]

40. They run a whole lot more 'negative stories' on Trump. Does that also 'discredit' WaPo?

Trump seems to think so.

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/301285-media-and-trump-bias-not-even-trying-to-hide-it-anymore

About credibility... An author who runs an org that harvests emails (which are used to ask for donations to support the org) from petitions to various media outlets to "Stop the media bias against Bernie" has a financial stake in getting people to believe that the media has a bias against "progressives."



Commondreams is a lefty 50c(3), and as such is not constrained by journalistic standards.

"FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation."

As if their mission statement would allow them to say anything positive about WaPo.... That would be like expecting FoxNews to say anything positive about FAIR, even though FoxNews has "Fair and Balanced" in it's tagline.

And the FAIR 'analyst" who is also a Commondreams contributor (not mentioned in the commondreams article) gets another click, with that cite doesn't he?

This exerpt from the article you reference is a shining example of nuetral, unbiased data driven research, isn't it?

Baron, Sullivan, Cillizza and countless other employees of corporate media are well-paid while publicly maintaining their denial in the service of corporate power. So, with the virtues of the Washington Post on parade, Emperor Bezos must be decked out in the journalistic finery of his new clothes, even when the self-interest and implications of billionaire leverage over media are stark naked.

Then again, your opinion of what is "unbiased" differs greatly from the journalistic community. If you were interested in unbiased media statistics and criticism, you'd be reading Poynter for your information.

Now as to the "negative stories" that FAIR (also not without bias) lists (from the height of primary season back in 2016, interestingly, it doesn't have any such stats on negative stories about HRC. An actual unbiased research org would have those stats. I guess negative stories about politicians they don't like isn't "bias" ) it seems they think that any story that doesn't fawn on Sanders, but simply reports what he said to be "negative."

I can't find a negative about Sanders in these stories (YOU referenced) they branded "NEGATIVE" - maybe, since you have thoroughly checked this out and confirmed that it's actually accurate, what they see here:

Why Obama says bank reform is a success but Bernie Sanders says it’s a failure
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/07/doddfrank0308/

OMG - a fact check of Bernie's numbers to the actual numbers of those in prison, and stating that some of this is decided at the state level, not the federal level. That's just disrespectful to fact check Bernie! It implies he might be mistaken!

Bernie Sanders pledges the U.S. won’t be No. 1 in incarceration. He’ll need to release lots of criminals.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/06/bernie-sanders-pledges-the-u-s-wont-be-no-1-in-incarceration-hell-need-to-release-lots-of-criminals/

More statement of fact - I assume that WaPo was supposed to quash any mention of the NRA tweeting praising a candidate, because it doesn't flatter a candidate? Perhaps they're also supposed to ignore it when David Duke praises Trump? Well, Trump would say so..

The NRA Just Praised Bernie Sanders — and Did Him No Favors in Doing So
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/07/the-nra-just-praised-bernie-sanders-and-did-him-no-favors-in-doing-so/


And the most partisan senator of 2015 is … Bernie Sanders!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/07/and-the-most-partisan-senator-of-2015-is-bernie-sanders/

Is saying that Bernie sided with Democrats most of all a negative? I guess if you didn't bother to read past the headline, or you hate Democrats, then calling this article a 'negative' would make sense - especially since "bi-partisan" is a dirty word for many Sanders supporters...

The index measured how many times a senator sponsored or co-sponsored a bill with the other side. The rankings mean Sanders almost exclusively signs onto bills with Democrats, and Cruz with Republicans. (Sanders is technically an independent, but for this purpose, he was categorized as a Democrat, the party with which he caucuses.) The other senator still in the race for president, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), ranked 28th most bipartisan.

I guess pointing out what they considered to be negative in all the articles would have been too much work, and really, they know their audience isn't looking for facts - just confirmation of their bias.

And they think that other journalists confirming what Marty Baron said as some kind of 'proof' that Baron is lying...

Bernie's media problem is Bernie's words and Bernie's actions being subject to the same fact checking and the same followup questioning that other candidates get. He wants to be exempt from this reality of campaigning, as though he's above it. He's convinced people that by virtue of him saying something, it's fact. And his die hard fans oblige happily - and quash any dissent or any criticism, no matter how fact based reputable the source, as "attacks."

Trumps fans do the same for Trump.

[George II]

58. Isn't that 16 in 16 thing an RT (Russia Today) talking point?

[ehrnst]

70. It's a small group that feeds each other citations and talking points.

Much like Wall Street Journal, NY Post and FoxNews do.

[ehrnst]

72. Unfortunately, it's become Bernie's talking point as well.

Even ThinkProgress doesn't pass muster as being supportive enough of him.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/thinkprogress-a-powerful-media-arm-of-the-democratic-party-calls-out-bernie-sanders-for-his-wealth

The Right wing didn't think that the media was fair to Bush, so they created FoxNews. Trump doesn't trust the WH press corps to toe his line, so he uses Twitter.

Now Bernie creates his own 'media.'

https://www.apnews.com/3fe684c2c7e34b0582fa80d11af07d4e

[ehrnst]

23. Link to Bernie walking back his hasty words:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today dialed back his suggestion that there's a connection between Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos' ownership of The Washington Post and what Sanders views as negative coverage of his presidential campaign.

“Do I think Jeff Bezos is on the phone, telling the editor of The Washington Post what to do? Absolutely not. It doesn’t work that way,” Sanders told CNN.

The comments mark a reversal from earlier this week. Speaking in New Hampshire on Monday, Sanders questioned why the newspaper “doesn’t write particularly good articles about me,” noting it is owned by Bezos, whose handling of labor practices at Amazon Sanders has consistently criticized. “I guess maybe there’s a connection,” he added.

..........................................................................................................................

Sanders' comments drew comparisons to the rhetoric of President Donald Trump, who has linked what he sees as the Post's unfair coverage of his administration to Bezos, calling the newspaper a tax scam and a lobbying tool for the Amazon CEO and labeling it the “Amazon Washington Post.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/13/bernie-sanders-bezos-washington-post-1461360
8

[Uncle Joe]

32. Bernie "clarified" his position, he never said Bezos was on the phone

telling the editors of the Washington Post what to do, so there was nothing to "walk back."

He stated an implication of conflict of interest, that Bezo's owns WAPO, this is true, Bezos also owns Amazon, this is true, Bernie was critical of Amazon, this is true and WAPO has been nothing but critical of Bernie, this is true.

Bezos doesn't have to get on the phone and tell the editors what to do and that was never Bernie's assertion.

[ehrnst]

35. It seems that Bernie feels a need to do a lot of 'clarifying" of his statements after the fact.

Of course he never "misspeaks" or "makes a mistake," it's always that he was "misunderstood."

Good communication skills are basic to a POTUS.

[TexasTowelie]

49. So are you saying that Bernie made a gaffe?

That is how the situation would be described if one of the other politicians that wasn't clear.

[Uncle Joe]

53. I don't believe Bernie made a gaffe, he clarified his point of view because

the corporate media conglomerates are most adept at using willful ignorance in misleading the American People.

Too much of the corporate media conglomerates promote binary thought as if that were the be all.

That's why we cozy up to the murderous and regressive likes of Saudi Arabia, because they don't like Iran.

[TexasTowelie]

55. If someone feels that it is necessary to clarify themselves,

then I would call that a gaffe. YMMV.

[ehrnst]

73. By "corporate media" you mean any media that holds Sentor Sanders to account for his words?

Because TYT certainly has corporate funding in the form of Roemer, Robinson, Melville & Co., LLC, doesn't it?

Oh, right. Media rules are different when it comes to Senator Sanders.

The Young Turks Network (www.TYTNetwork.com) announced today that it has raised $4 million in seed financing with an option to go up to $8 million from Roemer, Robinson, Melville & Co., LLC (RRM). RRM is led by former Republican Presidential candidate, Louisiana Governor and Congressman and Chairman of The Reform Project Buddy Roemer.

[MarcA]

57. Agreed. He did not rescind his statement so it is a clarification.

If the Editor had to be told what to do on the phone then he wouldn't
be the Editor, at least not for long. He knows which way the wind blows
and is of the same mindset and attitude, if not he wouldn't be there. Owners
choose their editors from small town papers to large conglomerates.
Just because drump goes way beyond reality in his diatribes doesn't mean
there are not legitimate concerns.

[ehrnst]

71. "Knows which way the wind blows...""

You are aware that you are talking about the editor that took on the Boston Catholic Archdiocese when everyone told him that they ran Boston and that he would lose his job....

I guess not.

But why do you think that Marty Baron would lie about the independence of his newsroom? Why should I believe Senator Sanders knows more about it than he does? Especially since Bernie has a MAJOR bone to pick with WaPo for having the GALL to report on his campaign staff labor dispute - the campaign that made a HUGE deal about being the FIRST POTUS campaign EVER to have a UNIONIZED staff.

Was the press just supposed to ignore that union staff for the rest of the campaign? Perhaps quash the story when the staffers came to them? Wouldn't that be the opposite of what journalists are supposed to do - hold candidates' feet to the fire about their promises?

Maybe you can tell us why Senator Sanders statements indicate that he feels he is exempt from same press scrutiny given other candidates.

[MarcA]

78. You are being naive. My statement was about the press.

Bernie was just an example. I am aware of the Archdiocese case.

[ehrnst]

79. Marty Baron is the person that Bernie was targeting. I was being accurate.

Is that clearer?

[mcar]

34. Sounds walk-backy to me

[ehrnst]

43. I know - wouldn't he just repeat what he said if he wasn't backtracking?

It appears that he wants to make his 'clarification" into something not quite so similar to Trump's statements.

Without admiting that he was dialing it back, because you know... he NEVER makes mistakes, so there's NEVER anything to retract or apologize for saying.

Ever.

[Hoyt]

9. Sanders voters apparently are the only ones who can see right through the media.

I honestly don't believe people are that stupid, but I guess we are lucky to have Sanders supporters to show us the way.

Nor do I believe FOX news created white wing racists to vote for trump. Racists just watch FOX.

[NYMinute]

11. whining continues .... nt

[Hortensis]

12. Sanders and Trump are both right then?

BOTH Sanders and Trump have been using this particular "conspiracy" story, and various others, to deceive and stoke anger and distrust in their bases for the past 5 years.

They did this even while corrupt and venal media created viable candidacies for both and while many among the MSM promoted them both for the purpose of putting Republicans in control of our nation.

And that's truth neither Sanders nor Trump will ever admit, maybe cannot even to themselves.

[Me.]

14. It's "a long-standing strategy pioneered by conservatives"

“That’s why I suspect that these complaints are really about “working the refs,” a long-standing strategy pioneered by conservatives: Complain that you’re the victim of media bias, and reporters will respond by bending over backward to show they’re being fair to you, leading to more favorable coverage, at least for a while. Sanders might also be looking to energize his supporters, who see him as a rebel fighting an establishment that is terrified of him and will do anything to stop him. Four years ago it was the Democratic National Committee. Today it’s the media. Either way, it helps tell a story that gives Sanders’s candidacy a heroic character.”

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287239116

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/14/bernie-sanderss-real-media-problem/?noredirect=on

[Hortensis]

15. +100. The various conspiracy theories Sanders

feeds his supporters have always included media conspiracies against him.

Absurd to believe them, to the point of willful insanity, when the media did so much for him in 2016, but many did and know he'd be our president now if the MSM hadn't subverted the will of the people. Their outrage still so burns hot and has so poisoned their "understanding" that I doubt most will ever recover.

[Me.]

17. Too Bad For Them...I Have No Sympathy

I have my issues with him and his campaigns, as do many others, including the people he hires/hired for both campaigns, the spoilsport/sour grapes behavior that has often been his signature, the less than transparency regarding his book sales and on and on. And yet I would never have condoned him being treated the way he has certain members of Congress. Thank goodness he won't be the nom, because I relieved I won't have to vote for him.

There's hardly a Sunday that goes by where he hasn't been on one of the major shows so I think it's time his complaining catches up with him.

[Hortensis]

21. :) Agree completely. Sanders has been an irritating gadfly

all his life. Not one person who knew him would endorse him when he first ran, and closer scrutiny should inevitably make more voters understand why.

It's not that I'm full of sympathy for his...base. The Republicans they helped elect, and will do again, keep my own anger and contempt stoked. But they seem to imagine a nation without anything to believe in, where all is corruption and betrayal except the one losing little leader they cling to, no other having arisen. The angry posts I read the other day were full of despair even as they expressed hope that it'll be different this time. But it's their nature that they are doomed to lose every election without understanding the real reasons; no matter who wins, their world remains ugly and scary.

There's so much good and ability to create good in our party, a light that should draw them, but lacking a good leader who could take them by the hand and lead them to it, it doesn't exist for them. The leaders who come looking for them make sure of that.

[Me.]

22. I Think That's The Kindest Post I've Ever Read

[Hortensis]

30. :) There but for the grace of god and genetic pairings...

My half sister is something of a leftist wingnut, not crazy, and certainly no Sanders supporter, but still way too vulnerable to extremist religions and anti-science theories, to preference for mystic forces and herbs over FDA-trialed medications, and to conspiracy theories that make more sense to her than known facts that contradict but leave much unexplained. And an uncle I never met was far right, which is too often just a flavor-of-the-month away from the far left. It's in the genes...

[betsuni]

41. +1

[ehrnst]

27. Going after Marty Baron's credibility because WaPo isn't fawning over you is really desperation.(nt)

[Thekaspervote]

52. Indeed!

[corbettkroehler]

16. Per Krystal Ball, The Bernie Bias Is Real

Watch her explain...

http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/457376-saagar-enjeti-why-sanders-is-right-about-corporate-media-krystal-ball-exposes

[Uncle Joe]

18. Thanks for the addition corbettkroehler.

[corbettkroehler]

19. My Pleasure - The Truth Will Set Bernie Free!

Last edited Thu Aug 15, 2019, 03:49 PM - Edit history (1)

On the related subject of how his support has "waned", I have a purchase sitting in the online BernieSanders.com store for some car magnets and shirts which has been on back order for a month due to YUGE interest. The inventory control can't keep pace.

[ehrnst]

29. Goodness! That's a fool proof metric the media doesn't know about!

[TexasTowelie]

51. IOW, they ran out of stock because someone failed to keep their eyes on the ball.

Team Bernie might need to take lessons from Team Kamala because she had her inventory ready to go when the demand was there.

[ehrnst]

26. Why Should We Believe 'The Hill' Pundit Krystal Ball Over Marty Baron?

In case you aren't familiar with Mr. Baron:

Marty Baron is executive editor of The Washington Post, overseeing more than 800 journalists. News organizations under his leadership have won 14 Pulitzer Prizes, including seven at the Post, six at The Boston Globe, and one at The Miami Herald. In Boston, he launched an investigation of the Catholic Church’s coverup of clergy sexual abuse that won the Pulitzer Prize for public service and was portrayed in the movie Spotlight, which won the Academy Award for best picture in 2016. Baron also held top posts at The New York Times and Los Angeles Times. He received the Al Neuharth Award for Excellence in Media in 2017.

https://www.aspenideas.org/speakers/martin-baron

You're welcome.

"Contrary to the conspiracy theory the senator seems to favor, Jeff Bezos allows our newsroom to operate with full independence, as our reporters and editors can attest," Baron added.

Earlier this year, Baron told The New York Times that Bezos "has never gotten involved in our reporting or our final stories." Baron added at the time, "People surmise that it must be difficult to cover Jeff and Amazon. But we've gone five-and-a-half years with his ownership, and he hasn't once intervened in any way."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/13/bernie-sanders-bezos-washington-post-1461360

[Gothmog]

39. Opinion: Bernie Sanders's real media problem

Link to tweet

So let me offer an explanation of what Sanders’s real media problem is: Right now Sanders 2020 is suffering from the comparison with Sanders 2016, when his candidacy was a captivating new phenomenon that turned what could have been a dull coronation for Hillary Clinton into a real contest. That made him compelling to reporters — again, always drawn to what’s new and what creates conflict — who wrote story after story about this fascinating campaign, particularly the unlikely fact that a rumpled 74-year-old had become the hero of college students everywhere. They covered his policy proposals, but they also covered all the attendant human-interest sidelights such as people getting Bernie tattoos.

Sanders’s current candidacy doesn’t provide that same narrative interest. He’s just one candidate among many, running somewhere between second and fourth in every poll — a part of the big story, to be sure, but not the primary protagonist/antagonist, depending on the framing. If during the 2016 primaries he was getting something like half the coverage, most of it positive, now he can expect only to get a much smaller portion of a pie that has been sliced into many more pieces. Is that fair? Perhaps not, but you’d have to define what “fair” coverage would look like for all the candidates to say for sure.

It’s not as though Sanders is being ignored. I did a search on The Post’s website and found 28 articles and videos mentioning him that appeared just this Monday and Tuesday. FiveThirtyEight monitors the volume of cable news coverage of the candidates, and what you see is that coverage pretty well tracks poll standing: Joe Biden gets the most, followed by Sanders, Warren and Kamala D. Harris clustered together. You might be able to make a case for why that’s wrong, but you can’t say it’s particularly unfair to Sanders.

And here’s the thing: I’m sure Sanders knows how this all works. He’s a smart guy, and he has been around for a long time. In most of the comments he and his aides make on this topic, you can tell they understand the incentives and proclivities of the media perfectly well.

[ehrnst]

44. +10000.

The rest of the country at large is not Vermont, and Senator Sanders just seems perpetually surprised by this.

[ehrnst]

74. Someone agrees with you:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287239738

[crazytown]

20. One thing Murdoch editors agree on

is that Rupert does not call them up and tell them what to print. He doesn't instruct them on the News Corp line either. He does not have to. The Times and Sunday Times devolved into Murdoch mouthpieces over time. Without further information to the contrary, I consider The Washington Post to be at risk in the longer term, however independent the current editorial team may be.

[Uncle Joe]

48. Precisely crazytown,

they know who cuts their paychecks.

[ehrnst]

76. Certainly TYT knows who cuts their checks.

But that doesn't really count since, you know, Cenk is a Bernie fan.

"The Young Turks Network (www.TYTNetwork.com) announced today that it has raised $4 million in seed financing with an option to go up to $8 million from Roemer, Robinson, Melville & Co., LLC (RRM). RRM is led by former Republican Presidential candidate, Louisiana Governor and Congressman and Chairman of The Reform Project Buddy Roemer.

“The Young Turks and TYT Network have long been a source of independent news and politics for our millions of fans,” said Uygur. “While we don’t necessarily agree on politics, Buddy and TYT both understand money’s damaging influence on our government. Buddy and RRM support TYT Network’s mission to bring our viewers the unrestricted truth and analysis of the world’s news – from politics to movies, pop culture, sports and more.”

https://www.adweek.com/digital/young-turks-tyt-network-roemer-robinson-melville/?red=as

[ehrnst]

24. Bernie's walked back that statement since... Wisely so.

I think someone told him that he was drawing comparisons to Trumps' attacks.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/13/bernie-sanders-bezos-washington-post-1461360

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today dialed back his suggestion that there's a connection between Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos' ownership of The Washington Post and what Sanders views as negative coverage of his presidential campaign.

“Do I think Jeff Bezos is on the phone, telling the editor of The Washington Post what to do? Absolutely not. It doesn’t work that way,” Sanders told CNN.

The comments mark a reversal from earlier this week. Speaking in New Hampshire on Monday, Sanders questioned why the newspaper “doesn’t write particularly good articles about me,” noting it is owned by Bezos, whose handling of labor practices at Amazon Sanders has consistently criticized. “I guess maybe there’s a connection,” he added.

..........................................................................................................................

Sanders' comments drew comparisons to the rhetoric of President Donald Trump, who has linked what he sees as the Post's unfair coverage of his administration to Bezos, calling the newspaper a tax scam and a lobbying tool for the Amazon CEO and labeling it the “Amazon Washington Post.”

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750800062/sanders-again-attacks-amazon-this-time-pulling-in-the-washington-post

The remark sounded an awful lot like the kind of criticism leveled by someone else.

"...[T]he failing New York Times and the Amazon Washington Post do nothing but write bad stories even on very positive achievements - and they will never change!" President Trump tweeted last year.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/08/13/bernie-sanders-criticizes-washington-post-coverage-baron-responds/1994986001/

President Donald Trump has echoed similar criticism of The Post, using the hashtag #AmazonWashingtonPost in tweets and accusing the newspaper of furthering Amazon's corporate goals.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/13/bernie-sanders-bezos-washington-post-1461360

Sanders' comments drew comparisons to the rhetoric of President Donald Trump, who has linked what he sees as the Post's unfair coverage of his administration to Bezos, calling the newspaper a tax scam and a lobbying tool for the Amazon CEO and labeling it the “Amazon Washington Post.”

[ehrnst]

25. Marty Baron isn't a 'circus dog' and I'm thinking that the author of this article might be

a bit embarassed to read this in WaPo.

If Baron and his staff are a 'circus dog' that dog certainly didn't heel to Amazon on this article, did they?

A prominent Washington-area economist wrote an opinion piece welcoming the arrival of Amazon’s new headquarters in Northern Virginia at the suggestion of a company official who hoped to build public support for the project before a key Arlington County Board vote, emails show.

Stephen S. Fuller, a professor at George Mason University, also showed the article to Amazon public relations staff before publication and invited them to suggest changes — although he rejected their revisions.

“I want to [be] helpful to your — Amazon’s — mission and objectives with respect to its move to Arlington,” Fuller wrote on March 1 to Jill Shatzen Kerr, Amazon’s policy communications manager, according to emails obtained by The Washington Post under a Freedom of Information Act request.

Fuller first offered the opinion piece to The Washington Post, which turned it down. The Washington Business Journal published it March 21 under the headline, “Don’t underestimate Amazon HQ2’s importance.”

Fuller’s interactions with Amazon, which were not disclosed to the Washington Business Journal or its readers, raised questions about whether he was acting independently and transparently in penning the article, according to some ethics experts. The journal’s editor said the publication would have handled the article differently had it known.

(Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/prominent-economist-wrote-op-ed-about-amazons-new-headquarters-at-companys-suggestion/2019/08/09/42b206b8-b885-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39_story.html

[mahatmakanejeeves]

77. Gratuitous link to last Friday's thread in LBN about this:

Prominent economist wrote op-ed about Amazon's new headquarters at company's suggestion

[Buzz cook]

37. Liberals defending the corporate media.

Never thought I'd see the day. Its as if because Trump hates the media and calls it fake news, liberals have to line up on the other side.

Well its a false duality. The media can be seen as an enemy by Trump and his ilk, and the media can be a pro-corporate machine.

Its that nuance thing that seems to have been beaten out of today's liberals. We seem to have become just as tribal as the people we criticize on the right.

The broadcast media love Trump Not because they think he's a good president or even a good person. Its because he makes good TV.
How often did they show his rallies in whole while only giving high light reels for his opponents? How often do they spend time chasing the latest tweet instead of focusing on the things Trump has done?

Although I'm sure the owners of corporate media love the tax cuts as much as the next billionaire.

The enemy of my enemy can also be my enemy.
Whether its the loving coverage of Joe Biden's gaffs or the non-stop buttery males of Hillary Clinton. the media have always had a thumb on the scales against democrat (rarely democratic) politicians. They still chase any shiny thing a conservative will toss out.

Sanders is right to criticize the media and Trump is wrong when he does. Both things can be and are true.

[ehrnst]

45. I never thought I'd see liberals trash the free press when they fact checked a politician

running for office.

I never thought I'd see liberals trash Marty Baron at the behest of a career politician.

No one is saying that the media should not be criticized, but when a respected, credible journalistic entity is demonized because it dares to report accurately on the labor dispute among employees of a POTUS candidate who brands himself as the defender of labor?

SMH.

Trashing Wapo didn't turn out well for Nixon, and it won't for Trump or Sanders, either.

I find Sanders' excoriation of anyone who works at a Bezos owned entity interesting considering...

[Buzz cook]

60. The washington Post is not a respectable journalistic entity.

But first Sanders did not criticize the Pot for its coverage of labor disputes in his campaign.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/08/13/bernie-sanders-criticizes-washington-post-coverage-baron-responds/1994986001/

Sanders later told The Des Moines Register that he was "disappointed" in the campaign employees that had complained to the press about the campaign's labor disputes.

"It does bother me that people are going outside of the process and going to the media," he said at the time. "That is really not acceptable. It is really not what labor negotiations are about, and it's improper."

While that is a dickish statement, it is not critical of the Posts coverage.

But more importantly the Post has a history of anti- liberal and anti-democratic writings. It was the Post that pioneered the concept of "Clinton Rules" journalism. It was the Post that hired and steno Sue Schmidt.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2004/7/11/37598/-

Where once Steno Sue could be counted on to serve as a mouthpiece for her sex-obsessed hero, Inspector Porn Starr Javert, now she has set up, in the words of Sy Hersh, a stovepipe connecting Senate Republicans staffers directly to the pages of the Washington Post (bypassing the traditional process of editing) where the issues involve life, death, war and treason. And guess which side she falls on?

Unless you have forgotten it was the Post and Schmidt that first published the lie that Al Gore had claimed to have "invented" the internet.

The Post was an important part of the media's war on candidate Gore. Right down to the tan/brown suit.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh042006.shtml

COHEN (11/1/99): "The male body is home to me, my rocket, my whirlpool." So wrote Naomi Wolf in her book, "Fire With Fire" [note: Cohen’s statement is wrong] which will soon be required reading along the campaign trail. Wolf—sometimes a feminist, sometimes not, but always controversial—has just been revealed as a secret Al Gore campaign adviser, apparently teaching the vice president how to be a rocket and a whirlpool. Some of us, though, would settle for just plain Al Gore.

But it is more and more clear that no one, least of all Al Gore, knows who that is. This is why he moved his campaign headquarters from Washington to Nashville, why he has gotten some new suits (it's the whirlpool look), and often appears in leisure clothing. He is newly energetic, sometimes manic and moves like a character in some speeded-up silent movie. I suppose this is what happens when you're a rocket.

The Post is just another villager mouth piece. Has it had good reporting? Certainly. But that makes its error even more irratating?

Was Sanders directly criticizing Marty Baron? Well Marty Baron accused Sanders od indulging in conspiracy theories. That is a direct personal attack. I couldn't find a similar personal attack by Sanders on Baron.


Yes you can buy Sanders books on Amazon. It would be surprising if you couldn't. I don't know if you remember, but this was the same line of attack conservatives have made against environmentalists. "If they were really environmentalists" they wouldn't fly on jets, wouldn't own houses, wouldn't do this that or the othere. Thus all environmentalists are hypocrites.
I take it that is your point, that Sanders is a hypocrite because his books are on sale on Amazon.

[TreasonousBastard]

63. "The washington Post is not a respectable journalistic entity." If not, then...

What would you say is a "respectable journalistic entity"?

[JI7]

65. common dreams, Jacobin ,

[ehrnst]

69. They are not news orgs, any more than FoxNews. They have a clear political bias/slant

and that goes against journalistic standards for reliability of data. They are opinion shops.

[ehrnst]

68. Yeah, Pulitzer Prizes are given to bad journalists and news orgs ALL the time...

[Uncle Joe]

47. I couldn't agree more Buzz cook, well said.

[OilemFirchen]

50. Despite the inanity of your post, here's a friendly suggestion:

Instead of "the media have always had a thumb on the scales against democrat (rarely democratic) politicians', try "the media have always had a thumb on the scales against Democratic (rarely democratic) politicians".

It's a ridiculous statement, but it is what you were trying to say, right?

Right?

[Buzz cook]

61. No.

Many in the media copy the republican script of saying democrat instead of democratic when referring to the Democratic party and Democratic politicians.

The point of course to is that the media has its thumb on the scale against those they call democrat, they rarely use the proper term democratic politicians, and they rarely capitalize the word.

Your spin on it would be quaint if it reflected reality. But nice try, maybe you'll grow up to be a grammarian someday.

[Gothmog]

38. I've reported on Bernie Sanders for years. A free press won't give him what he wants.

This is an interesting article https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/26/ive-reported-bernie-sanders-years-free-press-cant-give-him-what-he-wants/

Though Sanders understands the problem, his solutions leave something to be desired. The way the senator sees it, the job of a journalist is merely to transcribe his diatribes unchallenged and broadcast his sermons unfiltered.

“He would not be happy with anything that did not basically publish his press release in its entirety — word for word, quote for quote,” said Graff, who spent nearly three decades reporting in Vermont for the AP.

Back when Sanders held regular news conferences in Vermont — it’s been a few years — he typically refused to answer questions unrelated to his chosen topic of the day. That’s problematic for local reporters, who rarely have the opportunity to quiz the members of Congress they cover without spokespeople running interference.

At a 1985 forum on the media, the late Vermont political columnist Peter Freyne complained to Sanders, then the mayor of Burlington, that he had reneged on his promise to hold regular press conferences, pointing out that “When asked a question you don’t want to answer, you leave the room.”

[Skidmore]

67. For all of his

populist stylings, BS is truly a misanthrope.

[LanternWaste]

42. I hope BS will soon accept the consequences of his actions instead of blaming the media

for his poor polling performances. It will be a positive sign of growth on his part if he does.

[ehrnst]

46. Sad - whether it be Trump or someone running as a Democrat.(nt)

[Thekaspervote]

54. Oh me too! Really tired 💤 of all the spin

[SidDithers]

56. commondreams...nt

Sid

[Lordquinton]

64. Something something people spending their time looking for gaffs

Imagine if all the people on this site calling for unity practiced what they preached.

Thanks for posting Uncle Joe.

[betsuni]

66. Stephen Colbert on Bernie:

"Wait, he's stealing Trump's thing. 'Yes, Jeff Bezos and The Washington Post is, I think, and I'm coining this phrase: fake news, sad, it's a witch hunt.' Bernie went on to explain why he's worried about corporate media, saying 'Large corporations own the media in America, by and large, and there is a framework about how the corporate media focuses on politics.' Okay, Bernie, that's ridiculous. I, Stephen Colbert, work for a major corporate media, but I'm free from corporate influence and I can say whatever I want. Which reminds me: ALL HAIL THE GLORIOUS MERGER OF VIACOM AND CBS. MAY IT FOREVER BOLSTER OUR PREMIUM CONTENT PORTFOLIO AND POSITION US TO SPAN ALL CONTENT CATEGORIES AND DEMOGRAPHICS, CREATING ETERNAL VALUE FOR OUR SHAREHOLDERS. VIACOMCBS: STRONGER TOGETHER."

[Hortensis]

75. "Some people say that maybe if the system wasn't

rigged against me, I would've beat Trump." This was Sanders' response to Kasey Hunt's second attempt to get an answer to, "If If it's clear you aren't going to be the nominee, will you concede before the convention?"

"Some people..."

The question was asked because he once withheld his support long after we had a clear, indisputable winner.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/bernie-sanders-2016-rigged-wont-pledge-support-winner.html

By any normal understanding of "rigged," which implies corrupt action, the primary was not rigged against him. In fact, the DNC helped him tremendously by putting him on the stage -- to speak to the interests of those Democrats who'd been inspired by Warren and interested in him as a replacement -- and clearing the way for him by disqualifying 9 (nine) other candidates who would have kept him from standing out, all of whom were Democrats.

[ehrnst]

80. Bernie himself stated that it wasn't "rigged," just "dumb."

He entered the race, knowing full well how everything worked, especially seeing as he was a Superdelegate.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-not-rigged-just-dumb/