Eugene Gu: "It's not that Andrew Yang isn't aggressive or outspoken enough to grab media time..."

[redqueen]

Link to tweet

[redqueen]

1. More

Link to tweet

[Bev54]

2. I doubt it

He has been on MSNBC many times and before anyone else put him on. He is whining and it is probably not a good idea to go against the very media you are counting on for exposure. I was disgusted by his remarks on CNN and I have lost all respect for him.

[redqueen]

4. Apparently you haven't noticed what they've been doing. Here you go.

https://vocal.media/theSwamp/a-visual-history-of-the-yang-media-blackout

[msongs]

3. does playing victim draw supporters. we will see. nt

[redqueen]

5. How is he "playing victim" when he's literally only asking for fair treatment?

They have omitted him 15 times. They have apologized 15 times.

At what point do you think he should be allowed to ask them to own up to what is not a mistake or an accident, but a clear and undeniable pattern?

[msongs]

6. gee maybe his low polls standing is because so few ppl want him? nt

[redqueen]

7. Did you read my post?

I guess you're ok with Comcast deciding who should get fair coverage.

Interesting.

[Jake Stern]

8. If he were African American and facing the exact same situation

DUers would be whipped into a froth and shouting from the rooftops that he was the victim of racism.

Count on there being at least a dozen angry OPs about it.

But Andrew Yang is Asian so the DU consensus appears to be that he's "playing victim".

[redqueen]

9. Thank you Jake

Others have shared that same opinion. I really feel for everyone, especially for every Asian person, who is seeing Yang being treated this way, and seeing so few willing to even acknowledge it, let alone call it out.

[Normanart]

10. Just think

Of all the loaded adjectives used against POC, women, LGBTQ, Asians, immigrants, and anyone marginalized by the system in our country. Fighting back will always earn the scorn of the privileged.

[redqueen]

19. It's really shocking how few are standing up for fairness

this isn't an allegation, or an accusation - it's a call out of clear and undeniable unfairness.

[karynnj]

11. Or it may be that with his low polling, lack of a traditional resume and

Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2019, 03:55 PM - Edit history (1)

unusual ideas have not led to him gaining sufficient acceptance. I wonder also if his support - and he does have a small intense following - might themselves not engage in the mainstream. I personally am surprised that he has the polling he does.

I also think the idea of boycotting the most left leaning cable channel is rather silly. Turning down an opportunity for one on one coverage - unless he gets an apology, is a stunt. If it was REALLY more media time, he would welcome that time, prepare well for it and try to use it to gain additional supporters.

[redqueen]

12. He's getting more attention by standing up for fairness

They're not shutting him out because of low polling numbers. If it was based on polling, he would have had much more time.

This is an issue of basic fairness.

It's astounding to me to see so many people defending the right of corporate overlords to decide things for us.

Link to tweet

[karynnj]

13. There are many things that contribute to the amount of time

One is the person issues are directed to, but another is who is "attacked" by others. This means that if the issue is MFA - some will attack those for and those against. Yang is not the person attacked by either side.

Having watched the debates, I suspect that he mostly lost minutes because no one mentioned him. That is not controlled by the people running it. I doubt that it is that all the people running all the debates intentionally decided that of the 10 candidates - they would give him less time. (It also looks like he never had more than 4% ) I don't think the corporate overlords worked against him - as, at his highest, he was not a threat to them.

You posit that time should be positively correlated with polling. There obviously is a strong correlation and he is always below the curve. However, the same could be claimed for Joe Biden! I think he is the only one who polled above 30. 4 of his 5 are below the curve as well.

[redqueen]

16. Other candidates put their hand up to ask a question and get called on.

But not Yang.

There is no logical explanation that makes any sense. People in other countries notice this. It's frankly shocking that some Democrats are tying themselves in knots trying to defend this kind of unfair treatment.

[Skidmore]

14. It is silly because

Yang has been interviewed by nearly every host on MSNBC, multiple times by some. That his low polling numbers are being disregarded because he gets a curious crowd is weird. I've been to see pols who I didn't vote for. Iowans are kinda like that.

[redqueen]

17. His low polling numbers are higher than four of the other candidates who were on that stage. nt

[Hortensis]

15. Nonsense. Yang's a small timer with an unimpressive resume and

has never broken out of that reality. Although managing to run for president (!!!) and stay in to the first debate, much less longer, is a credential of sorts. One he shares with other sorts like Gabbard and Williamson.

And "good ideas" aren't enough by a long shot. I have good ideas, our brilliant son has good ideas, they're found in every issue of thoughtful magazines without fail. It takes more.

[redqueen]

18. He's polling ahead of four of the candidates who were on the stage.

Whatever you or anyone else thinks of his qualifications, he earned the right to be there, and should have been treated fairly.

Never thought I'd see so many on DU so ready to defend Comcast's right to interfere in our democracy.

[Hortensis]

20. Well, I'm certainly not going to defend commercial debates.

Unfortunately, it's the candidates themselves who chose them over far more honest and rigorous debates of the League of Women Voters that genuinely sought to inform the public. They've been trash ever since. I record without watching in case I do want to look something up afterward.

Itm, this is all over RW sources that are making anti-Democratic hay with his angry accusations. Not the biggest thing in the world, but if his inappropriate (imo) ambition causes him to run again for national office I'll remember that this is how he chose to go out in 2019.

[redqueen]

21. Yes - other candidates. Yang actually called that out too at the start of this season.

He said he was shocked to learn that campaigns will reach out to the debate teams and arrange to be asked about certain issues

That is why the LWV stopped hosting them. I'm sure that Yang would be the first to volunteer to go back to the old format.

I don't care what lies the MSM sells. I go by candidates and policy alone.

[Hortensis]

22. Me too. Since all our strong liberal Democrats share the same

core values and goals -- and since it's congress that legislates the big new policy, not the president -- I don't usually put a lot of weight on the individual policy differences they all magnify amap to try to attract the attention of more voters.

Strong liberal principles and goals. Good character and demonstrated competence. Electability.

No one could possibly figure these out listening to debates where candidates are forced to use their time fending off attacks from others trying to get noticed and squabbling over whatever the current hot squabble is.

I hope in spite of this that Yang has been leading a lot more people to realize we can act to use automation to make our lives better than we ever imagined, not just be afraid of the unknown future. And at least put the idea of a future UBI in a lot of heads.

[redqueen]

24. It's funny you say that, because that's exactly what he says.

So far at least, he hasn't attacked anyone. And he's criticized the way the moderators try to instigate conflict between the candidates during debates.

He insists time is best spent not talking about Trump, but laying out our vision of our goals for the future and how to achieve them.

[Hortensis]

26. :) Not funny, I've been reading others on this for years.

Yang's value was in bringing their discussion to some of the people who hadn't been.

Note that Hillary Clinton seriously considered running on a universal basic income in 2015-2016, but there were so many huge, important demands on our money, including attacking climate change big time and expanding the ACA, that they couldn't make the numbers work for her first term.

Btw, we would have had a lot more money to work with then, after two responsible Democratic administrations. Now, after the Republicans have been lowering taxes on the wealthy, emptying our national accounts, and running us deeper into debt than ever before, there's far less to work with. That's not an accident. Nor, btw, is it an accident that Yang hasn't been pointing this little problem out.

[Renew Deal]

23. Maybe it's because he has no chance of winning, so talking to him is a waste

Of time. Democrats are not going to try to beat trump with their own no-experience rich guy.

[redqueen]

25. But Klobuchar, Booker, and Tulsi do?

Why waste our time talking to candidates who have less of a chance than Yang does?

The American people have shown with their donations who they want.

The media shouldn't get to decide to silence candidates that we want to see.

And I'm becoming less shocked and more sickened by seeing people insist otherwise.

[Renew Deal]

29. If donations are the metric, then that means they want Trump.

Yang needs a better media strategy. Others have been able to find ways to get attention. Just look at Warren. She's always hustling for attention and she gets it.

[redqueen]

30. Donations are *one* metric that the DNC uses to determine who gets to be on the stage

Apparently you aren't in favor of basic fairness and think that it's fine for MSNBC to have erased him repeatedly for nine months. So be it.

[Renew Deal]

31. I don't take his candidacy seriously.

And they don't have time for every candidate. I see lots of coverage of Yang compared to Delaney, Bullock, Bennet, etc. If he wants more attention, he should go get it.

[redqueen]

32. This isn't about "getting attention" aside from during actual debates.

And during debates he SHOULD get more attention than Klobuchar, Booker, and Tulsi but he DOESN'T.

He raises his hand to speak and gets ignored. This is a demonstrated pattern.

And that is ON TOP OF him being LITERALLY ERASED from MSNBC graphics when polling or fundraising is discussed on the air.

IDGAF if you take him seriously or not, MSNBC is being incredibly unfair to ONE candidate and that is simply wrong. Absolutely wrong. And unjustifiable.

https://vocal.media/theSwamp/a-visual-history-of-the-yang-media-blackout

[customerserviceguy]

27. When all is said and done

after Election Day 2020, Andrew Yang will be an interesting footnote in the history of the campaign, nothing more.

[redqueen]

28. So - because you find him a "footnote" - he shouldn't get fair treatment from the media?

Just trying to understand the logic here.

This is about fairness in media coverage.

When did that start to matter so little to so many?

[customerserviceguy]

33. Give him all the exposure he wants

in the end, he is not anything more than a fringe candidate with an unaffordable idea.

I'm sure the Republicons would love to see him continue as far as possible in the debates.

[redqueen]

34. You keep sharing your opinion of what you think of him

and his candidacy.

Do you think that justifies unfair treatment?

[customerserviceguy]

35. The media

will treat serious candidates seriously. As to my opinion about whether they're fair or not, well, they really don't give a damn about my opinion.

If I were a Republicon, I would want the Andrew Yangs and the Marianne Williamsons of this campaign getting more attention, to keep the focus off of the top tier where the Democratic nominee is actually going to come from. And Pete Buttigieg proved that you can go from presumed vanity candidate to the top tier if you have interesting things to say that the media wants to cover. Andrew Yang comes across as a one-trick pony with his giveaway scheme.

[redqueen]

36. Nice dodge. So no, you don't care about media fairness

I hope that when it happens in a way that doesn't go along with your personal beliefs, you reflect on that opinion.

As for your mistaken impression that he is a one-trick pony, that just shows you haven't paid any attention to him.

[customerserviceguy]

37. I've already decided

that "media fairness" is an illusion, therefore, no, I don't care about it.

All I know is that long shot candidates can buck however the media treats them, Trump and Buttigieg are clearly proof of that.

And yes, I've not paid attention to him, because I consider it impossible for him to even reach the top tier, let alone win the nomination. His other opinions, plans, etc. are irrelevant to me. Once the cutoff figure for the debates hits 5%, we won't see any more of Andrew Yang.