Media treatment of Bernie Sanders: a story in pictures

[PyramidHead]

Act 1...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-2020-campaign-lobbyist-money_n_5cc111dce4b0764d31dc8586



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_NBC_Universal_by_Comcast


MSNBC gives Biden an extra 3% on live TV to put him over Bernie:


Act 2...

https://www.businessinsider.com/ber...minimum-wage-raise-stop-bezos-act-win-2018-10


https://www.bbc.com/news/av/business-23582797/amazon-boss-jeff-bezos-buys-washington-post-for-250m


Washington Post alters length of bar in graph to inflate Biden's lead over Sanders in poll:


Act 3...

https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1123039853573279745


The report:
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/20...r-money-behind-not-just-the-democratic-women/


So, what happens when you don't just look at itemized contributions?


~fin~

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer: these are not the only examples of media mistreatment of candidates, either in terms of the network/outlet or the candidate, but I'm particularly interested in them because they are so blatant and easy to spot (and because I think Bernie is particularly hated by some--not all--outlets). We always hear about Fox News doing this kind of shit, but it's happening in the liberal media too.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Act 1...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-2020-campaign-lobbyist-money_n_5cc111dce4b0764d31dc8586

View attachment 21215

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_NBC_Universal_by_Comcast
View attachment 21216

MSNBC gives Biden an extra 3% on live TV to put him over Bernie:
View attachment 21217

Act 2...

https://www.businessinsider.com/ber...minimum-wage-raise-stop-bezos-act-win-2018-10
View attachment 21218

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/business-23582797/amazon-boss-jeff-bezos-buys-washington-post-for-250m
View attachment 21219

Washington Post alters length of bar in graph to inflate Biden's lead over Sanders in poll:
View attachment 21220

Act 3...

https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1123039853573279745
View attachment 21221

The report:
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/20...r-money-behind-not-just-the-democratic-women/
View attachment 21222

So, what happens when you don't just look at itemized contributions?
View attachment 21223

~fin~

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer: these are not the only examples of media mistreatment of candidates, either in terms of the network/outlet or the candidate, but I'm particularly interested in them because they are so blatant and easy to spot (and because I think Bernie is particularly hated by some--not all--outlets). We always hear about Fox News doing this kind of shit, but it's happening in the liberal media too.

I hate to point out the obvious, but the race is over. The economy continues to boom. 40% of America loves Trump. They will all vote. And that is all the margin that he needs. The dems remain divided. 2020 is over folks. The democratic primary is really about 2024. Biden, Sanders and Warren will be in assisted living before 2024! The dems need to find some younger people who can keep the hope going for 24.

 

[PyramidHead]

If you hate to point out the obvious, then don't, because it isn't obvious to everyone and you haven't given a convincing reason why three candidates as vastly different in their policy positions as Biden, Sanders, and Warren are best grouped (and dismissed) by age. The whole point of Sanders' campaign right now is to build a movement of people, mostly the young, who will eventually represent the left in government and someday run for President. Young candidates aren't automatically better than old candidates, and hope is not inspired by young candidates with the same awful positions as the worst of their forbears.

 

[PyramidHead]

Act 4...



But CNN fails to mention that their polling data does not include anybody younger than 50.


From about a month ago:

Thirty-one percent of likely voters between 18 and 29 years old surveyed by Harvard University's Institute of Politics said they prefer the Vermont lawmaker in a hypothetical primary. Former Vice President Joe Biden was the first pick of 20 percent of respondents, while former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas) received 10 percent of the support. No other candidate received more than 5 percent.

If you want a candidate that inspires hope, don't assume that young people are only inspired by young candidates.

 

[ideologyhunter]

We are almost exactly 18 months away from election day. Tell me, what exactitude did the guesswork of May 2015 have, on the subject of November 2016? The electorate is fickle, worse-informed than we've been in generations, addicted to echo-chamber social media for opinion, given to irrational swings to extremes. This trend has at least been noticeable since 1991/2, in the pre-Google age, when Bush One went from undefeatable Gulf War hero to sadsack loser. Trump may have a rock solid 40%, but there's another solid group that will vote for ANY (or nearly any) alternative to Trump.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

If you want a candidate that inspires hope

Only an idiot newbie would want a candidate that "inspires hope." This is precisely why the Obama campaign rejected the "hope" message in favor of the "change" message.

It's not a crusade. It's a goddamned job interview.

 

[PyramidHead]

If you want a candidate that inspires hope

Only an idiot newbie would want a candidate that "inspires hope." This is precisely why the Obama campaign rejected the "hope" message in favor of the "change" message.

Is it really so different? What do people hope for, if not change? And in the end, of course, 8 years of Obama brought us to where we are today.

It's not a crusade. It's a goddamned job interview.

How's that slogan been working out for you, on a scale of 1 - unbearable?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Is it really so different?

Yes, it most certainly is. "Hope" is an ephemeral, nebulous, religious desire that can't ever be fulfilled by any human being, let along a goddamned politician. It's selling a person's own desire to them. It's purely manipulative and deliberately so.

And in the end, of course, 8 years of Obama brought us to where we are today.

Because he changed a tremendous amount of policies and procedures that the Bush cabal had implemented (and booby-trapped). Precisely because he understood that the position is as top administrator, not messiah.

It's not a crusade. It's a goddamned job interview.

How's that slogan been working out for you, on a scale of 1 - unbearable?

For fuckheads that don't know shit about what they're talking about, it's pretty fucking unbearable. But by all means continue to preach more and fuck us all once again with another four years of Trump.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But CNN fails to mention that their polling data does not include anybody younger than 50.
View attachment 21236

How can you have a final error margin of 6%, if your two only statistically relevant categories have errors over 10%?

 

[Derec]

How can you have a final error margin of 6%, if your two only statistically relevant categories have errors over 10%?

The bigger your sample size n, the narrower your confidence interval and margin of error become.

You split a sample into sub-samples, and your MOE increases.

 

[Derec]

But CNN fails to mention that their polling data does not include anybody younger than 50.

It's not the case that they do not have anybody <50, but that there were too few respondents from those age categories to break it down by age and still have a reasonable MOE. I.e. the data of younger people is still included in the overall results, but there is not enough of it to compile a result for those ages only.

For example, 45% of those over 45 prefer Biden, but only 39% prefer Biden totally. 11% of those over 45 prefer Bernie, but 15% of everybody prefer him. That would be impossible if they did not include anybody under 50 ...

 

[laughing dog]

Trump beat HRC who clobbered Sanders. Why would anyone think Sanders has much of a chance to beat Trump?

 

[PyramidHead]

Trump beat HRC who clobbered Sanders. Why would anyone think Sanders has much of a chance to beat Trump?

1. His popularity in the states that gave Trump the win over Clinton

2. The fact that it's no longer 2016 and support for both Sanders and his positions have exponentially grown since then

3. Lack of comparability between the primaries and the general makes your reduction to "A beats B who beats C" overly simplistic

 

[Harry Bosch]

If you want a candidate that inspires hope

Only an idiot newbie would want a candidate that "inspires hope." This is precisely why the Obama campaign rejected the "hope" message in favor of the "change" message.

It's not a crusade. It's a goddamned job interview.

People usually only call me an idiot after they met me in person! But that's okay. I don't mean to sound like a complete downer, but I just think that it's going to be a great long shot for Trump to lose in 2020. Republicans love him. The economy is not going into recession. I have great doubts that the left will come out to vote in great enough numbers to beat Trump. My hope is that we identify several extremely competent younger candidates for 2024; that we retain the house, and take the senate.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Trump beat HRC who clobbered Sanders. Why would anyone think Sanders has much of a chance to beat Trump?

1. His popularity in the states that gave Trump the win over Clinton

2. The fact that it's no longer 2016 and support for both Sanders and his positions have exponentially grown since then

3. Lack of comparability between the primaries and the general makes your reduction to "A beats B who beats C" overly simplistic

Your understanding of how the general works vs primaries is opposite! The candidates who win in the general are those able to attract the greater amount of undecided and/or moderates while retaining your base. You seem to advocate the candidate with the stronger base but less popular support.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump beat HRC who clobbered Sanders. Why would anyone think Sanders has much of a chance to beat Trump?

1. His popularity in the states that gave Trump the win over Clinton

And what about New Hampshire, Virginia, and Colorado?

2. The fact that it's no longer 2016 and support for both Sanders and his positions have exponentially grown since then

It is currently 2018 and exponential growth doesn't look exponential in just two years.

3. Lack of comparability between the primaries and the general makes your reduction to "A beats B who beats C" overly simplistic

Sanders was stumping for Clinton when all was said and done.

 

[PyramidHead]

And what about New Hampshire, Virginia, and Colorado?

What about em?

It is currently 2018 and exponential growth doesn't look exponential in just two years.

Did you write that in the past? It's 2019 dude, 2016 was three years ago

Sanders was stumping for Clinton when all was said and done.

A fact many people conveniently forget. But my point was that laughing dog was implying Clinton losing to Trump but winning against Sanders were comparable in some way, even though they were separate contests to attract different voters for different reasons.

 

[PyramidHead]

Does anybody have any reaction at all to the main purpose of this thread, which is to reveal that the media are already transparently lying in their reporting of Sanders? We can have a thread about his overall chances, but this one is supposed to be about the media's treatment of him.

 

[Elixir]

Only 53% of Democrats named Bernie prefer Bernie over Joe. But 61% of Democrats named Joe prefer Joe over Bernie. Except in the 23-29 age range, where the inverse is true.
Therefore...

Jesus H Christ, it seems like paralysis by analysis is all the media are trying to accomplish. Buzzwords from the "B-team" like Bernie, Beto, Buttigieg, Biden etc. and trigger words from the "T-Team" like Trump, treason etc., are their stock in trade regardless of the facts on the ground, and every outlet is going to milk them for all they're worth.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Does anybody have any reaction at all to the main purpose of this thread, which is to reveal that the media are already transparently lying in their reporting of Sanders? We can have a thread about his overall chances, but this one is supposed to be about the media's treatment of him.

Most of us probably don't care. We're what, almost 18 months from the actual election? So much is going to change between now and then. I like some of Bernie's platform. I don't like the way his followers handled themselves in 2016. I think because of his rabid base, which he has only made mild attempts to distance himself from, is poisonous to the DNC and the democratic process overall.

I don't actually care that much (which is not to say not at all) who wins the Dem primary, they will get my vote. It is a shitty position to be in, but the shitheel in the WH is just that bad. I actually think that if Bernie (or Biden, whom I used to like a lot more, and probably still prefer over Bernis) wins, he has less chance of beating the orange shitgibbon than most of the others, since so many people are turned off by him.

You still haven't posted any evidence that his popularity has increased "exponentially" since 2016. Based on my experience, it's been the opposite, but it probably depends on the people around me more than anything else. Got any polls to demonstrate this exponential skyrocketing?