4 ms·

I'm surprised the left has become so sympathetic to the corporate media all of a sudden. These people colluded to stop a once in a lifetime opportunity in Berni

I'm surprised the left has become so sympathetic to the corporate media all of a sudden. These people colluded to stop a once in a lifetime opportunity in Bernie Sanders to help their friend and collaborator Hillary Clinton, and so we ended up with Donald Trump. This was only a year ago.

ForrestN 10y ago
What is your evidence that they colluded? I agree that the media in general (at all levels, not just the corporate media) disastrously failed us during the election. But I don't think anyone has proven that they "colluded to stop a once in a lifetime opportunity," right?
- vowelless 10y ago
  I'm not sure if I can link to wikileaks here but some of the emails showed collusion with the DNC in general and with the Clinton campaign in particular during the primaries. For an example, see the emails about the debate question leaked to the Clinton campaign for the primary debate in Flint, MI (although this was by someone, I think, hired by CNN who was later hired to head the DNC). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/donna-brazile-is-totally-not-sorry-for-leaking-cnn-debate-questions-to-hillary-clinton/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/do...
  - ForrestN 10y ago
    Those very narrow allegations about one incident within the DNC are not the same as the entire corporate media colluding in Clinton's favor. I'm not happy about what the DNC did but it's not clear that swayed the outcome from an inevitable Bernie victory or that the DNC was part of a conspiracy with the media.
    - wavefunction 10y ago
      The emails also showed that both the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC reached out to highly-placed journalists (Ezra Klein, some others) to prop up Trump, Carson and Cruz as GOP candidates because there was a consensus that they would be "pushovers." Donald Trump received an exorbitant amount of media coverage for free throughout the campaign cycle.
      - ForrestN 10y ago
        I would love to see a source. I can't seem to find anything that reflects this. Campaigns reach out to journalists constantly, every day, to try and influence their thinking. That's called discourse, and I'd hate to imagine what campaigns would be like if reporters couldn't talk to campaign staff. All I can find doing a quick search about Klein is that he was seen as someone interested in holding other journalists accountable, which means... nothing? Of course people in campaigns are going to be working on identifying who to speak with about various subjects based on who they think might agree with them. Klein is the extremely well respected founder of vox.com and certainly did not "prop up Trump, Carson and Cruz" to my knowledge. If anything, vox.com was substantially less Trump-obsessed and criticized the broader media coverage of Trump. If there were a credible source about a media conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton I'd be very grateful to see it. But I haven't seen it yet.
    - ABCLAW 10y ago
      If you've performed investigatory work before, you'd know that having a specific incident memorialized in text is often only the visible iceberg of non-compliance. Most agents that are skirting the rules have some notion that they shouldn't be overtly recording their misdeeds. In other words, where there's smoke, there's often fire. The 'one incident' wasn't just smoke, though. It was a full blown conflict-of-interest fire in and of itself.
      - ForrestN 10y ago
        Sure—and I'm not excusing Brazile or the DNC. But that wasn't the parent's point. Longtime establishment Democrat operatives acting on behalf of a longtime establishment Democrat against a non-Democrat who was constantly talking about his own disconnection from the Democratic establishment is something that I think is bad for the party and unethical. I don't really like the Democratic establishment very much. Having parties full of politicians operate things like debates from a supposedly neutral vantage is silly and shouldn't happen. What does that have to do with a corporate media conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton over the obvious victor Bernie Sanders?
        ABCLAW 10y ago
        I believe your points were already well addressed, but lets take another stab at this. A number of studies have indicated that media displayed substantial bias during the primaries. That bias was directly in line with Clinton's campaign strategy, as stated in another child to the parent comment. https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidential-primaries/ https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidentia... I'm not sure what else you're looking for. More on the causation front? Studies on the effects of media coverage on candidates in political races have thoroughly discussed here and elsewhere since the election. More on the media bias side? I'm sure you can review the DNC leak as well as other post-election frequency reviews. There's a reason why people were outraged at the media post-election and subsequently why the 'fake news' scapegoat was trotted out as a narrative to salvage the worth of mainstream media's reputation.
        10y ago
krschultz 10y ago
This going way over the line for politics on HN but I can't let it go. Everyone repeating the story you are pushing is robbing the Hillary supporters of their agency. I've voted for Democrats for years and years. I didn't view Bernie as a once in a lifetime opportunity. I saw him as way too far left for me. I was clearly wrong on the relative electability of Hillary & Bernie, but I'm voted in the primary for the candidate that better represented my views. I didn't vote for Hillary because the DNC made me do it or the media lied to me. I watched their speeches, I read their websites, I watched the debates, and I decided I'd rather have Hillary than Bernie. That's it. It's not a giant conspiracy, there's just a lot of rank and file Democratic voters that aren't all in on Bernie's worldview. If you want to make an argument for why I should be more in on the Bernie plan than Hillary's plan I'd hear it (I guess not on HN), but stop pretending like the majority of Democratic primary voters were duped.
- spopejoy 10y ago
  I'm inclined to agree with you, albeit from the "Bernie's not left enough" side -- I was amongst those who were critical of his decision to go Democrat in the first place, announcing right from the start that he'd endorse Hillary if he lost, which he did, and WTF does that mean for his policies/politics??? However, I'm surprised that you aren't offended by the DNC's corruption and dishonesty. Say what you want about Bernie -- you can't deny he attracted much new blood to the party; he was the last hope of reclaiming the lost passion of the 2008 Obama campaign. The DNC's open hostility to his candidacy was shameful. If you're trying to imply that somehow it had no effect on the primary outcome, you should share whatever you're smoking with the group.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  We have little to no evidence about the electability of Bernie.
  - ABCLAW 10y ago
    A number of comparative studies were performed during the primaries regarding the electibility of various candidates against their counterparts on the other side. Sanders performed very well against Trump on those metrics. There are a number of people advancing the 'we have no evidence' banner in this thread, which is strange because studies of electibility were commonly discussed here during the primaries.
dredmorbius 10y ago
There's the capability to both recognise the significance of an institution and its faults. There's no paradox in this. In fact both are essential.

ForrestN 10y ago

What is your evidence that they colluded? I agree that the media in general (at all levels, not just the corporate media) disastrously failed us during the election. But I don't think anyone has proven that they "colluded to stop a once in a lifetime opportunity," right?

vowelless 10y ago
I'm not sure if I can link to wikileaks here but some of the emails showed collusion with the DNC in general and with the Clinton campaign in particular during the primaries. For an example, see the emails about the debate question leaked to the Clinton campaign for the primary debate in Flint, MI (although this was by someone, I think, hired by CNN who was later hired to head the DNC). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/donna-brazile-is-totally-not-sorry-for-leaking-cnn-debate-questions-to-hillary-clinton/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/do...
- ForrestN 10y ago
  Those very narrow allegations about one incident within the DNC are not the same as the entire corporate media colluding in Clinton's favor. I'm not happy about what the DNC did but it's not clear that swayed the outcome from an inevitable Bernie victory or that the DNC was part of a conspiracy with the media.
  - wavefunction 10y ago
    The emails also showed that both the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC reached out to highly-placed journalists (Ezra Klein, some others) to prop up Trump, Carson and Cruz as GOP candidates because there was a consensus that they would be "pushovers." Donald Trump received an exorbitant amount of media coverage for free throughout the campaign cycle.
    - ForrestN 10y ago
      I would love to see a source. I can't seem to find anything that reflects this. Campaigns reach out to journalists constantly, every day, to try and influence their thinking. That's called discourse, and I'd hate to imagine what campaigns would be like if reporters couldn't talk to campaign staff. All I can find doing a quick search about Klein is that he was seen as someone interested in holding other journalists accountable, which means... nothing? Of course people in campaigns are going to be working on identifying who to speak with about various subjects based on who they think might agree with them. Klein is the extremely well respected founder of vox.com and certainly did not "prop up Trump, Carson and Cruz" to my knowledge. If anything, vox.com was substantially less Trump-obsessed and criticized the broader media coverage of Trump. If there were a credible source about a media conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton I'd be very grateful to see it. But I haven't seen it yet.
  - ABCLAW 10y ago
    If you've performed investigatory work before, you'd know that having a specific incident memorialized in text is often only the visible iceberg of non-compliance. Most agents that are skirting the rules have some notion that they shouldn't be overtly recording their misdeeds. In other words, where there's smoke, there's often fire. The 'one incident' wasn't just smoke, though. It was a full blown conflict-of-interest fire in and of itself.
    - ForrestN 10y ago
      Sure—and I'm not excusing Brazile or the DNC. But that wasn't the parent's point. Longtime establishment Democrat operatives acting on behalf of a longtime establishment Democrat against a non-Democrat who was constantly talking about his own disconnection from the Democratic establishment is something that I think is bad for the party and unethical. I don't really like the Democratic establishment very much. Having parties full of politicians operate things like debates from a supposedly neutral vantage is silly and shouldn't happen. What does that have to do with a corporate media conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton over the obvious victor Bernie Sanders?
      - ABCLAW 10y ago
        I believe your points were already well addressed, but lets take another stab at this. A number of studies have indicated that media displayed substantial bias during the primaries. That bias was directly in line with Clinton's campaign strategy, as stated in another child to the parent comment. https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidential-primaries/ https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidentia... I'm not sure what else you're looking for. More on the causation front? Studies on the effects of media coverage on candidates in political races have thoroughly discussed here and elsewhere since the election. More on the media bias side? I'm sure you can review the DNC leak as well as other post-election frequency reviews. There's a reason why people were outraged at the media post-election and subsequently why the 'fake news' scapegoat was trotted out as a narrative to salvage the worth of mainstream media's reputation.
        10y ago

krschultz 10y ago

This going way over the line for politics on HN but I can't let it go. Everyone repeating the story you are pushing is robbing the Hillary supporters of their agency. I've voted for Democrats for years and years. I didn't view Bernie as a once in a lifetime opportunity. I saw him as way too far left for me. I was clearly wrong on the relative electability of Hillary & Bernie, but I'm voted in the primary for the candidate that better represented my views. I didn't vote for Hillary because the DNC made me do it or the media lied to me. I watched their speeches, I read their websites, I watched the debates, and I decided I'd rather have Hillary than Bernie. That's it. It's not a giant conspiracy, there's just a lot of rank and file Democratic voters that aren't all in on Bernie's worldview. If you want to make an argument for why I should be more in on the Bernie plan than Hillary's plan I'd hear it (I guess not on HN), but stop pretending like the majority of Democratic primary voters were duped.

spopejoy 10y ago
I'm inclined to agree with you, albeit from the "Bernie's not left enough" side -- I was amongst those who were critical of his decision to go Democrat in the first place, announcing right from the start that he'd endorse Hillary if he lost, which he did, and WTF does that mean for his policies/politics??? However, I'm surprised that you aren't offended by the DNC's corruption and dishonesty. Say what you want about Bernie -- you can't deny he attracted much new blood to the party; he was the last hope of reclaiming the lost passion of the 2008 Obama campaign. The DNC's open hostility to his candidacy was shameful. If you're trying to imply that somehow it had no effect on the primary outcome, you should share whatever you're smoking with the group.
maxerickson 10y ago
We have little to no evidence about the electability of Bernie.
- ABCLAW 10y ago
  A number of comparative studies were performed during the primaries regarding the electibility of various candidates against their counterparts on the other side. Sanders performed very well against Trump on those metrics. There are a number of people advancing the 'we have no evidence' banner in this thread, which is strange because studies of electibility were commonly discussed here during the primaries.

dredmorbius 10y ago

There's the capability to both recognise the significance of an institution and its faults. There's no paradox in this. In fact both are essential.