4 ms·

Again, I'm responding to this statement: "the corporate media [...] colluded to stop a once in a lifetime opportunity in Bernie Sanders to help their friend and

Again, I'm responding to this statement: "the corporate media [...] 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." The fact that career democrats feel strongly about the outcome of a democratic primary is not a corporate media conspiracy. Should there be reforms to the Democrats' primary process? Yes. Is that at all relevant to the subject of this part of the thread? No.

spopejoy 10y ago
But you don't challenge the central point. Just because major media collusion with [DR]NC is normal doesn't make it any less galling. In fact the only reason there is any complaint this time around is precisely because Bernie's candidacy was so unexpectedly strong. When Howard Dean was demolished (DNC-orchestrated with the full participation of the press) there wasn't nearly the backlash as he was just getting started. With that point standing, the statement is opinionated but hardly tinfoil-hat. Hillary and the DNC are definitely due for a great deal of blame for our current disaster -- if they had lifted a finger to accomodate the Bernie side -- make him VP maybe, or pick someone less nasty than freaking KAINE -- they might have been able to pick up on his momentum a little. Would Bernie have beat Trump, or even won without the DNC collusion? I don't know -- but you don't either.
- ForrestN 10y ago
  There certainly is a kind of mutually entrenching equilibrium between the major political parties and media conglomerates. There are certainly structural factors in terms of how our political and media systems work that arguably disfavored Bernie Sanders. The media believes that establishment candidates are most likely to be elected, and they therefor cover them more than candidates they deem to be less likely, such as Sanders. I think this is a perverse approach that distorts elections, but I have no sense that this is done in bad faith by the thousands of people who make editorial decisions like this every day. I can disagree with the conventions of political coverage in the United States without impugning the motives of an entire industry. Further, the incredibly contingency of all of this means that we can't actually prove such vague cause and effect relationships. We can't know that the media unilaterally crushed Bernie's candidacy. Maybe if the media had covered Bernie more, it would have led to more scrutiny or some kind of gaffe that destroyed his campaign. Maybe if he had gotten one more news story he would have been reading it on his phone, slipped on a banana peel, and broken his neck. I have no idea if more coverage would have made Bernie more popular, or if the "the media is ignoring me!" narrative was actually a key engine of his campaign's growth. Collusion means "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others" according to Google. DNC collusion is fair—there are arguments that this is less than nefarious, but I disagree with them. Multi-corporation media conspiracy with the purpose of anointing Hillary over Bernie? Still waiting to see any evidence of that.
  - spopejoy 10y ago
    I suppose the collusion is more guilt-by-association -- the DNC's tight relationship with major media means unfair activity on their part will be amplified in the press, and given the extremity of the bad-faith activities in this case, anger at the press is justified. But I concede that direct collusion is unlikely, and probably not even what folks are angry about if they choose their words carefully. Bernie's campaign tread over many sacred cows -- Palestinian rights on national TV?? Single-payer health care?? Labor?? (The press HATES labor!!) -- so add their institutional hostility to a left-wing candidate, and collusion isn't necessary.

spopejoy 10y ago

But you don't challenge the central point. Just because major media collusion with [DR]NC is normal doesn't make it any less galling. In fact the only reason there is any complaint this time around is precisely because Bernie's candidacy was so unexpectedly strong. When Howard Dean was demolished (DNC-orchestrated with the full participation of the press) there wasn't nearly the backlash as he was just getting started. With that point standing, the statement is opinionated but hardly tinfoil-hat. Hillary and the DNC are definitely due for a great deal of blame for our current disaster -- if they had lifted a finger to accomodate the Bernie side -- make him VP maybe, or pick someone less nasty than freaking KAINE -- they might have been able to pick up on his momentum a little. Would Bernie have beat Trump, or even won without the DNC collusion? I don't know -- but you don't either.

ForrestN 10y ago
There certainly is a kind of mutually entrenching equilibrium between the major political parties and media conglomerates. There are certainly structural factors in terms of how our political and media systems work that arguably disfavored Bernie Sanders. The media believes that establishment candidates are most likely to be elected, and they therefor cover them more than candidates they deem to be less likely, such as Sanders. I think this is a perverse approach that distorts elections, but I have no sense that this is done in bad faith by the thousands of people who make editorial decisions like this every day. I can disagree with the conventions of political coverage in the United States without impugning the motives of an entire industry. Further, the incredibly contingency of all of this means that we can't actually prove such vague cause and effect relationships. We can't know that the media unilaterally crushed Bernie's candidacy. Maybe if the media had covered Bernie more, it would have led to more scrutiny or some kind of gaffe that destroyed his campaign. Maybe if he had gotten one more news story he would have been reading it on his phone, slipped on a banana peel, and broken his neck. I have no idea if more coverage would have made Bernie more popular, or if the "the media is ignoring me!" narrative was actually a key engine of his campaign's growth. Collusion means "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others" according to Google. DNC collusion is fair—there are arguments that this is less than nefarious, but I disagree with them. Multi-corporation media conspiracy with the purpose of anointing Hillary over Bernie? Still waiting to see any evidence of that.
- spopejoy 10y ago
  I suppose the collusion is more guilt-by-association -- the DNC's tight relationship with major media means unfair activity on their part will be amplified in the press, and given the extremity of the bad-faith activities in this case, anger at the press is justified. But I concede that direct collusion is unlikely, and probably not even what folks are angry about if they choose their words carefully. Bernie's campaign tread over many sacred cows -- Palestinian rights on national TV?? Single-payer health care?? Labor?? (The press HATES labor!!) -- so add their institutional hostility to a left-wing candidate, and collusion isn't necessary.