Washington Post: Sanders a risk… the media hates Bernie thread

MSNBC plans "to seek out more smart, pro-Sanders voices" amid criticism over coverage, a network executive tells @joepompeo https://t.co/jSMz3UqyEa

— Michael Calderone (@mlcalderone) February 24, 2020

==

“PHIL IS DOING HIS BEST TO GIVE BERNIE HIS DUE”: AFTER A SANDERS SURGE AND A MATTHEWS GAFFE, MSNBC PREPARES TO PIVOT

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/02/after-a-sanders-surge-and-a-matthews-gaffe-msnbc-prepares-to-pivot

The pundit apocalypse has been gestating for a few weeks—but it took the shock waves from Bernie Sanders’s Nevada victory to fully set it off. As Sanders’s numbers were building in the caucuses, Chris Matthews made the following comparison during an analytical exchange with his colleague Brian Williams. “I was reading last night about the fall of France in the summer of 1940,” said Matthews (you can see where this is headed), “and the general, Reynaud, calls up Churchill and says, ‘It’s over.’ And Churchill says, ‘How can it be? You’ve got the greatest army in Europe. How can it be over?’ He said, ‘It’s over.’”

The blowback was swift. “Never thought part of my job would be pleading with a national news network to stop likening the campaign of a jewish presidential candidate whose family was wiped out by the nazis to the third reich,” tweeted Sanders’s communications director, Mike Casca, “but here we are.” By Monday morning, Matthews was facing calls for his head on a platter, with a #FireChrisMatthews hashtag gaining steam on Twitter.

As far as the possibility of Matthews resigning or being booted goes, that definitely isn’t happening. “They’re not taking Matthews off air over this,” one network insider told me. Rather, sources said he will address the controversy on the Monday night installment of Hardball. Several of them also emphasized that Matthews was not actually likening Sanders to the Nazis—he frequently tosses out historical and World War II references, and this one was perhaps a tone-deaf analogy in the heat of the moment. But if nothing else, the backlash seemed to crystallize just how hot the Sanders–MSNBC dynamic has become, as Tom Kludt explored last week for Vanity Fair. Matthews’s remarks came just one day after Page Six reported that Sanders himself took his grievances directly to MSNBC president Phil Griffin, reportedly telling him in a greenroom before the NBC debate in Nevada last week, “Phil, your network has not been playing a fair role in this campaign. I am upset. Is anything going to change?…I hope you will do better.”

Griffin is taking the complaints seriously, according to network sources. After Matthews’s comments on Saturday night, Griffin’s phone blew up with an angry reaction from the campaign. Griffin quickly discussed the matter with Matthews, who then interviewed campaign cochair Nina Turner on air minutes later. Sources also noted that MSNBC took Sanders’s El Paso and San Antonio rallies live on Saturday, and that Sanders people like campaign manager Faiz Shakir and former campaign manager Jeff Weaver both received airtime on Monday. “The Sanders team is in contact with our senior management,” one source said, “and they are heard. Phil is doing his best to give Bernie his due.”

Now, with Sanders looking more and more like the presumptive nominee, MSNBC’s coverage will have to shift to reflect that. “Will they bring in more contributors that are pro-Sanders? That’s where the chatter is,” another insider told me. “As a matter of news, you have to. Management is sensitive to it, that he is now very possibly gonna be the nominee. He’s winning.” I ran that notion past a network executive. “Yes, the race has changed over the last couple of weeks, and we are going to reflect that and make adjustments,” he said. “One easy way to do that is to seek out more smart, pro-Sanders voices from people who can make our coverage more insightful.” But, the executive added, “Their campaign, like any other, is due fair coverage, not fawning coverage.”

MSNBC is going to have a tough time with that pivot, because they’ve made too many deals with the devil previously, purging the network of most of their “liberal” hosts, and choosing Republican insiders instead.

And that was even before Trump took office and it became home to those Never Trumper Republicans.

I tuned in at times because it’s actually one of the few TV stations that tells the unvarnished truth about Trump, without feeling the necessity to present “both sides” when truth only has one. I could always tune out when they talked about how awesome Reagan and the older generation of Republicans supposedly were, or how great real conservatism supposedly is, cuz I needed my fix. But with the rise of Sanders and their new focus, it’s too much to take. They all want to take him down, and to do so they’ve jettisoned the truth.

Glad to hear Sanders has said enough is enough, but I’m skeptical about it working with the owners/management of that network (owned by the ultra-conservative Comcast). They’ve invested too heavily in Republican conservatives/neocons as hosts and guests, so I don’t see how they’ll flip the scrip on that.

MSNBC is supposed to be the go-to place for “liberals,” but if Trump is gone, the Never Trumpers serve no purpose for the left. They’ll just revert to their true colors entirely, and take aim at everything left of center, especially Sanders.

Comcast is going to have to choose. Fox 2.0, or part ways with their conservative hires/guests from both parties.

wv wrote:

To me, the single best aspect of the Bernie thing is that it caused more and more people to see the Dem-Corporate-Media for what it is.

They are STILL gonna be anti-progressive, btw. They just wont be quite so blatant about it. They went too far. They know that now. So, they’ll hire a few progressives now, and they wont be so blatant about what they want.

w
v

The MSM has always been anti-progressive, as you know. Nothing has changed along those lines. Or will. But what I think people should take from the Trump era is this: It’s now more obvious than ever that the Media never favored the Dems, much less that it’s a wing of the DNC. If it did favor them, why would they hire skads of Republicans to fight against Trump or shill for him? Why would it highlight so many ex-Bushies or current Trumpies? Wouldn’t a pro-Dem MSM push Dems to the fore instead?

And, of course, a pro-Dem media never would have let Trump win. It never would have used its tried and true “false equivalency” machine in talking about Clinton versus Trump, which it did, over and over again. Her emails were the number one story of the campaign, even though Trump’s history of mob-ties, serial criminality, serial sexual-predation, serial-cons and serial lying should have been.

Emails? No one should have cared about them, and it shouldn’t have even been a “story, much less THE story.

The Clintons are horrible, definitely. But by portraying Clinton as worse, or on an even ground with Trump, the media tilted the coverage in favor of Trump. Because as bad as they are, he’s a thousand fold worse, and that very same media is still trying to convince Americans that the two parties are roughly equivalent.

That is all the proof we need that the MSM does not favor the Dems.

Billy_T wrote:

wv wrote:

To me, the single best aspect of the Bernie thing is that it caused more and more people to see the Dem-Corporate-Media for what it is.

They are STILL gonna be anti-progressive, btw. They just wont be quite so blatant about it. They went too far. They know that now. So, they’ll hire a few progressives now, and they wont be so blatant about what they want.

w
v

The MSM has always been anti-progressive, as you know. Nothing has changed along those lines. Or will. But what I think people should take from the Trump era is this: It’s now more obvious than ever that the Media never favored the Dems, much less that it’s a wing of the DNC. If it did favor them, why would they hire skads of Republicans to fight against Trump or shill for him? Why would it highlight so many ex-Bushies or current Trumpies? Wouldn’t a pro-Dem MSM push Dems to the fore instead?

And, of course, a pro-Dem media never would have let Trump win. It never would have used its tried and true “false equivalency” machine in talking about Clinton versus Trump, which it did, over and over again. Her emails were the number one story of the campaign, even though Trump’s history of mob-ties, serial criminality, serial sexual-predation, serial-cons and serial lying should have been.

Emails? No one should have cared about them, and it shouldn’t have even been a “story, much less THE story.

The Clintons are horrible, definitely. But by portraying Clinton as worse, or on an even ground with Trump, the media tilted the coverage in favor of Trump. Because as bad as they are, he’s a thousand fold worse, and that very same media is still trying to convince Americans that the two parties are roughly equivalent.

That is all the proof we need that the MSM does not favor the Dems.

==========================

Well, my model is different than yours, BT. I see MSNBC as part of the Pro-Dem-Media. And Fox as part of the Pro-Rep-Media. Both of course are Pro-Corporate-Capitalist.

So, again, I do see a Pro-Dem-MSM.
As well as a Pro-Rep-MSM.
Both being Pro-Corporate-Capitalist.

Sometimes them two elite-associations Fight. Sometimes they agree.

They both agree, that Bernie is too far left.
The Dems want Bloomberg etc. The Reps want Trump, etc.

I dont think what I’m saying is too far-fetched. Just seems pretty obvious.

w
v

wv wrote:

They went too far. They know that now.

I don’t think they know that at all. I think the DNC is THAT out of touch.

You got everyone nodding their heads in unison over the Hillary claim that Sanders’ “Bernie Bros” are actually a thing, and that they are the reason she lost.

And you’ve got James Fucking Carville melting down and calling Sanders a Commie, FFS, and complaining that the media has failed to “educate” young people who are deluded by Sanders.

I think the DNC firmly BELIEVES the shit they sow, and they think their way is Practical, Sensible, Objectively Good for the Country, and so on. After all, poor people go to Starbucks (in their imagination), so it’s really not that bad out there.

Oops. I posted a video zn already posted.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 10 months ago by Zooey.

Zooey wrote:

wv wrote:

They went too far. They know that now.

I don’t think they know that at all. I think the DNC is THAT out of touch.

You got everyone nodding their heads in unison over the Hillary claim that Sanders’ “Bernie Bros” are actually a thing, and that they are the reason she lost.

And you’ve got James Fucking Carville melting down and calling Sanders a Commie, FFS, and complaining that the media has failed to “educate” young people who are deluded by Sanders.

I think the DNC firmly BELIEVES the shit they sow, and they think their way is Practical, Sensible, Objectively Good for the Country, and so on. After all, poor people go to Starbucks (in their imagination), so it’s really not that bad out there.

=======================

Well, i dont disagree with any of that.

When i say they ‘know they went too far,’ I am talking about ‘strategy.’
MSNBC is hiring some pro-bernie people because they are now taking too much flak.
They know their previous strategy went a little too far. They are correcting course, strategically. And they know Bernie might become Prez.
Of course they still WANT a corporate-centrist, blah blah blah.

w
v

wv wrote:

Well, i dont disagree with any of that.

When i say they ‘know they went too far,’ I am talking about ‘strategy.’
MSNBC is hiring some pro-bernie people because they are now taking too much flak.
They know their previous strategy went a little too far. They are correcting course, strategically. And they know Bernie might become Prez.
Of course they still WANT a corporate-centrist, blah blah blah.

w
v

Makes sense.

About my earlier comments: On second and third thought, it doesn’t matter what we call the networks, really, or which party they favor. There are far more important things than that, long and short term. I have no idea why I took the time to argue the point. Your labels are as good as any, and your rationale for it all may well be correct across the board, A to Z. My own take may be off by a thousand miles. Wouldn’t be the first time.

I think I’m just trying to find a way to cut through the fog, and it seems to be getting thicker all the time. I’m always going to believe that the ultimate source of that is economic apartheid (capitalism), and I think our only way out is through economic democracy (socialism). It’s also, in my view, the only way we save the planet for future generations and most wildlife.

Apparently, rats will be fine. That’s what the climate science books I’ve been reading suggest. Rats don’t need our help. Viruses and diseases like malaria will be in pretty good shape, too. But Homo Sapiens and most life-forms? Not so much.

Dem-Media, GOP-Media, corporate America and the capitalist system, they all gotta go.

So the media-bias against bernie has made it to late-night comedy. Better late, than never:

Zooey wrote:

wv wrote:

So the media-bias against bernie has made it to late-night comedy. Better late, than never

That’s a popular clip. It’s the same one I deleted above because zn beat us to it. It’s up there ^^^^^^^

Well I deleted my earlier one. If someone doubles a posting I already made & the simplest solution is to delete mine, that’s what I do. Why? Obviously because I am just BREATHTAKINGLY and AMAZINGLY selfless and egoless about things like that.

Billy_T wrote:

<

Dem-Media, GOP-Media, corporate America and the capitalist system, they all gotta go.

=======================

Take a little listen to a few mins of the FinnishBolshevik, in the post below. I started the vid at the 19 minute mark. He goes on an ornery leftist rant.
Whether his points are accurate or not aint interesting to me — its his angry-rant. I identify with it. The leftist rage. I carry it, too. I dont even know who i’d be without it, anymore. Ah well.

w
v

Rogan — “listen to Kyle Kalinski, Jimmy Dore, The Hill…”

@ComradeCalifor1
Americans are no longer terrified of the word “socialism,” and the more shrilly reactionaries like @USATODAY’s Chris Truax scream it, the less purchase it has. There are no Soviet boogeymen anymore.
We’ve outgrown them.

Zn,

I watched the Dore video above and it made me sad. I know that he’s just one comedian, with four sidekicks (including a Republican rep), and a relatively small audience, so it’s absurd to say “This is why the left has so much trouble getting its message through.” But it is indicative, IMO, of a rather grotesque missing the forest for the trees scenario, or something along those lines.

First off, I have no idea why he directed his (highly personalized) rage on Green. Yeah, what he said was wrong. Ball had a great response to the ludicrous idea that the guy with the most votes shouldn’t get the nomination. But I would have left it there and moved on to more important matters. In the grand scheme of things, who really cares about an obscure director of an obscure “progressive” think tank, with zero power even within the Democratic party. He can’t order us into war, or lock up migrants in cages, or roll back EPA standards, or open up public lands to more drilling, or foment coups in Venezuela, or do renditions, cut taxes for the super-rich and deregulate their businesses, etc. etc. He has no power, whatsoever, to make public policy. So, I’m at a loss why an entire program was spent tearing him a new one, and especially in that junior high locker room way that most of us grew out of at 13 or so — if we were ever even into that sort of thing to begin with.

Just my take. But one of the things I admire most about the best leftist critiques is the pinpoint understanding of Power Dynamics. To put it all too generously, that video lacked that understanding.