MSNBC's stages of Bernie grief

[FATCAT 60,896]

1 minute ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

Again, every candidate is paying for social media influence. Bernie did it in 2016 too.

Influence is different than outright shills.

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

9 minutes ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

Girl stop. All the polls said the same thing and Russia interfered. Just give it a rest already. 

Oh, so no real argument then other than the tired Russia argument which there is no evidence to show it ultimately played a deciding factor in 2016, and the "all the polls said it so it must be true!!!!!"

Many people saw Trump coming, warned of it, and predicted him to win, even with all the polls . So that is not a good enough argument.

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

1 minute ago, FATCAT said:

Influence is different than outright shills.

And MSNBC has been very clear about how much money Bloomberg is spending on buying the election. They have had graphs on candidates spending amounts spent and so on. Watch it. You might learn something.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

30 minutes ago, Florin said:

All these corporate media will bring more and more progressive voices on their panel when more progressives win. It's as simple as that. 

If Sanders wins and will get things done, it will affect not only the democratic party, but also the Republican one, who will have to change at least a little to win again. 

I know enough about the hill to know that they are far from unbiased journalism and going to their channel and looking at their "news"  shows just that. Maybe there were times when ur description was truth. At the moment, they understood the youtube algorithm and create "journalism" according to it. 

It's their jobs not to tell voters what they want the electorate to look like, but to report on how it actually is. They should already have progressive people on their show, because their base and electorate is Democratic and Independent, and both of those affiliations are already progressive. There doesnt need to be 20 progressive Dems in the congress for it to be valid or whatever metric.

 As it is now, MSNBC is entirely disconnected from the reality of the electorate AND they are not preparing themselves financially as a business or their base for whats coming - a sign that they learned nothing from 2016 with Trump  

That is why CNN is doing better - they at least have progressive voices on from time to time and aren't just now starting. MSNBC literally has Never Trump Republicans and old political analysts who are crazy and bad at their jobs on, and intelligence agency people with no credibility and Blue Dog Democrats who have repeatedly lost elections on to try to tell people about the way that an electorate that is mostly liberal or very liberal is thinking. These people's job is to tell you the state of affairs in the Democratic party and country at large, but they are literally ideologically unequipped to do so accurately, and that's a hiring bias from the top down. MSNBC has literally become a network of neoliberalism pretending to be objective, but if you look up the views of the people who are actually hosting segments, who they invite onto panels, for interviews, etc. they have a serious serious moderate bias.

News flash for them - the country is not becoming more moderate, its becoming more radical, which is why Trump is president and not Jeb Bush  

[FATCAT 60,896]

6 minutes ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

And MSNBC has been very clear about how much money Bloomberg is spending on buying the election. They have had graphs on candidates spending amounts spent and so on. Watch it. You might learn something.

None of the other candidates are paying individuals to praise them online, that is completely singular to the Bloomberg trying to buy the nomination. 

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

The straws some people will grasp at and deflection they'll use against legitimate arguments to defend the status quo and their beloved corporate media  that suffer from the same problems and issues they say alternative media has, albeit on a larger, institutional scale 

It's always crickets when you point out the valid concerns and issues corporate media have, but the second anyone has a critique of them and want to show other perspectives and views it's always "BIASED!!!!" "Bernie supporter!!" or "They just work for a YouTube algorithm!!!!"

As if the corporations they're defending don't work for the same thing when you are honest about it and take into account the ratings and TV ad money the corporate media work for.

[Bt1 5,213]

24 minutes ago, Gagaloo92 said:

Firstly, this response ignores the fact that MSM got it wrong, and still get it wrong, and have shown no willingness to fix the institutional biases that contribute to that. That's quite convenient, and not a good strategy for defending them.

Secondly, how am I supposed to believe that the "real news" (see: corporate) media organizations who depend on TV ads paid for by large corporations and big monied interests aren't biased?

I already answered in another comment. The things u think only the rising has got right have been predicted also by corporate media. It's not that hard with polls showing Bernie constantly rising.

The corporate media isnt perfect. But as I've said, anything is better than the "alternative media" who praises only one person. That's for sure not unbiased. 

 

 

[Bt1 5,213]

15 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

It's their jobs not to tell voters what they want the electorate to look like, but to report on how it actually is. They should already have progressive people on their show, because their base and electorate is Democratic and Independent, and both of those affiliations are already progressive. There doesnt need to be 20 progressive Dems in the congress for it to be valid or whatever metric.

 As it is now, MSNBC is entirely disconnected from the reality of the electorate AND they are not preparing themselves financially as a business or their base for whats coming - a sign that they learned nothing from 2016 with Trump  

That is why CNN is doing better - they at least have progressive voices on from time to time and aren't just now starting. MSNBC literally has Never Trump Republicans and old political analysts who are crazy and bad at their jobs on, and intelligence agency people with no credibility and Blue Dog Democrats who have repeatedly lost elections on to try to tell people about the way that an electorate that is mostly liberal or very liberal is thinking. These people's job is to tell you the state of affairs in the Democratic party and country at large, but they are literally ideologically unequipped to do so accurately, and that's a hiring bias from the top down. MSNBC has literally become a network of neoliberalism pretending to be objective, but if you look up the views of the people who are actually hosting segments, who they invite onto panels, for interviews, etc. they have a serious serious moderate bias.

News flash for them - the country is not becoming more moderate, its becoming more radical, which is why Trump is president and not Jeb Bush  

U think that they should do something because the world is this way. And yet the world elected Trump, the senate is republican and the progressives lost in 2018. 

So there are too many progressives on the corporate media if we are looking on how the electorate voted. 

[StarstruckIllusion 53,580]

1 hour ago, Florin said:

Ok. So u admit that you dont know what you are talking about?

I went to their channel and it fits my initial description. Now u say that it isnt the case and I asked u for the proof for that. I gave u so many options and u cant find one to show me that they are more than a "bernie loving anti establishment" channel? 

Girl what

Absolutely did not say anything related to “idk what I’m talking about.” You said all they do is trash MSNBC but Krystal gave credit to AMJoy for having on Anand to spill the tea. 

There’s a difference between “cant find” and “didn’t even try to find.” I gave you homework hello go ANS complete it or stop pushing circus-like statements.

This is a teaching moment. I watch them regularly. You don’t. I can’t be bothered that you don’t wanna listen bc I’m still objectively right. 

And please don’t try and gaslight me. You said they demonize old media but constructive criticism is NOT demonization. I didn’t even touch the Bloomer ads bc they’re everywhere and that’s a ridiculous statement. 

Maybe they’re talking about Bernie bc they agree with his policies and he’s actually the front runner 🥰

[Bt1 5,213]

2 minutes ago, StarstruckIllusion said:

Girl what

Absolutely did not say anything related to “idk what I’m talking about.” You said all they do is trash MSNBC but Krystal gave credit to AMJoy for having on Anand to spill the tea. 

There’s a difference between “cant find” and “didn’t even try to find.” I gave you homework hello go ANS complete it or stop pushing circus-like statements.

This is a teaching moment. I watch them regularly. You don’t. I can’t be bothered that you don’t wanna listen bc I’m still objectively right. 

And please don’t try and gaslight me. You said they demonize old media but constructive criticism is NOT demonization. I didn’t even touch the Bloomer ads bc they’re everywhere and that’s a ridiculous statement. 

Maybe they’re talking about Bernie bc they agree with his policies and he’s actually the front runner 🥰

Yea. U watch them all the time and yet u cant give me a video praising Pete or Bloomberg or criticizing Sanders. Enjoy your "youtube algorithm journalism".  

[StarstruckIllusion 53,580]

1 minute ago, Florin said:

Yea. U watch them all the time and yet u cant give me a video praising Pete or Bloomberg or criticizing Sanders. Enjoy your "youtube algorithm journalism".  

And you can enjoy stanning Manic Sloppy National Broadcast Company where clowns like Nicole Wallace and Joy-Ann Reid openly say on air that they don’t know what’s going on (despite being paid millions 😭) and Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd push narratives that winning primaries = Nazi takeovers 

[Maleficent 6]

1 hour ago, Gagaloo92 said:

Oh, so no real argument then other than the tired Russia argument which there is no evidence to show it ultimately played a deciding factor in 2016, and the "all the polls said it so it must be true!!!!!"

Many people saw Trump coming, warned of it, and predicted him to win, even with all the polls . So that is not a good enough argument.

this Tbh. Trump worked the electoral college. He got the right votes in the right places, and many many many ppl saw it coming (except The New York Times, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN)

[Bt1 5,213]

21 minutes ago, StarstruckIllusion said:

And you can enjoy stanning Manic Sloppy National Broadcast Company where clowns like Nicole Wallace and Joy-Ann Reid openly say on air that they don’t know what’s going on (despite being paid millions 😭) and Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd push narratives that winning primaries = Nazi takeovers 

Hard to understand that sometimes u dont know something? 

Hard to accept that Bernie has a problem with part of his supporters? 

I am still waiting for the video from the hill where they praise Bloomberg or Pete and criticize bernie. That was the discussion. Dont change the subject, just because u dont have anything to prove that the hill is unbiased in any way or agree to disagree and move on. 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

1 hour ago, FATCAT said:

None of the other candidates are paying individuals to praise them online, that is completely singular to the Bloomberg trying to buy the nomination. 

500 people that will spend 20-30hrs a week. 

That's a job bro. Why wouldn't he pay them? It's not just someone who sends a text everyone in a while. 

[FATCAT 60,896]

1 hour ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

500 people that will spend 20-30hrs a week. 

That's a job bro. Why wouldn't he pay them? It's not just someone who sends a text everyone in a while. 

You don't see anything wrong with that? Bruh, they're litterally faking support with money. That should not be happening in America, let alone the Democratic Party.