MSNBC's stages of Bernie grief

[Bt1 5,213]

6 minutes ago, StarstruckIllusion said:

The mental gymnastics chile... how is your framing THIS off omggg. They praise and give credit where it’s due, but their standards aren’t in the mud like MSNBC and CNN praising Mitt Romney voting against Trump when she supports 80% of his ideas 🤢

 

The problem is when Bernie is criticized its on made up stupid things like the exclusively mean Bernie Bro thing, his medical records, and combining centrists to weaken his clear wins. The only joke here is you summarizing an entire *real news network by watching only 10/10080 minutes of their content. But clearly your delusional biases are jumping out if you’re really out here defending people like James Carville and  Chris Matthews - who literally said he’s gonna be executed in Central Park.

Ok. Now show me when they praised last time CNN, MSNBC, Biden, Pete, Bloomberg on anything.  or better. Because I see that their channel is mostly about Bernie, show me the last time when they criticized Bernie. 

Anything? 

[StarstruckIllusion 53,580]

3 minutes ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

Gimme a break Chris Matthews has been saying since before the primaries that Bernie will  sweep them. Just because he also has some criticisms doesn't mean he's biased. 

I am attacked daily by Bernie followers on here. Yes some Bernie followers are mean. 

Imagine thinking the Bernie's followers meanness is made up or that it's "the Russians." Like Bernie has stated.

 

."Some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters," he said. 

 

 

 

Nope. No breaks when he does it through comparing this to the fall of France when the Nazis took over. How incredibly ridiculous and biased. Notice how he didn’t say the spread of rainbows and happiness. 
 

You’re attacked on here daily bc you stay coming into Bernie threads attacking him. I wouldnt even call it that bc a nominee race is all about the battle of ideas... and what about it? The only attack is when people try to invalidate my opinions bc I’m Canadian. That’s an attack. 

And yeah, luckily I can’t relate to thinking that bc I said the problem is all supporters are mean, but MSM doesn’t focus on that. And yeah I’m sure a few actually are Russian accounts. And what about it? It’s a confirmed fact they meddle - be happy the “abuse” isn’t as bad as it seems. 

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

2 minutes ago, Florin said:

U people should watch CNN  more than what The Hill show to you. Go and watch SC primary there and u will see that they have supporters for every candidate. 

But of course, if you can handle only "yes Bernie" "journalism", then the problem is on you and you wont like them.  

Very telling and interesting how you ignore the entire point I made in my response, instead going to the "you people" shtick and overgeneralizing, both strategies Trump & Co love to use. Not a good look there.

For the record, I will admit that CNN is much fairer and better than MSNBC regarding the types of voices and people they bring on. So to that I do give them credit. 

The issue though is that for most of these mainstream, corporate media, they generally bring on voices and perspectives that agree with or conform to the status quo way of thinking about politics and issues- an antiquated paradigm that can't even give voice to the forces driving American politics today. 

If anything, this perspective has demonstrably been shown to be out-dated and no longer in vogue. One need look no further than the 2016 election, and, now, Bernie surging and winning in 2020. Populism, disillusionment, and anger with the status quo and current system are just some of the forces fueling this.

Now, these MSM media are essentially being forced to bring on progressive and populist voices because they simply don't have the means or perspective to understand what is going on anymore. An MSNBC anchor in the video from the OP literally admitted this.

Also, understanding and acknowledging the forces that are driving this, and which can explain the resonance Bernie's message is having, and voicing it, doesn't make it "yes Bernie journalism." Quite frankly, you're missing the entire point if that's what you take from it 

You clearly don't know much about the show Rising either. It's isn't a "yes Bernie" show. If you knew anything about it, you'd know that Krystall Ball isn't even a Bernie supporter and hasn't endorsed him, and that the other anchor is a conservative and doesn't agree with many of Bernie's policy positions.

Where the two anchors do agree is in their understanding and ability to see the underlying forces going on in American politics, in particular the strong anti-establishment fervor taking hold all across country among the left and the right, and most people simply being fed up with our political and economic system. These are literally the reasons why Trump was able to win, and why Bernie is so strong right now. 

If where you get your news is CNN and other mainstream media news outlets though, it's no wonder you don't see or understand any of that. 

[StarstruckIllusion 53,580]

9 minutes ago, Florin said:

Ok. Now show me when they praised last time CNN, MSNBC, Biden, Pete, Bloomberg on anything.  or better. Because I see that their channel is mostly about Bernie, show me the last time when they criticized Bernie. 

Anything? 

Imagine thinking I’m gonna scroll through hours of content just for you to come up w some reason to discredit it.
 

You do the research yourself. It’s free. 

The only reason they focus on the negatives is because it’s a ****ing disgrace for them to serve misinfo and bias and rarely apologize/correct themselves for it like other news channels have to do 🤡🤡 The news is supposed to be a public service for factual events. They can scrape it together when a hurricane happens but when it’s politics related... plssss 😭

[Bt1 5,213]

2 minutes ago, Gagaloo92 said:

Very telling and interesting how you ignore the entire point I made in my response, instead going to the "you people" shtick and overgeneralizing, both strategies Trump & Co love to use. Not a good look there.

For the record, I will admit that CNN is much fairer and better than MSNBC regarding the types of voices and people they bring on. So to that I do give them credit. 

The issue though is that for most of these mainstream, corporate media, they generally bring on voices and perspectives that agree with or conform to the status quo way of thinking about politics and issues- an antiquated paradigm that can't even give voice to the forces driving American politics today. 

If anything, this perspective has demonstrably been shown to be out-dated and no longer in vogue. One need look no further than the 2016 election, and, now, Bernie surging and winning in 2020. Populism, disillusionment, and anger with the status quo and current system are just some of the forces fueling this.

Now, these MSM media are essentially being forced to bring on progressive and populist voices because they simply don't have the means or perspective to understand what is going on anymore. An MSNBC anchor in the video from the OP literally admitted this.

Also, understanding and acknowledging the forces that are driving this, and which can explain the resonance Bernie's message is having, and voicing it, doesn't make it "yes Bernie journalism." Quite frankly, you're missing the entire point if that's what you take from it 

You clearly don't know much about the show Rising either. It's isn't a "yes Bernie" show. If you knew anything about it, you'd know that Krystall Ball isn't even a Bernie supporter and hasn't endorsed him, and that the other anchor is a conservative and doesn't agree with many of Bernie's policy positions.

Where the two anchors do agree is in their understanding and ability to see the underlying forces going on in American politics, in particular the strong anti-establishment fervor taking hold all across country among the left and the right, and most people simply being fed up with our political and economic system. These are literally the reasons why Trump was able to win, and why Bernie is so strong right now. 

If where you get your news is CNN and other mainstream media news outlets though, it's no wonder you don't see or understand any of that. 

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. 

[StarstruckIllusion 53,580]

pls the way I’m watching this video and it was completely fair and Msnbc even got a lil praise (AMJoy)... n e ways stream The Hill and donate to Bernie 💕💕💕

[Bt1 5,213]

12 minutes ago, StarstruckIllusion said:

Imagine thinking I’m gonna scroll through hours of content just for you to come up w some reason to discredit it.
 

You do the research yourself. It’s free. 

The only reason they focus on the negatives is because it’s a ****ing disgrace for them to serve misinfo and bias and rarely apologize/correct themselves for it like other news channels have to do 🤡🤡 The news is supposed to be a public service for factual events. They can scrape it together when a hurricane happens but when it’s politics related... plssss 😭

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? 

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

37 minutes ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

It's ridiculous. Anyone that watchs real news organizations knows there is a balance. There is time that Bernie is criticized and there are times he is praised. Meanwhile the "new" news is a Fox News left equivalent that only praises Bernie and is critical of everyone else. 

It's laughable at this point. 

They watch an entire week of MSNBC News to catch four or five clips that are about a minute long to say, "see I have a point." Imagine scouring through  10080 minutes (that how many minutes are in a week) of MSNBC footage to find four or five sound bites, that are a minute long to coroborate your delusional bias. 

Shaun King is the best at this. 

 

16 minutes ago, Florin said:

Ok. Now show me when they praised last time CNN, MSNBC, Biden, Pete, Bloomberg on anything.  or better. Because I see that their channel is mostly about Bernie, show me the last time when they criticized Bernie. 

Anything? 

All I really have to state is how CNN, MSNBC, and countless other MSM news organizations believed that Trump wouldn't become the nominee, and then that Hillary had it in the bag and that Trump had no chance of winning after he did become the nominee. That was the implicit assumption in the 2016 coverage.

And how did that turn out?

These supposed "real news" organizations couldn't even see Trump coming because of their own biases, institutional and otherwise, and due to fact they're completely out-of-touch with the average American.

Yet, somehow we're supposed to believe that some "real news" anchor making millions of dollars every year from the multi-million dollar corporation that employs them has no bias and knows exactly what's going on on the ground across the country.

I really have to laugh about that.

Many alternative, non-corporate media organizations could see the forces out there that ultimately propelled Trump to win, and they saw him coming. But hey, since these aren't the same old mainstream sources they aren't "real news".

 

[Bt1 5,213]

1 minute ago, Gagaloo92 said:

 

All I really have to state is how CNN, MSNBC, and countless other MSM news organizations believed that Trump wouldn't become the nominee, and then that Hillary had it in the bag and that Trump had no chance of winning after he did become the nominee. That was the implicit assumption in the 2016 coverage.

And how did that turn out?

These supposed "real news" organizations couldn't even see Trump coming because of their own biases, institutional and otherwise, and due to fact they're completely out-of-touch with the average American.

Yet, somehow we're supposed to believe that some "real news" anchor making millions of dollars every year from the multi-million dollar corporation that employs them has no bias and knows exactly what's going on on the ground across the country.

I really have to laugh about that.

Many alternative, non-corporate media organizations could see the forces out there that ultimately propelled Trump to win, and they saw him coming. But hey, since these aren't the same old mainstream sources they aren't "real news".

 

I am supposed to believe that the "alternate, non-corporate media organizations" who depend on a youtube algorithm and on donations from progressives supporters arent biased?

Their coverage clearly show they are biased, if someone wasnt sure. 

I am not saying that all corporate media is perfect. But if you really are interested in real information, you can find someone better than "alternative media" who praises only one candidate. 

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

6 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. 

Okay then. You keep watching those same "unbiased" organizations that understand nothing about today's society and keep getting it wrong every single time, meanwhile the "far from unbiased journalism" types keep predicting things that end up being correct.

I've watched the show Rising from the Hill enough to know they've been getting many, many things right. They predicted Bernie would become the frontrunner and likely vie for the nomination even after the MSM wrote him off and said "his time had passed." They were right in their predictions that Biden would collapse, and that Klobuchar and Buttigieg would do little because of their abysmal support among voters of color, even while MSM kept propping them up.  

You'd think after so many times of the MSM media getting it wrong, you'd start to get curious why and question what biases they have that ultimately contribute to that.

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

8 minutes ago, Gagaloo92 said:

 

All I really have to state is how CNN, MSNBC, and countless other MSM news organizations believed that Trump wouldn't become the nominee, and then that Hillary had it in the bag and that Trump had no chance of winning after he did become the nominee. That was the implicit assumption in the 2016 coverage.

And how did that turn out?

These supposed "real news" organizations couldn't even see Trump coming because of their own biases, institutional and otherwise, and due to fact they're completely out-of-touch with the average American.

Yet, somehow we're supposed to believe that some "real news" anchor making millions of dollars every year from the multi-million dollar corporation that employs them has no bias and knows exactly what's going on on the ground across the country.

I really have to laugh about that.

Many alternative, non-corporate media organizations could see the forces out there that ultimately propelled Trump to win, and they saw him coming. But hey, since these aren't the same old mainstream sources they aren't "real news".

 

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

[Bt1 5,213]

3 minutes ago, Gagaloo92 said:

Okay then. You keep watching those same "unbiased" organizations that understand nothing about today's society and keep getting it wrong every single time, meanwhile the "far from unbiased journalism" types keep predicting things that end up being correct.

I've watched the show Rising from the Hill enough to know they've been getting many, many things right. They predicted Bernie would become the frontrunner and likely vie for the nomination even after the MSM wrote him off and said "his time had passed." They were right in their predictions that Biden would collapse, and that Klobuchar and Buttigieg would do little because of their abysmal support among voters of color, even while MSM kept propping them up.  

You'd think after so many times of the MSM media getting it wrong, you'd start to get curious why and question what biases they have that ultimately contribute to that.

Those things that you think that only the rising got right, many others got right, including the corporate media you think is so biased. 

[FATCAT 60,896]

50 minutes ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

Gimme a break Chris Matthews has been saying since before the primaries that Bernie will  sweep them. Just because he also has some criticisms doesn't mean he's biased. 

I am attacked daily by Bernie followers on here. Yes some Bernie followers are mean. 

Imagine thinking the Bernie's followers meanness is made up or that it's "the Russians." Like Bernie has stated.

"Some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters," he said.

Delusional. 

 

 

 

Bloomberg is litterally paying people to praise him, you don't think it's possible he's also paying some to play pretend? 

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

Just now, Florin said:

I am supposed to believe that the "alternate, non-corporate media organizations" who depend on a youtube algorithm and on donations from progressives supporters arent biased?

Their coverage clearly show they are biased, if someone wasnt sure. 

I am not saying that all corporate media is perfect. But if you really are interested in real information, you can find someone better than "alternative media" who praises only one candidate. 

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?

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

3 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Bloomberg is litterally paying people to praise him, you don't think it's possible he's also paying some to play pretend? 

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