Can the media dictate who wins elections?

[RamFan503]

believing that "left" and "right" are real is akin to believing that the Matrix is real.

The corporate owned media produces "content".

How that relates to what we knew as news in the past...well, it's complicated.

But the idea that the corporate owned media is "left" or "right" or any of that is just... well, it's not.

It's corporate. It's wherever the MONEY is right that minute. And they've less shame than a crack addict on a 5 day bender...

Yeah - can't agree with you in total. When you look at what gets reported and what constitutes "content", there is definitely a bias. Enough bias to make them not report a D getting charged for embezzlement or something like that? No. But enough to try to bury those they don't agree with and it is common knowledge that most news people are registered democrats. And no... I'm not going to find links to that statement. I know it to be so and I have actually met a great deal of "news" people and done interviews, etc. Those who think the corporations that own these news outlets set the stage for what gets reported, are dead wrong. Those corporations care about ratings and how much ad space sells for.

The cases of Fox and MSNBC are different in this respect. They were created not to be unbiased news sources but to pretty much be unabashedly biased in their reporting. Even though Fox claims "fair and balanced", they're not fooling anybody and I don't really think they think they are either. MSNBC is pretty much the same. They may throw the occasional Stossell or Dennis Miller on there much like Fox gives people Combs or several other known Dems. But it is only a ruse for those at the back of the class. In reality, they are just entertainment and they know their target audience.

 

[jrry32]

Now.... not to get too political but can anyone tell me what Bernie Sanders stands for that people who support him like? What is the vision that he brings and the laws he will push for that would be good for this country. Sorry but I really hate the idea of ignoring what someone believes in for the sake of liking that he believes. I always say to look at what the person has done. The one thing that is a pretty good constant is that they will do it again.

A politician will stand strong on the campaign trail. They will say what they "believe" as they know how to garner votes. All you have to look at is what they have tried to pass before or actually been instrumental in getting passed. That is almost all you have for information as to if they are in line with your thinking.

Campaign finance reform.(taking corporate money out of politics through targeting the corporate super PACs) Equality. He fought against DOMA. He marched in the Civil Rights Movement. Recognizing the wealth disparity in this nation is growing to insane heights and taking steps to limit it. Universal healthcare. Steps towards making college affordable for Americans. Limiting mass incarceration in America. Pro choice. Fighting climate change.

 

[Mackeyser]

My only point was that in the current corporate media landscape it's best to just "follow the money".

The reporters may be Dems, but the owners are registered Repubs (Jack Welch, former Chair of GE, that at one time owned NBC comes to mind) and often not only have very strong opinions, but spend time and money directing things to align with such.

Did reporters maybe sit on stories in the past? Sure. Do they now? In the age of social media and every story having a shelf life of 30 seconds? Nope. Pretty sure the media went hard after Anthony Weiner (hah, cwutididthar?) even though what he did wasn't a crime, wasn't unsolicited and technically wasn't infidelity (although I'm sure his wife didn't appreciate it). If I recall correctly. All for some dick pics that weren't even dick pics. Undie pics... Jesse Jackson, Jr's in prison. So's Rod Blagojevich.

/shrug

There's some good coverage out there by outlets like McClatchy and a few others, but most media outlets are "content providers" and have some person who's in the owner's ear about "monetizing"...blah, blah, blah...

The bigger issues, like the abandonment of fact based reportage for sensationalism and like the embrace of all reporting resources dedicated to reporting on the "problem" without any resources dedicated to reporting what the underlying "issues" are constantly leading to reportage without any depth, context, meaning or nuance. It often borders on nonsense in a very Heller-esque fashion.

Has there been biased reporting in the past? No doubt. Stories withheld? No doubt.

I just think the issues with the current media landscape are so much bigger and more profound than those past issues which, as I see them, aren't as pronounced as they once were.

If anything, media outlets care less about bias because they're after mass appeal and more people are independent than Dem or Rep now for the first time.

 

[PA Ram]

Wants massive investment in infrastructure. 15 dollar minimum wage. Medicare for all single payer system. No tax breaks for corps who hide money in the Caymans. Public funding of elections. Overturn Citizens United. Expand social security by lifting cap. He believes that the uneven distribution of wealth is pulling down most Americans. Opposes TPP and other trade deals that only bring us lost jobs and increased trade deficets. That's some of it.

He doesn't take campaign money from Wall Street. Small donors make up most of his fund.

He believes that makes him accountable to the electorate and not money men.

He has walked the walk throughout his political career.

 

[Mackeyser]

Campaign finance reform.(taking corporate money out of politics through targeting the corporate super PACs) Equality. He fought against DOMA. He marched in the Civil Rights Movement. Recognizing the wealth disparity in this nation is growing to insane heights and taking steps to limit it. Universal healthcare. Steps towards making college affordable for Americans. Limiting mass incarceration in America. Pro choice. Fighting climate change.

What's funny is that he's labeled as this crazy radical and if you listen to him, he's about as radical as a meatloaf special.

The budgets balance.
The investments create jobs AND wealth (not OR).
He has a REAL clue about how to deal with some of the biggest issues because he's been actually working on the ground on the actual POLICIES for decades. This is unlike so many politicians and posers who wouldn't know actual policy if it bit them in the butt.

Now, the fact that he has a clue, would reduce income disparity, grow the middle class, reduce the influence of Wall Street, and fight like hell to go on an infrastructure tear to rebuild America (still gonna keep saying we got 60 THOUSAND red tagged bridges and that number isn't getting smaller because the season is starting or new movies are coming out not to mention DAMS, roads, schools, etc...) only means that his chances of being taken seriously by the media are exactly ZERO.

Donald Trump is an F'n CLOWN and he's getting tons of air time.

Bernie Sanders is an outright policy wonk who would be able to get things done and even in disagreeing with him, you would respect him (kinda like GHW Bush. Not flashy, but you respected him).

But in this age of "new media", the idea that an old guy like Bernie Sanders can win; a guy who just brings what works to the table without fireworks and apps and eleventy-zillion talking heads bloviating and anointing him is just crazy. Trump has a better chance than Bernie Sanders does.

And that's probably the saddest thing I've typed in a very, very long time. Truly...

 

[Mackeyser]

Hah...PA and I were on the same page...

LOL. And yes, he's probably the straightest arrow of any politician on the hill right now.

Dude walks the walk.

Even when I disagree with him, I don't feel bad about it.

I don't share that with any other politician (except maybe Elizabeth Warren, but I haven't followed her closely, only on the banks, whereas I read a LOT of stuff from Bernie because he's always working on issues that matter to me.)

 

[LACHAMP46]

Can the media dictate who wins elections?
100%

Totally agree.....Can the media dictate who wins elections? Hell yes...they've done it since newspapers began circulating..

 

[jrry32]

It really is disappointing. The Democrats would be smart to push Bernie. Young people love him and he's the type of guy that will inspire people to get off their ass and vote. But they don't seem to take him seriously. And that's a foolish mistake. Because (based on my limited understanding of my generation) Hillary is not liked by young people. They see her as more of the same and are very apathetic towards her.

People will be scared away from Sanders because he's liberal and calls himself a "socialist" but this is also the same guy that opposed the Patriot Act and the government spying on its citizens. But a label like "socialist" will get people fired up without really understanding what he stands for.

I'd jump through a lot of hoops to vote for Bernie Sanders. I wouldn't put in the effort to vote for Hillary or Jeb even if they allowed me to vote in my house on my computer.

 

[RamFan503]

Campaign finance reform.(taking corporate money out of politics through targeting the corporate super PACs) Equality. He fought against DOMA. He marched in the Civil Rights Movement. Recognizing the wealth disparity in this nation is growing to insane heights and taking steps to limit it. Universal healthcare. Steps towards making college affordable for Americans. Limiting mass incarceration in America. Pro choice. Fighting climate change.

I find most of those to be mantras and to be honest, the implementation by the government would be like putting a whale on a dingy. Simply not enough balance and support to keep it from upending the boat and sinking it. IMO - there are already too many people in colleges and it is severely weakening the product while building incredible education bureaucracies.

The government created and attempted redistribution of wealth has caused most of the wealth disparities and the government doing more only creates bigger government doing less that helps the people they claim to want to support. If it doesn't work - throw more money at it until it does. So far they've been great at throwing money at problems. Just completely inept at actually correcting problems.

I could give a rip about DOMA. Dumb concept anyway. Let everyone call it what they want and then have a legal contract when it comes to unions that bring benefit and consequence with them. I could care less if two men or even 6 people want to create a legal union.

All targeting the SuperPACs does is allow other "non-profits" like the United Way (Political money laundering institution) and union forced dues to control the political money. The unions have never needed SuperPACs but use them out of convenience. The unions also do not allow members to decide how they use their dies for politics - therefore 40% have them used against their political choice. And most of the union political money goes to support Democrats AND the riches of the unions are gov't employee unions that have a vested interest in the gov't spending more money. Bernie knows this all too well yet I don't see him wanting to get rid of this money. Gee - I wonder why.

Besides - telling someone they can't fund speech - political or otherwise - is a non-starter when it comes to court challenges. Maybe he should consider term limits for politicians instead of going after Supreme Court justices being that the very essence of lifetime terms for Supremes was to make them immune to politicking in order to keep their jobs.

My biggest problem though with Bernie is that he is a self avowed Socialist (up until the early 80's when he decided it was politically unwise) and is trying to become our President.

It's what I don't get about the Bernie love. Do that many people really want a Eugene Debs Socialist President? Or do they realize that is exactly what this guy is.

 

[bluecoconuts]

The others already hit on why Bernie Sanders is popular among young people, those are all issues that the younger generation care more about. People tend to label him a socialist, but in reality that's not very true, he's a Democratic Socialist, and wants to make the United States closer to the Scandinavian countries.

The reason why he's unlikely to get the nod is that on a national scale, the older generations wont really care much for his message, and you can't count on the young vote to win you an election. They can sway the election in your favor, but not outright win it. If he was 20 years younger and decided to run in 2028 or 2031 he'd probably win. At this point a lot of young people will get excited for him, the older generations (who tend to vote more) wont like him, and the middle generations will be hit or miss, but mostly miss.


*Edit* I know that Bernie has labeled himself a Socialist, but his actions and views don't actually align with that. I'm sure he'd call himself a Democratic Socialist if he was sure that the majority of the country wasn't fucking retarded and actually knew what that is.

 

[RamFan503]

Wants massive investment in infrastructure. 15 dollar minimum wage. Medicare for all single payer system. No tax breaks for corps who hide money in the Caymans. Public funding of elections. Overturn Citizens United. Expand social security by lifting cap. He believes that the uneven distribution of wealth is pulling down most Americans. Opposes TPP and other trade deals that only bring us lost jobs and increased trade deficets. That's some of it.

He doesn't take campaign money from Wall Street. Small donors make up most of his fund.

He believes that makes him accountable to the electorate and not money men.

He has walked the walk throughout his political career.

A $15 national minimum wage is absolutely ludicrous to anyone who has ever tried to meet a paycheck which he never has. And what do you think that does to EVERY other wage? But I guess that doesn't affect costs at all.

The other thing artificial minimum wages do is force out all the smaller companies and only the larger, richer companies are left to survive. Isn't that the opposite of what most believe he wants? But I guess he'll still have all those billions of dollars of union support so what does he care? Want to make $15 per hour? Go earn it. It's out there.

And redistribution of wealth only pulls down the economy and doesn't get money to those it purports to help but instead makes the gov't the entity with all the power. But at least it distributes misery to more people. Bernie believes that government can be a producer within the economy and that has never been the case except for brief periods when it needed the economy to produce for its wars or dams. But those times are long past. There is no way the economy can support his policies.

 

[RamFan503]

I wouldn't put in the effort to vote for Hillary or Jeb even if they allowed me to vote in my house on my computer.

On this I would agree. Neither of those options excites me in the least. Oh to have someone to vote FOR.

 

[Athos]

People would be wise to understand what socialism is and is not...it doesn't really exist these days and sure as hell doesn't exist in western society and really never will.

Harp all you want on it, but as long as capitalism reigns in the U.S. Socialism won't. And you're silly if you think a president has enough power to do so. Don't listen to the scare tactics of the U.S. Becoming the USSR...

Sorry if I affend anyone, but one thing always pisses me off and it's the misrepresentation of socialism, what it is, and the likelihood of it ever happening here.

And I sure as fuck love me some good old fashioned victim blaming. If you aren't making good money, it's your fault and shit. That's sick. We don't live in a vacuum of equality. In a capitalist market, there will always be the woefully poor. That's how it works.

 

[jrry32]

I find most of those to be mantras and to be honest, the implementation by the government would be like putting a whale on a dingy. Simply not enough balance and support to keep it from upending the boat and sinking it. IMO - there are already too many people in colleges and it is severely weakening the product while building incredible education bureaucracies.

No such thing. That's like saying we have too many skilled workers.

The government created and attempted redistribution of wealth has caused most of the wealth disparities and the government doing more only creates bigger government doing less that helps the people they claim to want to support. If it doesn't work - throw more money at it until it does. So far they've been great at throwing money at problems. Just completely inept at actually correcting problems.

They really haven't. They blew a bunch of smoke about it and then never actually committed to doing it. It was half-assed effort at best. And Sanders isn't advocating just to throw money at the problem.

All targeting the SuperPACs does is allow other "non-profits" like the United Way (Political money laundering institution) and union forced dues to control the political money. The unions have never needed SuperPACs but use them out of convenience. The unions also do not allow members to decide how they use their dies for politics - therefore 40% have them used against their political choice. And most of the union political money goes to support Democrats AND the riches of the unions are gov't employee unions that have a vested interest in the gov't spending more money. Bernie knows this all too well yet I don't see him wanting to get rid of this money. Gee - I wonder why.

Great. Sanders isn't only advocating getting rid of Super PACs.

P.S. Sanders is an Independent.

Besides - telling someone they can't fund speech - political or otherwise - is a non-starter when it comes to court challenges. Maybe he should consider term limits for politicians instead of going after Supreme Court justices being that the very essence of lifetime terms for Supremes was to make them immune to politicking in order to keep their jobs.

We'll see. I have a feeling they could find a way to regulate it all without offending the Supreme Court. Plus, Supreme Court decisions aren't all that consistent. Especially when the balance of power shifts.

My biggest problem though with Bernie is that he is a self avowed Socialist (up until the early 80's when he decided it was politically unwise) and is trying to become our President.

It's what I don't get about the Bernie love. Do that many people really want a Eugene Debs Socialist President? Or do they realize that is exactly what this guy is.

I don't care about a label. He's still a self proclaimed "socialist" and I don't care. I agree with universal healthcare. I agree with affordable education. I agree with certain socialist initiatives. "Socialist" became a buzzword in this country.

Other developed countries have plenty of socialist initiatives. Our country has plenty of socialist initiatives. Pure capitalism is flawed. Pure socialism is flawed. You need a mix. Sanders is not a pure socialist.

Personally, I have no interest in a long drawn out political discussion. All I have to say is that my problem with your response is that your overall message isn't, "I disagree, these are bad ideas for our country" (only a small part of your message conveyed that) instead it's mainly, "Okay, we could do this but we also have this worse problem...how does it solve that?"

 

[beej]

Let's just use the minimum wage hike as a for instance. We've all seen news stories featuring some young mother of 4 working at mcdonalds for minimum wage. It pulls ay your heart strings.

but there are 2 sides to every issue. When was the last time you saw a story on cbs or NBC about the negatives of a $15 minimum wage. Has anybody seen scott pelley give the other side or Brian holt give the other side? Maybe I've missed it. But I've been looking for it, because I honestly want to know the whole issue in an effort to vote on the subject.
If you don't believe media can have an effect, watch a 60 minutes or dateline episode. The first half will have you convinced someone is innocent, the second half is always the "but wait" segment. The problem with political media is there is never the second part of the story. Unless of course you change the channel but people don't like the other channel whether that is fox or msnbc

 

[PA Ram]

A $15 national minimum wage is absolutely ludicrous to anyone who has ever tried to meet a paycheck which he never has. And what do you think that does to EVERY other wage? But I guess that doesn't affect costs at all.

The other thing artificial minimum wages do is force out all the smaller companies and only the larger, richer companies are left to survive. Isn't that the opposite of what most believe he wants? But I guess he'll still have all those billions of dollars of union support so what does he care? Want to make $15 per hour? Go earn it. It's out there.

And redistribution of wealth only pulls down the economy and doesn't get money to those it purports to help but instead makes the gov't the entity with all the power. But at least it distributes misery to more people. Bernie believes that government can be a producer within the economy and that has never been the case except for brief periods when it needed the economy to produce for its wars or dams. But those times are long past. There is no way the economy can support his policies.

A $15 national minimum wage is absolutely ludicrous to anyone who has ever tried to meet a paycheck which he never has. And what do you think that does to EVERY other wage? But I guess that doesn't affect costs at all.

The other thing artificial minimum wages do is force out all the smaller companies and only the larger, richer companies are left to survive. Isn't that the opposite of what most believe he wants? But I guess he'll still have all those billions of dollars of union support so what does he care? Want to make $15 per hour? Go earn it. It's out there.

And redistribution of wealth only pulls down the economy and doesn't get money to those it purports to help but instead makes the gov't the entity with all the power. But at least it distributes misery to more people. Bernie believes that government can be a producer within the economy and that has never been the case except for brief periods when it needed the economy to produce for its wars or dams. But those times are long past. There is no way the economy can support his policies.

I'm not going to turn this into a political fight. We know that will just get ugly.

You're already subsidizing Wal-Mart who pay below living wages, through welfare programs. Why should we subsidize a billion dollar company? I understand your concern about small business. But the term "small business" has been twisted as well, to include guys like the Koch Brothers. They are far from small.

Wages have been stagnant for years. If raising the minimum wage raises all wages--well, it's about time.

There is already a redistribution of wealth--upward.

And that flow shows no sign of changing. Trickle down? Not happening. Can one guy with a billion dollars do more for the economy or 500,000 people with an extra 2,000? He's not buying 500,000 big screen televisions. Never.

We have seen the result of years of trickle-up policies. We have seen CEO pay rise 300 times the amount of the average worker. We see people working longer hours for less real pay.

Sorry, I believe there does need to be a change.

I like what Sanders offers in those terms.

That's really all I have to say. We won't agree on any of it and that's fine. You don't have to vote for him. It's just my opinion on one candidate.

However, as I said, realistically I expect Hillary will win. And that will offer Bush, Clinton or Walker. And we'll continue down the same path we've been going.

I do love that Bernie is giving a voice to a lot of Americans who don't like this path. We haven't had much of that. It feels good.

 

[Ramhusker]

Whew, we are screwed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[DaveFan'51]

Other than the fact 'Thordaddy' would have been all over this thread, "Like Sink on shit"! And I mean that in the most complimentary way! This thread probably should never have been started!! It's Just Too Political!!
( And for the Record, I'm as Conservative a Republican as you'll Find anywhere!)
I won't be back to this thread!

 

[yrba1]

Gonna continue to go off the tangent here with regards to minimum wage. For any of you who are against the idea of it, what alternatives do you think are a better solution to improving standard of living and reducing poverty assuming the job market remains stagnant?

The only alternative I know is decreasing cost of living (economic deflation) but that doesn't bode well for banks and people with debt unless there's deflation adjustment upon it.

 

[Ramhusker]

Gonna continue to go off the tangent here with regards to minimum wage. For any of you who are against the idea of it, what alternatives do you think are a better solution to improving standard of living and reducing poverty assuming the job market remains stagnant?

The only alternative I know is decreasing cost of living (economic deflation) but that doesn't bode well for banks and people with debt unless there's deflation adjustment upon it.

Crappy economy kinda handcuffs you doesn't it? The problem with a big minimum wage hike is it is self defeating. A lot of businesses that rely on the cheap labor do so because their bottom line somewhat requires it. McDonalds for instance is huge corporation but you have individuals that open one. The average start up is $2.3M. The owner often has to get that back a burger at a time. The bottom line over the long haul just doesn't allow for the owner to just double his wages. They'll automate, do more with less when it comes to manpower, and employee 12 people instead of 20.