Why is MSNBC So Biased Against Bernie?

Bernie has been getting the short end of the stick from MSM for a long time (especially MSNBC).  Sounds like Nan and PS were right on this issue.  As a democracy what do we do when MSM is attempting to influence the election process with its' bias?

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

See:  https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/24/media/bernie-sanders-media-reliable-sources/index.html

Brief excerpt from above link:  

By Brian Stelter, CNN Business

Updated 9:21 AM ET, Mon February 24, 2020

When Sanders took an early lead in Saturday's NV caucuses, Matthews likened it "to the shock of France falling to Germany during WWII," as The Daily Beast wrote here. This analogy placed Sanders in the shoes of Nazi soldiers. Sanders comms director Mike Casca tweeted this in response: "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."

What Giridharadas said Sanders' wins are a "wake-up moment for the American power establishment," he said on "AM Joy" Sunday morning. "For Michael Bloomberg, to those of us in the media, to Democratic Party, to donors, to CEOs. Many in this establishment are behaving, in my view, as they face the prospect of a Bernie Sanders nomination, like out-of-touch aristocrats in a dying aristocracy." Instead, he said, they should be asking "Why is this happening? What is going on in the lives of my fellow citizens that they may be voting for something I find so hard to understand?"

Giridharadas, a paid contributor to NBC and MSNBC, then asked, "Why is Chris Matthews on this air talking about the victory of Bernie Sanders, who had kin murdered in the Holocaust, analogizing it to the Nazi conquest of France? The people who are stuck in an old way of thinking, in 20th century frameworks, in gulag thinking, are missing what is going on." MSNBC declined to comment...


2019 Truthdig Opinion Piece on MSNBC Bias Against Bernie.  This issue has been known for quite awhile but MSM have done little to remove bias or report on it.

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

Link:  https://www.truthdig.com/articles/msnbcs-anti-sanders-bias-is-getting-truly-ridiculous/

Brief Excerpt from Above Link:

JUL 28, 2019

OPINION

MSNBC’s Anti-Sanders Bias Is Getting Truly Ridiculous

When MSNBC legal analyst Mimi Rocah (7/21/19) said that Bernie Sanders “made [her] skin crawl,” though she “can’t even identify for you what exactly it is,” she was just expressing more overtly the anti-Sanders bias that pervades the network.


The hostility is so entrenched, in fact, it seems to have corrupted MSNBC’s mathematical reasoning and created a new system of arithmetic. The cable news network has repeatedly made on-air and online mistakes about Sanders’ polling and other numbers—always to his detriment, and never with any official correction.

Here are some new rules MSNBC seems to follow when it comes to math and Bernie Sanders.

Result: Sanders goes from second to “fourth” place.

MSNBC made a handy graphic for a poll on July 7 that showed 2020 match-ups against Trump among Democratic voters. The list was in descending order of candidates’ polling numbers—except for Bernie Sanders, whose name is placed under Warren’s and Harris’s, though he polls higher than both of them. (If the list is ordered by the margin between the candidate and Trump, Sanders would be in third place, behind Harris.)



Chuck Todd of MSNBC read a piece on air which described Bernie supporters as "brown shirts" (IOW, muscle arm of nascent nazi party).   See:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPvYDjsQVA0

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

Chuck Todd must go: His ‘brown shirt’ slur of Bernie Sanders makes him unqualified to be an unbiased host

See: https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-moynihan-fire-todd-20200214-2tubdl6qhrc2rgnmniys7koupm-story.html

Brief excerpt from above link:

Todd has often displayed an ungraceful loathing for Sanders. But this outrageous smear is sorry proof that Todd cannot conduct an unbiased discussion of our nation’s future. NBC must remove him as debate moderator, and his position as host of “Meet The Press” is untenable.

Sanders’ father Eli left his native Poland for New York City at age 17. Nearly every member of his Jewish family that remained in Poland was slaughtered by the Nazis. Hitler’s “brownshirts” — the Sturmabteilung, or “Storm Detachment” — was the founding paramilitary organization of the Nazi Party. It spawned the infamous Schutzstaffel — the SS. As Sanders later recalled, “I think the thing that impacted me most was the Holocaust and what it did to my father’s family and to 6 million people.”

This is not a partisan matter. If Sanders were on the Republican ticket or with the Green Party, it would be just as abominable for Todd to knowingly conflate his supporters with Nazis. One need not agree with Sanders on issues he has championed to acknowledge that he has served the people of Vermont with dedication and distinction as a mayor and a congressman. As Vermont’s senator, he is respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle.


Just two observations. First, note that the anti-Sanders MSNBC somehow finds it worth the money to give a microphone to the Matthews critic, too.

Giridharadas,a paid contributor to NBC and MSNBC, then asked ...

Second, the poll that’s mentioned in your second post was discussed in the 2020 - Candidates thread in September. This was my contribution:

This is how Langer Research, which conducted that poll, tabulated it. Sanders is listed fourth because of his margin among all adults. ETA: MSNBC probably just picked the names up in the same order, even while using the second column instead of the first.

                  All adults  Diff.      Reg. voters  Diff.
Trump vs.
Biden          41-55%   -14 pts. 43-53%        -10 pts.
Harris         43-51     -8          46-48           -2
Warren        44-51     -7         48-48           =
Sanders       45-51    -6         48-49            -1
Buttigieg     44-48    -4         47-47            =


DaveSchmidt said:

Just two observations. First, note that the anti-Sanders MSNBC somehow finds it worth the money to give a microphone to the Matthews critic, too.

Giridharadas,a paid contributor to NBC and MSNBC, then asked ...

Second, the poll that’s mentioned in your second post was discussed in the 2020 - Candidates thread in September. This was my contribution:

This is how Langer Research, which conducted that poll, tabulated it. Sanders is listed fourth because of his margin among all adults. ETA: MSNBC probably just picked the names up in the same order, even while using the second column instead of the first.

                  All adults  Diff.      Reg. voters  Diff.
Trump vs.
Biden          41-55%   -14 pts. 43-53%        -10 pts.
Harris         43-51     -8          46-48           -2
Warren        44-51     -7         48-48           =
Sanders       45-51    -6         48-49            -1
Buttigieg     44-48    -4         47-47            =

 Yes, Giridharadas is one of the only MSNBC pundits willing to give Sanders a fair chance.  This does not take take away from the fact that Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd (both of MSNBC) are trying to link Bernie to nazis.

PS  My recollection is that Giridharadas has not always been Sanders friendly (I will have to do some research on that issue).  One explanation of Giridharadas commentary on Matthews' France-1940-nazi-Invasion comment  is that Matthews was so over the top that there was little choice but to condemn him.


I don't think MSNBC per se is opposed to Bernie.  Rather some of its star talk show hosts, such as Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd think that he's unelectable and don't like his politics and approach.  I don't believe that Rachel Maddow, Brian Williams nor Joy Reid have expressed these kinds of statements.  It should be noted that following his remarks, Chris Matthews apologized, saying, 

“Senator Sanders, I’m sorry for comparing anything from that tragic era in which so many suffered, especially the Jewish people, to an electoral result of which you were the well-deserved winner.  This is going to be a hard-fought, heated campaign of ideas.  In the days and weeks and months ahead, I will strive to do a better job myself of elevating the political discussion.” As per NYT, he  concluded by congratulating Mr. Sanders on his Nevada victory.


The Nazi analogies are of course unacceptable.

That said, maybe some of the anti-Bernie people remember George McGovern?

And...  addressing this question from up-thread, with regard to both Sanders and 45, is totally critical if the Dems are to have any chance:

"Why is this happening? What is going on in the lives of my fellow citizens that they may be voting for something I find so hard to understand?"


Mathews should retire. Besides the Nazi analogy, last week or so, while talking about Bernie, he started talking about Castro and being executed in Central Park.

He's a nutter. 


MSNBC is pretty reality-based, and its Democratic analysts likely aren't too happy about how badly we're going to lose the House in November if Sanders is at the top of the ticket. 


Here's a link to an article in the Daily Beast that discusses Bernie's membership in the Socialist Worker's Party in the early '80s, including being a delegate to a party meeting, which he never talks about.  The party was a Trotyskyite group, that supported the Iranian hostage takeover of our embassy, saying that the hostages were likely all CIA agents.  This is the kind of thing that moderate and even liberal Democrats, who tend to populate MSNBC and perhaps CNN, are opposed to, and create concern about unelectability. 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-iran-took-americans-hostage-bernie-backed-irans-defenders?ref=scroll


This is a country that elected Donald Trump as president. Does any of us really claim that we know what "electability" even is any more?


"electability" is such horsesh!t. Our presidential election is controlled by a small percentage of voters, less than 10%, I'd guess, who are very uninformed politically. They are people who wait until the end stages of the election to make a decision. There is no way to predict what they're going to do, since they themselves don't know what they're going to do.

Imagine the mind that needs to wait until Sept or Oct of 2020 to decide whether or not to vote for Trump.

All you can do is try your hardest and hope for the best.


No one can claim they know what electability is, but it is the top factor in the decisions of most Democrats, according to recent polls. Please feel free to now disparage polls. 

ml1 said:

This is a country that elected Donald Trump as president. Does any of us really claim that we know what "electability" even is any more?

 


You don't really enhance the brilliance of your arguments by referring to mine as horseshit. 

drummerboy said:

"electability" is such horsesh!t. Our presidential election is controlled by a small percentage of voters, less than 10%, I'd guess, who are very uninformed politically. They are people who wait until the end stages of the election to make a decision. There is no way to predict what they're going to do, since they themselves don't know what they're going to do.

Imagine the mind that needs to wait until Sept or Oct of 2020 to decide whether or not to vote for Trump.

All you can do is try your hardest and hope for the best.

 


Jasmo said:

You don't really enhance the brilliance of your arguments by referring to mine as horseshit. 

drummerboy said:

"electability" is such horsesh!t. Our presidential election is controlled by a small percentage of voters, less than 10%, I'd guess, who are very uninformed politically. They are people who wait until the end stages of the election to make a decision. There is no way to predict what they're going to do, since they themselves don't know what they're going to do.

Imagine the mind that needs to wait until Sept or Oct of 2020 to decide whether or not to vote for Trump.

All you can do is try your hardest and hope for the best.

 

a little sensitive there, my friend. I've been raving about electability for a while. And I certainly wasn't thinking about you when I wrote this.

And it's a sad, sad thing that voters rank this undefinable concept as important.


This is Bernie yesterday, continuing the opposite of a "charm offensive" to gain the support of people who haven't yet been persuaded.  


Jasmo said:

Here's a link to an article in the Daily Beast that discusses Bernie's membership in the Socialist Worker's Party in the early '80s, including being a delegate to a party meeting, which he never talks about.  The party was a Trotyskyite group, that supported the Iranian hostage takeover of our embassy, saying that the hostages were likely all CIA agents.  This is the kind of thing that moderate and even liberal Democrats, who tend to populate MSNBC and perhaps CNN, are opposed to, and create concern about unelectability. 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-iran-took-americans-hostage-bernie-backed-irans-defenders?ref=scroll

 Bernie wasn't just a member, he was on the ballot in Vermont in 1980 as an elector for the party's candidate for president.


nohero said:

This is Bernie yesterday, continuing the opposite of a "charm offensive" to gain the support of people who haven't yet been persuaded.  

In a way he's the left wing mirror of Trump. Appealing to the angry, the disaffected, those who feel life is passing them by, them that feel America has gone wrong.

Viva la Revolución !!!



BG9 said:

nohero said:

This is Bernie yesterday, continuing the opposite of a "charm offensive" to gain the support of people who haven't yet been persuaded.  

In a way he's the left wing mirror of Trump. ...

They're BOTH running against the Democratic Party.  

It's a better strategy for Trump. 


Jasmo said:

No one can claim they know what electability is, but it is the top factor in the decisions of most Democrats, according to recent polls. Please feel free to now disparage polls. 

ml1 said:

This is a country that elected Donald Trump as president. Does any of us really claim that we know what "electability" even is any more?

 

I don't doubt the polls. But it's very discouraging to see how many voters are motivated by a mythical concept that is essentially meaningless. It's the worst kind of circular logic. Of course a candidate will not be "electable" if voters second guess themselves out of voting for him/her. 


ml1 said:

I don't doubt the polls. But it's very discouraging to see how many voters are motivated by a mythical concept that is essentially meaningless. It's the worst kind of circular logic. Of course a candidate will not be "electable" if voters second guess themselves out of voting for him/her.

If the logic is this — even if I and everyone else who likes this candidate votes for him and her, he or she still won’t win and my vote will be wasted when it could help another candidate I’m OK with who I think has a better chance against someone I really don’t like at all — is it really circular?


DaveSchmidt said:

If the logic is this — even if I and everyone else who likes this candidate votes for him and her, he or she still won’t win and my vote will be wasted when it could help another candidate I’m OK with who I think has a better chance against someone I really don’t like at all — is it really circular?

Maybe it's worse than circular. It's based on assumptions that no one can verify. 

The so-called experts have a terrible track record on deeming candidates electable. Who was less electable than a malignant narcissist game show host, a low-experience African-American senator, and a pot smoking, draft dodging, womanizing small state governor? Otoh, who was more electable based on resumes than Gore, Kerry and Clinton?

Basing a vote on who other people might vote for is a fool's errand.  


Eliminating logic based on unverifiable assumptions is a tall order. Eliminating circular logic is more cut and dried. It sounds like electability logic fits better in the first, more debatable category than in the second, more objective one.


The concern that Bernie may do to the Democratic party what he's done to Public Enemy. 


drummerboy said:

"electability" is such horsesh!t. Our presidential election is controlled by a small percentage of voters, less than 10%, I'd guess, who are very uninformed politically. They are people who wait until the end stages of the election to make a decision. There is no way to predict what they're going to do, since they themselves don't know what they're going to do.

Imagine the mind that needs to wait until Sept or Oct of 2020 to decide whether or not to vote for Trump.

All you can do is try your hardest and hope for the best.

Well, one type of voter whom you describe that I can imagine is the Republican who is deciding whether not voting for Trump is okay even if it results in the Democrat winning.  The voter I can't understand is one who is debating voting for Trump or the Democrat's nominee.


Now that Chris Matthews is gone, it will be interesting to see if MSNBC changes it's message on Bernie.


yahooyahoo said:

Now that Chris Matthews is gone, it will be interesting to see if MSNBC changes it's message on Bernie.

 That presupposes that MSNBC has a "message" on Bernie. I'll concede some commentators do, but the network, as a whole, has been pretty neutral, IMHO.


yahooyahoo said:

Now that Chris Matthews is gone, it will be interesting to see if MSNBC changes it's message on Bernie.

 The message from Chris Hayes is definitely not anti-Bernie, and he seems harder on the other candidates.


Every time I see the abbreviation "MSM" my eyes roll. I can't stop thinking of Sarah Palin. Do people think the MSM has secret meetings somewhere to set an agenda? Do they have sinister mustaches and snicker? 

First, stop watching cable news. It thrives on attitude, and the channels are set up to please partisans. Those people aren't journalists. They're news actors. 

Social media is like your high-school cafeteria, but less sophisticated and half the kids at the table are Russian robots. Forget about it.

Read a variety of print media, and not all of it from the East Coast. Check out the L.A. Times. Read the excellent Houston Chronicle and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. The AP has a fine news app. 

Basically, act like a grown-up and demand news that doesn't condescend to you. 


(dismounts soapbox) 


Why does "MSM" make your eyes roll? It's just a shorthand for all of the major corporate driven media. Do you think they don't kind of share a viewpoint, whether they have meetings or not?

And what does Palin have to do with it?


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.