Why is MSNBC So Biased Against Bernie?

nohero said:

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

 Actual band statement about this:

Public Enemy did not part ways with Flavor Flav over his political views.

Flavor Flav has been on suspension since 2016 when he was MIA from the Harry Belafonte benefit in Atlanta, Georgia. That was the last straw for the group. He had previously missed numerous live gigs from Glastonbury to Canada, album recording sessions and photo shoots. He always chose to party over work.

Public Enemy Radio toured Europe and co-headlined with the Wu-Tang Clan in May 2019 without Flavor. They have also done numerous benefit shows without Flavor. While Public Enemy Radio was moving forward, Flavor Flav was starring on the reality show Growing Up Hip Hop New York, when an episode featured his children discussing an intervention and putting him into rehab.

It’s time to move on and everyone wishes Flavor well.

ridski said:

nohero said:

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

 Actual band statement about this:

Public Enemy did not part ways with Flavor Flav over his political views.

Flavor Flav has been on suspension since 2016 when he was MIA from the Harry Belafonte benefit in Atlanta, Georgia. That was the last straw for the group. He had previously missed numerous live gigs from Glastonbury to Canada, album recording sessions and photo shoots. He always chose to party over work.

Public Enemy Radio toured Europe and co-headlined with the Wu-Tang Clan in May 2019 without Flavor. They have also done numerous benefit shows without Flavor. While Public Enemy Radio was moving forward, Flavor Flav was starring on the reality show Growing Up Hip Hop New York, when an episode featured his children discussing an intervention and putting him into rehab.

It’s time to move on and everyone wishes Flavor well.

Click to Read More

Public Enemy did not part ways with Flavor Flav over his political views.

Flavor Flav has been on suspension since 2016 when he was MIA from the Harry Belafonte benefit in Atlanta, Georgia. That was the last straw for the group. He had previously missed numerous live gigs from Glastonbury to Canada, album recording sessions and photo shoots. He always chose to party over work.

Public Enemy Radio toured Europe and co-headlined with the Wu-Tang Clan in May 2019 without Flavor. They have also done numerous benefit shows without Flavor. While Public Enemy Radio was moving forward, Flavor Flav was starring on the reality show Growing Up Hip Hop New York, when an episode featured his children discussing an intervention and putting him into rehab.

It’s time to move on and everyone wishes Flavor well.

 Yeah, boyee, I hear ya. 

Flav may have had the time, but Terminator X had the wax.  They were downhill since he split. 

The article below describes some of the background tension between Bernie and MSNBC, including his refusal to be interviewed there for the last 4 years, until an excellent hour long stint with Rachel on Wednesday.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/business/media/msnbc-bernie-sanders-media.html

Jasmo said:

The article below describes some of the background tension between Bernie and MSNBC, including his refusal to be interviewed there for the last 4 years, until an excellent hour long stint with Rachel on Wednesday.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/business/media/msnbc-bernie-sanders-media.html

 Does a candidate's refusal to be interviewed justify smearing the candidate and his supporters as nazis and brownshirts?

IOW, smearing Bernie and his supporters as nazis and brownshirts cannot be explained away.  These smears are textbook cases of manufactured consent.  See:  https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=manufacturing+consent&qid=1583516279&sr=8-1

Quote from squib for "Manufacturing Consent:  "[N]ews media . . . in their search for truth and defense of justice, in their actual practice they defend the economic, social, and political agendas of the privileged groups that dominate domestic society, the state, and the global order."

Of course, Bernie's refusal to be interviewed by MSNBC does not justify Matthews' outrageous comments, which first led to his apology, and then to his being forced out.  

RealityForAll said:

 Does a candidate's refusal to be interviewed justify smearing the candidate and his supporters as nazis and brownshirts?

IOW, smearing Bernie and his supporters as nazis and brownshirts cannot be explained away.  These smears are textbook cases of manufactured consent.  See:  https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=manufacturing+consent&qid=1583516279&sr=8-1

Quote from squib for "Manufacturing Consent:  "[N]ews media . . . in their search for truth and defense of justice, in their actual practice they defend the economic, social, and political agendas of the privileged groups that dominate domestic society, the state, and the global order."

Jasmo said:

Of course, Bernie's refusal to be interviewed by MSNBC does not justify Matthews' outrageous comments, which first led to his apology, and then to his being forced out.  

RealityForAll said:

 Does a candidate's refusal to be interviewed justify smearing the candidate and his supporters as nazis and brownshirts?

IOW, smearing Bernie and his supporters as nazis and brownshirts cannot be explained away.  These smears are textbook cases of manufactured consent.  See:  https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=manufacturing+consent&qid=1583516279&sr=8-1

Quote from squib for "Manufacturing Consent:  "[N]ews media . . . in their search for truth and defense of justice, in their actual practice they defend the economic, social, and political agendas of the privileged groups that dominate domestic society, the state, and the global order."

 

 You failed to address Chuck Todd's brownshirt smear of Bernie.  See:  https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&p=chuck+todd+brownshirt#id=1&vid=e77ccd85785d0e71833ed06349cf4138&action=click

RealityForAll said:

Jasmo said:

Of course, Bernie's refusal to be interviewed by MSNBC does not justify Matthews' outrageous comments, which first led to his apology, and then to his being forced out.  

RealityForAll said:

 Does a candidate's refusal to be interviewed justify smearing the candidate and his supporters as nazis and brownshirts?

IOW, smearing Bernie and his supporters as nazis and brownshirts cannot be explained away.  These smears are textbook cases of manufactured consent.  See:  https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=manufacturing+consent&qid=1583516279&sr=8-1

Quote from squib for "Manufacturing Consent:  "[N]ews media . . . in their search for truth and defense of justice, in their actual practice they defend the economic, social, and political agendas of the privileged groups that dominate domestic society, the state, and the global order."

 

 You failed to address Chuck Todd's brownshirt smear of Bernie.  See:  https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&p=chuck+todd+brownshirt#id=1&vid=e77ccd85785d0e71833ed06349cf4138&action=click

 Keep up jasmo! RFA has a whole list of things other people have said that you have to address one by one.

ridski said:

 Keep up jasmo! RFA has a whole list of things other people have said that you have to address one by one.

 because by not mentioning it, we're justifying it 

ridski said:

RealityForAll said:

Jasmo said:

Of course, Bernie's refusal to be interviewed by MSNBC does not justify Matthews' outrageous comments, which first led to his apology, and then to his being forced out.  

RealityForAll said:

 Does a candidate's refusal to be interviewed justify smearing the candidate and his supporters as nazis and brownshirts?

IOW, smearing Bernie and his supporters as nazis and brownshirts cannot be explained away.  These smears are textbook cases of manufactured consent.  See:  https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=manufacturing+consent&qid=1583516279&sr=8-1

Quote from squib for "Manufacturing Consent:  "[N]ews media . . . in their search for truth and defense of justice, in their actual practice they defend the economic, social, and political agendas of the privileged groups that dominate domestic society, the state, and the global order."

 

 You failed to address Chuck Todd's brownshirt smear of Bernie.  See:  https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&p=chuck+todd+brownshirt#id=1&vid=e77ccd85785d0e71833ed06349cf4138&action=click

 Keep up jasmo! RFA has a whole list of things other people have said that you have to address one by one.

Chuck Todd's brownshirt reference was in the original posting.  I am merely asking jasmo to address both the brownshirt reference and nazi reference (nazi reference has already been addressed by jasmo). See quote above.

Why do you (ridski) falsely make it appear that this is a new issue (when it was instead addressed in my original posting)?

Gaslighting anyone?

ml1 said:

ridski said:

 Keep up jasmo! RFA has a whole list of things other people have said that you have to address one by one.

 because by not mentioning it, we're justifying it 

 Have you fallen on your head?

1a.  What constitutes a criminal threat?

1b. The only element that needs to exist is the threat of physical injury.

2.  Was CS' speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action (such as a criminal threat) and is likely to incite or produce such action"?

ml1:  By only defending 2 rather than defending against the conclusion of 1b, you are accepting implicitly that CS' speech is a threat of physical injury.  IOW, in order to deem that "2"  has occurred, you need to have "1" occur AND also the additional element of "inciting or producing imminent lawless action."

RealityForAll said:

1a.  What constitutes a criminal threat?

1b. The only element that needs to exist is the threat of physical injury.

2.  Was CS' speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action (such as a criminal threat) and is likely to incite or produce such action"?

ml1:  By only defending 2 rather than defending against the conclusion of 1b, you are accepting implicitly that CS' speech is a threat of physical injury.  IOW, in order to deem that "2"  has occurred, you need to have "1" occur AND also the additional element of "inciting or producing imminent lawless action."

 nope.  why do you keep insisting this, when it doesn't even logically follow from what I wrote? Or are you just enjoying writing really turgid prose?

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

1a.  What constitutes a criminal threat?

1b. The only element that needs to exist is the threat of physical injury.

2.  Was CS' speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action (such as a criminal threat) and is likely to incite or produce such action"?

ml1:  By only defending 2 rather than defending against the conclusion of 1b, you are accepting implicitly that CS' speech is a threat of physical injury.  IOW, in order to deem that "2"  has occurred, you need to have "1" occur AND also the additional element of "inciting or producing imminent lawless action."

 nope.  why do you keep insisting this, when it doesn't even logically follow from what I wrote? Or are you just enjoying writing really turgid prose?

 You have your POV. And, I have my POV.  

RealityForAll said:

 You have your POV. And, I have my POV.  

 last refuge of someone posting nonsense