The MSM Doesn't Push Specific Agendas

[LongJim]

Yeah, no.

Painfully obvious attempt to keep up the "Rich people are bad.  They should not have all that money" drumbeat.

So embarrassing for NBC and the NYT.  

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/03/06/msnbcs_brian_williams_new_york_times_editorial_board_member_mara_gay_five_divided_by_three_equals_one_million.html

[Hunter Green]

Divide and conquer. That is the mantra.

[Rudy]

News and media haven't been honest for decades. The have to sell their sponsorships. They need views, web clicks, etc. What sells?  Controversy. Put out there controversial stories, and people will tune in.

[HoustonEagle]

10 hours ago, Rudy said:

News and media haven't been honest for decades. The have to sell their sponsorships. They need views, web clicks, etc. What sells?  Controversy. Put out there controversial stories, and people will tune in.

Pretty much the Fox News business model in a nut shell.  To be fair I think NBC, ABC and CBS are doing a pretty good job these days.  BBC always does fair reporting.  CNN is obviously liberal but contrary to what many here think they are not the antithesis of Fox News.  The biggest problem with Fox is the actual news segment gets very little time. The recently departed Shepard Smith did a good job.  Instead, they devote much of their day to opinion shows that have zero journalistic integrity and unabashedly push false narratives.  Lately CBS and BBC are my two faves for broad based reporting. 

Edited March 8, 2020 by HoustonEagle

[Rudy]

No, they all do that. Not a single one of them is innocent of that model. 

[El Paso Eagle]

Fox  might very well be conservative but they do sprinkle in liberals in some of their shows.  On CNN and MSNBC you will not find any conservatives

[Censored by Laurie]

On 3/7/2020 at 10:22 AM, LongJim said:

Yeah, no.

Painfully obvious attempt to keep up the "Rich people are bad.  They should not have all that money" drumbeat.

So embarrassing for NBC and the NYT.  

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/03/06/msnbcs_brian_williams_new_york_times_editorial_board_member_mara_gay_five_divided_by_three_equals_one_million.html

the "MSM" apparently is just awful at math. the point being made, on the other hand, is valid. here's some better math:

Bloomberg spent $60-$220 per vote in Super Tuesday states

even taking the low-end of that, $60, and extrapolating that out to the number of votes it took to win in 2016 (also, the low number)...you're looking at around a $3.8 BILLION investment. 

there is far too much money influencing politics. and it baffles my mind that so many defending the uber rich do so as this sort f principled defense of capitalism...that some how because "hard work" merited the rich their station in life, that maybe if I bring my lunch box and use some elbow grease I too can eventually be worth $50B.

nah. everyone of you reading this right now is far closer to bankruptcy and destitution than you are being even multi-millionaires, let alone sniffing a billion 

[LongJim]

On 3/9/2020 at 8:29 AM, Censored by Laurie said:

the "MSM" apparently is just awful at math. the point being made, on the other hand, is valid. here's some better math:

Bloomberg spent $60-$220 per vote in Super Tuesday states

even taking the low-end of that, $60, and extrapolating that out to the number of votes it took to win in 2016 (also, the low number)...you're looking at around a $3.8 BILLION investment. 

there is far too much money influencing politics. and it baffles my mind that so many defending the uber rich do so as this sort f principled defense of capitalism...that some how because "hard work" merited the rich their station in life, that maybe if I bring my lunch box and use some elbow grease I too can eventually be worth $50B.

nah. everyone of you reading this right now is far closer to bankruptcy and destitution than you are being even multi-millionaires, let alone sniffing a billion 

Not sure about the “bankruptcy and destitution” comment, as I don’t think it has any bearing on the conversation unless, you know, “unfair and unequal”, or whatever.  I'll go out on that limb and reckon that the vast majority of GMG folks are richer than 99% of the world’s population, and probably don't think about--or care about--millionaires, billionaires and their doings as a general rule.  If they, or billionaires made a lot of money--good for them, as far as I'm concerned.  But to quote the bard Robert John Lange--that don't impress me much.  Can't speak for everybody though--although NBC/NYT apparently wants to.

If NBC and the NYT wanted to make the point that there is too much money influencing politics, they could have left it at that, and compared 2-3 candidates and how much they are taking in/spending.  Or, they could have delved a bit deeper into who is contributing and at what amount.  They did not do this. 

The video could have mentioned, for example, that three of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren’s top contributors are Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple.  Bloomberg spent his own money.  What business is it of theirs if the guy wants to throw his own money away?  More importantly--where did 'give a million to every American' come from?  Bloomberg is an easy target because he's rich, and they can attack him without upsetting their advertisers.  That’s a real shame.

His billions didn’t buy Bloomberg delegates.  It didn’t buy Trump the popular vote.  It didn’t buy Steyer anything.  It didn’t buy Forbes anything—twice.  It didn’t buy Perot anything--twice.  Seems to not be a winning strategy, but I think it comes down to folks didn't want to vote for those guys in sufficient numbers--money be damned.

It generally happens that the American public—when it comes down to nut-cuttin’—is going to vote for the person that they believe will lead the country in a way that is best for them, their families, and their future.  That’s almost always the case.  But we'll wring our hands and rend our garments about the unfairness and outrageousness until then.  Again.

NBC and the NYT played themselves.  They repeated a wild-eyed—possibly tongue-in-cheek--statement of folly without so much as checking out its veracity and simply stated it as fact.  And they did it in a way that elicited a reaction in the public’s mind of “Wow, I could have used that money.  He has too much.  What an entitled, privileged, patriarchal a-hole.” 

What a lazy, pitiful attempt at journalism or news.  The NT Daily is better at fact checking.

NBC and the NYT were so smitten—no, I’d say they were thoroughly aroused—by the statement:  “He Could Have Given Every American A Million Dollars”, that they didn’t bother with any facts, didn’t bother with a $.99 calculator, and beat up a billionaire’s campaign—financed with his own money--that wasn’t going to go anywhere anyway.

[ColoradoEagle]

Seems like the right place for this.

 

[FirefightnRick]

Agree with @LongJim.  If Bloomberg and Styer’s campaigns proved anything it’s money cannot always buy position.  Although I respect both using their own money their campaign messages, and personalities were very uninteresting.

 

Rick