March 9, 2016

"In what has to be some kind of record, the Washington Post ran 16 negative stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours..."

"... between roughly 10:20 PM EST Sunday, March 6, to 3:54 PM EST Monday, March 7—a window that includes the crucial Democratic debate in Flint, Michigan, and the next morning’s spin," observes Adam Johnson at CommonDreams.
All of these posts paint his candidacy in a negative light, mainly by advancing the narrative that he’s a clueless white man incapable of winning over people of color or speaking to women....

The Washington Post was sold in 2013 to libertarian Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who is worth approximately $49.8 billion.... The Washington Post’s editorial stance has been staunchly anti-Sanders, though the paper contends that its editorial board is entirely independent of both Bezos and the paper’s news reporting.

75 comments:

Rick said...

The Washington Post was sold in 2013 to libertarian Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who is worth approximately $49.8 billion.... The Washington Post’s editorial stance has been staunchly anti-Sanders, though the paper contends that its editorial board is entirely independent of both Bezos and the paper’s news reporting.

WAPO isn't pushing libertarianism, it's protecting Clinton.

Gahrie said...

How many posts attacking the Republican nominee will that rag run in every twenty-four period this summer and fall?

Birkel said...

And without a hint of irony, these are not viewed as in-kind contributions.

Snark said...

I read a study once that determined that the editorial slants of newspapers were correlated with the political leanings of the regions they served. Effectively they tended to give readers the content and opinions they wanted and already believed, rather than seeking to shape new beliefs that reflected those of the editorial board. Tail wagging the dog kind of thing. It was much more interesting than my description of it.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Libertarian? Maybe to a rabid statist...

Bay Area Guy said...

Wash DC paper protecting Hillary? What. A. Surprise.

buwaya said...

Bezos bought WP as a political asset - for use in trading favors/cover from harassment.
Much like Bill Gates partnered with NBC shortly after he figured he needed political insurance during the antitrust troubles of the 1990's when they figured they needed such.

Hagar said...

More importantly, I don't think Bernie Sanders has a clue about how to talk to bureaucrats, i.e., run an administration.
If Bernie is elected, he will sit in the White House and keep on blathering, while the bureaucracies will run wild, each in its own direction.

Big Mike said...

though the paper contends that its editorial board is entirely independent of both Bezos and the paper’s news reporting.

And if you buy that I'll throw the Golden Gate in for free.

Birkel said...

buwaya has the correct assessment. This is crony socialism protecting its own interests.

Political interests are no nobler than commercial interests. Political interests try to control others under threat of force. Commercial interests require both sides gain.

Politics: zero-sum.
Commerce: mutual benefit.

mccullough said...

The usual Dem Jedi mind tricks don't work on Bernie's supporters.

The people who work for the WP hold the same views as Bezos, which is one of the reasons he bought it and not the NY Post.

There is no coordination or conspiracy. It's just unconscious parallelism

buwaya said...

Old story, but explains Bezos/WP relationship well -
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/carney-how-hatch-forced-microsoft-to-play-k-streets-game/article/2500453

"If you want to get involved in business," Sen. Orrin Hatch warned technology companies at a conference in 2000, "you should get involved in politics."

Hatch was referring to the shortcomings of then-software king Microsoft, which he had spent most of the previous decade harassing from his perch as Judiciary Committee chairman. The message was clear: If you become successful, you must hire lobbyists, you must start a political action committee, and you must donate to politicians. Otherwise Washington will make your life very difficult."

Owning the Washington Post is much more effective than just bribing Senators.
Also interesting WRT to the Trump situation, is that it was Orrin Hatch, Republican, still in office, who was pretty plainly demanding bribes, etc. The corporatist game is bipartisan and played very openly.
This is NOT addressed by Republican candidates other than Trump.

Will said...

One word: Macaca!

Fen said...

Hard for me to be outraged. Conservatives have been dealing with this for decades.

Welcome to our world

cubanbob said...

Hagar said...
More importantly, I don't think Bernie Sanders has a clue about how to talk to bureaucrats, i.e., run an administration.
If Bernie is elected, he will sit in the White House and keep on blathering, while the bureaucracies will run wild, each in its own direction.

3/9/16, 1:37 PM

The permanent government torques to the left, the bureaucrats and Sanders will mind meld if he were to be elected.
If the WaPo is going full guns on Sanders then the Clinton's and their invested cronies are nervous that she might not win the delegate count outright. Go Bernie!

Michael said...

People of color. Colored people. People of color.

Fen said...

"The permanent government torques to the left"

Yup. This is why we need term limits for federal employees. We could elect another Reagan and it wouldn't make a difference. The bureaucrats of the Executive Branch are following their Leftist policies and are rarely held accountable. When they DO make a headline scandal, they are fired and then quietly rehired 6 months later.

The corruption is systemic. Term limits for federal employees is the only way to get rid of the rot.

buwaya puti said...

No, bureaucracies can't be tamed by personnel management, but only by being made redundant.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Oh, gee, is the Media unfair? Someone ought to say something; something ought to be done!
When did this start?!

mccullough said...

We don't need term limits for government employees. They should be employees at will. If they can be fired or disciplined quickly then they will be more responsive and accountable. The military isn't burdened by civil service laws or collective bargaining agreements. If it's important enough for government to do, then the people accountable through election and appointment need to have total control over personnel.

Bob Ellison said...

Trump wishes he could get that kind of free publicity.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I really wonder how all those energetic youthful Bernie supporters will react when Hillary finishes him off. He'll pivot to support her, of course. What will all those kids do? There's no chance they'll ever vote for any Republican, of course, but will they just say home?

damikesc said...

"Libertarian" Jeff Bezos?

That's funny right there.

Yup. This is why we need term limits for federal employees. We could elect another Reagan and it wouldn't make a difference. The bureaucrats of the Executive Branch are following their Leftist policies and are rarely held accountable. When they DO make a headline scandal, they are fired and then quietly rehired 6 months later.

The corruption is systemic. Term limits for federal employees is the only way to get rid of the rot.


I'm for bringing back the Spoils System. Make SOMEBODY responsible for a terrible person doing dumb shit in government.

Hagar said...

The one thing worse than a "bad" leader is anarchy.
Besides anarchy generally is followed by the rise of a really bad leader.

Paddy O said...

The Post is doing a great job reaching out to those millenials!

jr565 said...

they will run 18 negative stories on Trump in 2 hours once he secures the nomination. So you want to talk about records being broken, just wait a few weeks (assuming Trump goes on to win)
as for now though, the fix is in.

The funny thing is I just had a discussion the other day with my mom. She's a big Hillary supporter. when it was the last election she said that Hillary got more votes but they stole her delegates.
She was referring to the superdelegates. Even when Hillary won the state the delegates would go for Obama. She felt that Hillary was robbed.

I brought up the fact that That seems to be happening now with Bernie Sanders. Even when he wins she seems to get his delegates. (http://spectator.org/blog/65736/sanders-may-have-won-michigan-clinton-won-delegates)
When I mentioned that, she got really pissed off. Yeah, my mom can be a hypocrite.

mikee said...

Yet Hillary continues to be a possible presidential contender for the Democrats. Amazed I am, disgusted I am, but surprised I am not.

You go, Democrat Party, and get that Hillary elected to the highest office of the land, where her personal ethics, morals, honesty, incorruptibility, honor and integrity will provide the country with a lesson that we will all long remember, should we survive to do so.

jr565 said...

(cont) but yes, the fix is in for Hillary. She will get the delegates. He will get the bad coverage. She will get the good coverage or lack of bad coverage. Because the media wants nothing to do with Sanders as the nominee.

jaydub said...

"mainly by advancing the narrative that he’s (Bernie) a clueless white man."

Well,yes he is a white man and he is clueless, but name a socialist who isn't. The fact that the US press hasn't taken this naive, radical leftist down for crimes against reason is the travesty.

Michael K said...

"I'm for bringing back the Spoils System. Make SOMEBODY responsible for a terrible person doing dumb shit in government."

I'll buy that. Maybe if Trump wins they will all light out for Canada and Trudeau.

jr565 said...

"I really wonder how all those energetic youthful Bernie supporters will react when Hillary finishes him off. He'll pivot to support her, of course. What will all those kids do? There's no chance they'll ever vote for any Republican, of course, but will they just say home?"

Some Sanders fans hate Hillary as much as National Review hates Trump. I know some people on facebook who are ANNOYINGLY for Sanders. Every day they post about him. Every bit of info that discusses what celebrity is endorsing him gets posted. They also post really negative stuff about Hillary.
If she wins, are they going to support Hillary? its the same predicament I'll have with Trump. I admit.

mccullough said...

People are more motivated to vote for someone than to vote against someone. This is why Obama was re-elected.

YoungHegelian said...

In light of your previous post on offensive language, please forgive me for my choice of words here, but so much of the press nowadays is a contest to see who can stuff the Administration/Democratic Party machine's dick furthest up their ass. No, it's not Republican dick (even Fox is nowhere near this subservient), it's not far lefty dick, it's straight line Democratic machine dick.

The NYT, NPR, Andy Borowitz. For these folks the dick is bumping into their tonsils from the south. SNL doesn't make fun of a sitting president. I guess "speaking truth to power" just goes out the window when your idea of not only a good time, but of moral virtue, is being a bottom to a political party.

I apologize for the crudeness of my metaphor. But, I just look around & listen & I go "what happened to these people?". And, really, I think that the situation is best modeled by analogy to sexual fetish & frenzy.

Johnny Sokko said...

Wow, it's as if the Washington Post is pulling for Mrs. Clinton rather than Senator Sanders.

I am somewhat shocked to even write that because it is just so antithetical to what journalism is all about in the 21st Century!

tim in vermont said...

ABC News recently reported that, “dozens of the 437 delegates in the DNC member category are registered federal and state lobbyists, according to an ABC News analysis. In fact, when you remove elected officials from the superdelegate pool, at least one in seven of the remainder are former or current lobbyists.”

cubanbob said...

Fen said...
"The permanent government torques to the left"

Yup. This is why we need term limits for federal employees. We could elect another Reagan and it wouldn't make a difference. The bureaucrats of the Executive Branch are following their Leftist policies and are rarely held accountable. When they DO make a headline scandal, they are fired and then quietly rehired 6 months later.

The corruption is systemic. Term limits for federal employees is the only way to get rid of the rot.

3/9/16, 2:02 PM"

As mccullough said, eliminate the civil service protections and restore the ban of civil service worker unions and the problem gets ameliorated quickly.

jr565 if you really want to piss of your mom some more not only keep reminding her how Bernie is getting cheated but she is also supporting a felon for president.

YoungHegelian said...

@jr565,

Every day they post about him. Every bit of info that discusses what celebrity is endorsing him gets posted. They also post really negative stuff about Hillary.

Same with my FB friends. But, I notice that their beef with Hillary is that she's a shill for big money. They aren't really concerned with what bothers me, which is she's the most morally corrupt individual to run for President, well, since 1776, & that she's surrounded by multiple individuals in positions of power who are known moral reprobates.

It's to the point now where I think the Left really has no notion of morality other than "holding to the correct ideology".

tim in vermont said...

Were he a clueless black man, all would be well, I guess. So it's not any kind of reverse racism or nationalism on the WaPo's part, nosirree!

cubanbob said...

mccullough said...
People are more motivated to vote for someone than to vote against someone. This is why Obama was re-elected.

3/9/16, 2:52 PM"

Maybe but other than Reagan I have been voting against the other candidate since Ford.

jr565 said...

cubanbob wrote:
"jr565 if you really want to piss of your mom some more not only keep reminding her how Bernie is getting cheated but she is also supporting a felon for president."

I dont want to end my relationship with my mom. If I said that I imagine I wont be invited to thanksgiving.

mccullough said...

Cubanbob,

I was talking about independents or voters who loosely identify as Dem or GOP. They can just stay home if they aren't motivated to vote for someone even if they don't like the other candidate. Most people aren't partisan and fewer people are identifying as D or R.

This is why W won twice and Obama was re-elected. It's also why negative ads are effective. They keep some people from voting for a candidate they might be leaning toward. The true believers aren't swayed either way.

Sebastian said...

@CB: "Maybe but other than Reagan I have been voting against the other candidate since Ford." You mean, you supported that conservative ideologue who favored free trade, foreign wars, and amnesty?

tim in vermont said...

You mean, you supported that conservative ideologue who favored free trade, foreign wars, and amnesty?

Oh cripes! See, these are the people who want to destroy the party. You should know who you are getting into bed with with Trump.

Dan Hossley said...

In fairness, how many stories did they run on Hillary's bizarre and probably illegal email arrangement? None?

tim in vermont said...

n fairness, how many stories did they run on Hillary's bizarre and probably illegal email arrangement? None?

No, the fact checker said that her excuses were highly technical and did not refute that her arrangement was highly unusual and flouted regulations. I would say they flouted laws too, but I don't worry about getting invited to the right cocktail parties in D.C.

tim in vermont said...

At least they are covering him. There was a news blackout on Sanders for the week heading into Super Tuesday.

cubanbob said...

Sebastian said...
@CB: "Maybe but other than Reagan I have been voting against the other candidate since Ford." You mean, you supported that conservative ideologue who favored free trade, foreign wars, and amnesty?

3/9/16, 3:25 PM

I supported a president who brought back respect for the nation, the best economic recovery in a century and who favored wars that killed communists-the only good ones are dead ones, and put the final nail in the Soviet Union. I'll give him a pass on amnesty as he didn't realize that Democrats needed to import welfare dependent voters for future victories. No one is perfect. Imagine what Reagan could have done if he had both houses of Congress. So who are you supporting this election? The grifter and felonious traitor?

Matt said...

The coverage of Trump has been many more hours than that of Bernie. One report back in December showed that ABC World News Tonight had covered Trump for 81 minutes but only 30 seconds to Sanders. For the entire year. Calling it the liberal press is not really accurate. They may like Democrat's policies but they prefer Trump's bluster because it means ratings and money.

Sam P said...

If big government is needed to stand up to big business...

Then the biggest government department should be the Office of Inspector General.

cubanbob said...

Blogger mccullough said...
Cubanbob,

I was talking about independents or voters who loosely identify as Dem or GOP. They can just stay home if they aren't motivated to vote for someone even if they don't like the other candidate. Most people aren't partisan and fewer people are identifying as D or R.

This is why W won twice and Obama was re-elected. It's also why negative ads are effective. They keep some people from voting for a candidate they might be leaning toward. The true believers aren't swayed either way.

3/9/16, 3:24 PM

Clinton's corruption and criminality is as rich a target of opportunity that any opponent could possibly have. Whatever other failings rump or Cruz have, being gentleman and holding back punches on Hillary Clinton won't be one of them. As for W, Bill wasn't all that popular ever, he never really won a majority and a stock market crash and mild recession didn't help Gore, his third term in 2000. In 2004 the economy had recovered the war wasn't going to badly and the Democrats ran a terrible candidate. Obama rode the perfect storm into office with a turnout of blacks in unprecedented numbers. its hard to see how any Republican could have won in those circumstances but McCain's theatrics made sure the Republicans would lose. In 2012 Romney again was the one candidate that couldn't argue against Obama's signature legislation, the one piece of legislation every Republican voted against on and add the again massive solidarity vote by blacks for Obama and again the Republican's blew (or threw?) the race. Like I said, Cruz or Trump whatever else they do won't make the mistake of being nice guys to Hillary.

BDNYC said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BDNYC said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BDNYC said...

This is some sort of prog dog whistle. "Libertarian" being another word for "Koch" which is another word for "Satan."

AprilApple said...

Wait and see what they do to Trump.

Sebastian said...

@CB: "So who are you supporting this election? The grifter and felonious traitor?" Certainly not. But I'd like a candidate who more closely resembles that 80s ideologue, thinking that "respect for the nation" and "best economic recovery" were somehow related to his actual conservative policies and principles. Not a carbon copy: I want real immigration reform, real entitlement reform, and an end to tax cuts that have given half the citizens representation without taxation. No such luck.

cubanbob said...

Blogger Sebastian said...
@CB: "So who are you supporting this election? The grifter and felonious traitor?" Certainly not. But I'd like a candidate who more closely resembles that 80s ideologue, thinking that "respect for the nation" and "best economic recovery" were somehow related to his actual conservative policies and principles. Not a carbon copy: I want real immigration reform, real entitlement reform, and an end to tax cuts that have given half the citizens representation without taxation. No such luck.

3/9/16, 4:33 PM

The one candidate who however imperfect comes closest to your desire is Cruz. I'm going to vote against Trump, Kasich and Rubio in my state's primary next Tuesday but come November I'm voting against the grifter and felonious traitor (assuming the communist doesn't get the nomination).

tim in vermont said...

Wait and see what they do to Trump

Wait and see what they do to Hillary. She is not going to be able to keep this stuff out of the papers anymore. Oh, and Obama's assurance that there was "no there there" on Hillary and the email? He said the same thing about Petraeus... Oops!

Sebastian said...

@CB: "The one candidate who however imperfect comes closest to your desire is Cruz" Probably. But I also want to win, and I am pretty sure he'd fail to carry FL, OH, and VA. Again, looks like I'm out of luck. Not the first time. Would love to see Cruz debate Hillary!, though, watch "GOPe" heads explode for real, and vote for him in the general, even while anticipating getting crushed.

mccullough said...

The Dems do it to everyone.

The GOP needs to toughen up. Trump will take it to Hillary unlike the others. They are paper tigers. Trump has gone pretty easy on the republican candidates. And calling him bigot, racist, misogynist, nativist, xenophobes doesn't work on him, even though the GOP has tried to tar him with the usual Dem slurs against Republicans.

Trump will be the first GOP nominee in years who is actually on a first name basis with a black. He'll help improve their standing with black people and gays.

AprilApple said...

Tim in Vermont @ 4:50

I respectfully disagree. MSM could have destroyed Hillary with fact finding truths and criminal exposure a long time ago. They are all together in Big-Media-Government-Corruption-Cahoots.

Sigivald said...

CommonDreams is in a snit because their darling is being treated like ... well, every Non-Democrat who ever looks like a threat?

Boo. Hoo.

cubanbob said...

tim in vermont said...
Wait and see what they do to Trump

Wait and see what they do to Hillary. She is not going to be able to keep this stuff out of the papers anymore. Oh, and Obama's assurance that there was "no there there" on Hillary and the email? He said the same thing about Petraeus... Oops!

3/9/16, 4:50 PM

Obama has a dilemma; he can't pretend nothing happened with Petraeus convicted, he can't disavow Hillary and he as president and her boss is just as guilty as she is by allowing her to flagrantly violate the law. Neither Clinton or Obama will be able to escape the constant drumbeat of corruption and criminality in the fall. Obama should have remembered one of his Democrat predecessor's comment, "the buck stops here". heck of a job Barry, heck of a job.

cubanbob said...

Sebastian said...
@CB: "The one candidate who however imperfect comes closest to your desire is Cruz" Probably. But I also want to win, and I am pretty sure he'd fail to carry FL, OH, and VA. Again, looks like I'm out of luck. Not the first time. Would love to see Cruz debate Hillary!, though, watch "GOPe" heads explode for real, and vote for him in the general, even while anticipating getting crushed.

3/9/16, 4:57 PM

I would pay for that on pay-per-view. Cruz hammering her and Obama on the numerous criminal statutes violations and Cruz would be quite capable of reciting every statue violated, the penalties for each statute and the sentencing guidelines. It would be glorious. I can see the bumper stickers for Hillary; 2016 vote for the criminal. This time its important!

Yancey Ward said...

In the latest from WaPo, I hear that Sanders doesn't put the toilet seat back down, and he hates fried chicken.

damikesc said...

Bill wasn't all that popular ever, he never really won a majority and a stock market crash and mild recession didn't help Gore

Bill also ran against Bush Sr, who didn't want to actually run and Bob Dole, quite possibly the most God awful candidate I've seen.

...and the same guys who HATE Cruz wanted us to vote for Dole.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

haha--Bezos is so libertarian that he gave fifty million clams to the gay marriage campaign in Washington state which was almost certainly going to pass anyway.

He's not a political guy by and large. He's not leaning on the WaPo to push one candidate another. He's more concerned with his weird mad scientist tech schemes than with influencing presidential politics.

David said...

"Wait until you see what they do to Hillary."

Yep. If Hillary had an elephant on her bumper sticker she would be hiding out in a level 6 bunker from all the attacks emphasizing her dishonesty and illegalities.

Real American said...

by definition all socialists are clueless.

buwaya said...

"He's not a political guy by and large."

He's buying political insurance - or paying protection money. Making himself useful to them so they don't hurt him.

cubanbob said...

Blogger buwaya said...
"He's not a political guy by and large."

He's buying political insurance - or paying protection money. Making himself useful to them so they don't hurt him.

3/9/16, 6:45 PM

At his level of wealth the WaPo is pocket change and a wise move to buy as potential insurance. Its like an excess liability umbrella policy, doubtful you will ever need it but it is relatively cheap to buy and you will exceedingly grateful in having it if ever its needed. You're right. He has nothing to fear from Republicans and the paper gives him a measure of protection from Democrats.

Rhythm and Balls said...

The NYT was almost as bad. The editors don't even allow any stories other than for how long Hillary will have to endure this "pest" until her coronation is allowed to continue as planned.

The commenters are sick of it. The left is as done with this stupid corporate-"pseudo-liberal" media as everyone else is.

AReasonableMan said...

AprilApple said...
They are all together in Big-Media-Government-Corruption-Cahoots.


The TRUTH. is. out. there.

Tom said...

Bezos does import a lot of goods from China...

Rhythm and Balls said...

Same with my FB friends. But, I notice that their beef with Hillary is that she's a shill for big money. They aren't really concerned with what bothers me, which is she's the most morally corrupt individual to run for President, well, since 1776, & that she's surrounded by multiple individuals in positions of power who are known moral reprobates.

Maybe you can explain what the difference is. Being corrupted through being easily bribed and being morally corrupted for whatever this other special reason is.

They're all part of the same damn thing, as far as I'm concerned.

damikesc said...

The NYT was almost as bad. The editors don't even allow any stories other than for how long Hillary will have to endure this "pest" until her coronation is allowed to continue as planned.

The commenters are sick of it. The left is as done with this stupid corporate-"pseudo-liberal" media as everyone else is.


While I still firmly believe Bernie has no desire to win and would likely drop out if there was a chance he would --- his supporters should be pissed at how the press is ignoring him and decided to coronate Hillary repeatedly. Everytime he wins, it seems to be a minor story (the MI win should've been really, really huge) but all of her wins are "Well, we told you --- she has this".

She does have the win already, but Sanders has been shafted.