Analysis Shows Andrew Yang Was Snubbed By Mainstream Media in its Coverage (vocal.media) 194
Scott Santens, writing for Vocal: Back in June of 2019, I tweeted about the latest egregious example of MSNBC excluding Democratic Presidential candidate Andrew Yang from their ongoing coverage of the 2020 Presidential candidates. There had been previous examples, but that was the worst up to that point because they had photos of all 20 candidates who were going to be in the first debates, and instead of including Yang as one of them, they included someone who wasn't even going to be there. I then started to add each new example as a new reply, and that ongoing thread has now been covered over and over again with each new example as a source of entertaining absurdity. It's been covered by traditional media outlets like The Guardian, Vox, and The Hill. It's also been covered by new media like Ethan and Hila Klein of the H3 Podcast for their two million subscribers. I have gotten many requests to put the entire thread in one place outside of Twitter, so this article has been created to meet that request. Each time a new example occurs, I will update the thread on Twitter, and update this page on Vocal too. I have also made a point here of expanding on the thread in a way I can't on Twitter, by expanding the timeline with earlier examples that had occurred before I started my thread. So instead of starting in June, this timeline starts back in March.
What? Mainstream media enforces a narrative? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I'm just shocked. Here I thought the mainstream media could be a trusted, objective, unbiased source of news.
Imagine my surprise to find out this is not the case.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Honestly i'd love to see him enter the race in 4 years as a republican. He's an entrepreneur, he's got facts and figures. Those two things alone make him an interesting candidate for the people who have embraced trump
Re: (Score:3)
UBI is a libertarian concept. The idea is for it to replace ALL other social programs. Give $1,000 a month in UBI, get rid of social security, medicare, and food stamps that give far more than $1,000 per month. That's a win for the owning class and a loss for the working and middle classes.
Re:What? Mainstream media enforces a narrative? (Score:5, Insightful)
Give $1,000 a month in UBI, get rid of social security, medicare, and food stamps
Andrew Yang's UBI proposal did not replace SS or Medicare.
UBI proponents replace SS when they want their proposals to be economically feasible.
They leave SS alone when they want their proposals to be politically feasible.
They can't have it both ways.
Re:What? Mainstream media enforces a narrative? (Score:5, Informative)
It would have stacked with social security, and the social security taxes wouldn't have gone away. With universal healthcare, another one Yang's plans, medicare wouldn't have been an issue, either. People would have to choose between UBI and food stamps, but if they were getting more out of food stamps (and other programs), they could have kept getting those instead of opting for UBI.
source: https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/
There are lots of people who are doing just a little bit better than are covered by the social programs like food stamps, but they'd still get UBI. And with UBI, unlike other social programs, people don't have to worry about losing it when their conditions change.
I'm not sure where this disinformation comes from, but it's probably from the same corporate owned media that snubbed Yang and continue to snub Bernie and Tulsi.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.libertarianism.org... [libertarianism.org]
It's the end goal of UBI. Of course you have to get people hooked on the good stuff before you yank the carpet out from under them.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's look at some of the numbers. There are 255 million American citizens over the age of 18. If you give each of them a UBI of $1000/month (Yang's "Freedom Dividend" proposal), you just spent 3.06 trillion/year.
But you're replacing Social Security, you say? OK. You just saved $929 billion out of the 3.06 trillion. A lot of retirees are going to be mad at you, though, because the average retirement benefit is $1503, not $1000.
You're also going to use UBI replace Medicare and Medicaid? Great, you just
Re: (Score:3)
You're pretending that the UBI must act purely as a tax cut for everyone. If you simply set the tax rates (or even a flat tax) so that it works out neutral (same as present, just in the form of a rebate instead of low taxes) for everyone making over say $30K a year, then you've cut the cost by about 2/3 already without making anyone pay a cent more in effective taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying, if we do something totally different than Yang's proposal, it wouldn't be as terrible as Yang's proposal?
Hmmm, yes, this floor is made out of floor.
Re:What? Mainstream media enforces a narrative? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty sure you agreed with him. But $1k/month could be done, assuming we also had universal health care. Obviously health care is insane, for everyone.
Sure, you couldn't live in the east village, but there are many places where $1k/month would pay off a mortgage on top of food, etc. Remember, you wouldn't really need to *go* anywhere. And you'd have all the time in the world. Cook 3 meals a day, exercise once or twice, rest of the day do whatever hobby you want that is cheap. There are plenty.
Re: What? Mainstream media enforces a narrative? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Libertarian concepts are the Kraft Lunchables of politics and philosophy. Is it a meal? Maybe, if you stretch the definition of meal. Could you live on them? Definitely not. Do they appeal to unsophisticated children who have never had much access to real food? You bet!
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Absolutely. Just because we let democracy sit out and get flies all over it doesn't mean it isn't a great meal. Democracy works. Libertarianism is just anarchism for folks who don't like the fact that anarchy means "No Archons" or, in English, no tyrants. Libertarians think that if we just got rid of that pesky government, they'd be warlords ruling everything. They would, of course, be nothing more than food for the real monsters.
Democracy works. Libertarianism has, thankfully, never even been tried. A
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course Yang now has sufficient public identity to make a solid run for the Senate or Congress. In reality they are both far more important that the Presidency, they can strip nearly all powers from the President and issue instructions. They call it the executive in the US but in reality it is just the administrative, all the power is in the congress and senate, they just hide their corruption behind the President, whilst it claims it does it.
Re: (Score:3)
Gotta be lies. There's an entire swath of /. posters who say there is no MSM, and it's just a creation of republicans and conservatives who are upset they're always losing.
Re:What? Mainstream media enforces a narrative? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well the leftists are mad at the same MSM as well so it's not like you can win this game.
I think Yang is a decent guy and ran a good campaign. But he's a nobody with some crazy ideas who decided to run for president with no prior base or experience in an elected position. How much should he be covered? No matter how much it is, someone will complain because you can't mathematically calculate the objectively appropriate amount of attention.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
WTF did "Vox" become a "traditional media outlet"
I was into the article till I read across this and it lost a good bit of credibility.
I think Vox ranks right up there with Young Turks as far as coming close to being "traditional medial"...eh?
Anyway...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's not use the words of Trump and the right. They are the corporate media. "Mainstream" is a meaningless word in this context, and only serves to hide the reason they report the way they do. The corporate media exists only to serve the interests of the multi-national corporations and the obscenely wealthy who own them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>Let's not use the words of Trump and the right
Why? I really don't understand this reasoning. Would you apply that to any other debate?
"Let's not use the words of Newtonians. They can't account for relativity and they like vanilla icecream. Unquestioningly evil.".
"Don't use the words of those Dark Matterites. They believe in an invisible energy expanding the universe! Pure poppycock. "
"Let's not save that mans life dying from hypothermia. Do you know where that knowledge came from!! You are not a nazi ar
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea. Good point. My bad.
Although in my defense poppycock is a fun word to say.
Re: (Score:3)
Call out what you think Trump says is idiotic not the words that he uses to say it.
"don't use words because drumpf". Behold the depths of #resist acting like the bigger idiot.
Re:What? Mainstream media enforces a narrative? (Score:5, Insightful)
But Trump does not give a rat's ass about biased opinions or lies, he uses them every day. So generic biased opinions and lies are not why Trump complains. He complains because they aren't kissing his ass.
I've explained the difference between the terms. I can bring you to the water but I can't force you to drink it.
Class war is just another term for class conflict or class struggle. It need not escalate to actual violence. But the rich certainly use violence to keep the poor in line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Trump uses terms his narcissistic, disease addled brain can comprehend. Look at Trump's vocabulary now as opposed to the way he spoke ten years ago. Trump's mind is failing and it shows.
And about your sig. please, if you can find me any instances of Romney being called a racist nazi, share them. Otherwise, I really thin you are lying. Nobody said that about Romney because he was not a fucking psychopath. He was a normal republican, the kind that we can actually debate.
Trump is something new. He wants to be king, and has said as much, many times. He's not joking. Trump wants to end our democracy, while Romney believed that democracy is the best form of government out there. Unlike Trump, Romney understands that democracy is the tool we use to ensure the peaceful transition of power.
I respect Romney. I respect John McCain. Tell me what democrats you respect?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He's still better than anything the Dems on the left are offering up again this time around....lesser of two evils thing.
Re: (Score:2)
You are entitled to your opinion. Right up to the point where you would choose to use violence to achieve it. That we can not accept. Trump has made a number of comments about being king. There is a global right wing, authoritarian conspiracy to undermine democracy and give wealthy tyrants unlimited control over our lives. At this point, all sane individuals must consider what they would do if tyranny came to overthrow their government.
I'm sure you are in favor of democracy, right? I can say I would never
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you here.
I was VERY much disappointed both times Obama won, but I accepted it as how the US voted and elected....I never had a thought about violence or even really protest of him winning.
Of course, I have alway been thus since I was of voting age
Re: (Score:2)
When? Sorry, but that's simply not true. The right has always been the more violent. You mock us as peaceniks until it serves your purpose to call us violent, because words have no real meaning to your side.
Here's that bastion of lefty thought, "Business Insider," on right wing violence: https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
>does not give a rat's ass about biased opinions or lies,
That is not addressing the criticisms levied. I don't care to argue with you whether Trump or the right are correct in their criticisms or whether or not they are sincere in their criticism. But I will represent their criticisms honestly. Your initial representation wasn't accurate.
" they are criticized for publishing overtly biased opinion and lies as if it were objective truths. "
* looks to Sanders, Yang, and Gabbard * Hmmm. Looks familiar.
" not
Re: (Score:2)
> Tell me what democrats you respect?
I should add, If you or anyone can find a Democrat that is pro-2nd amendment (no more concessions). Pro life. Pro border security. Fiscally conservative. Doesn't adhere to Orange Man Bad. Has an America first agenda. Cares about process of governance over outcome. Does not support corporate censorship. Supports nuclear. Willing to cut redundant regulations and stream line government agencies. Willing to address deficit spending with more than "cut defense". Ascribes t
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think Trump cares about those things? He wants to take your guns away, and has said so. He has paid for abortions, and (like all the wealthy) would continue to do so whatever the law says. He is anything but fiscally conservative, he has increased the deficit by more than anyone in history. Bill Clinton gave us a surplus, Trump just sinks us deeper in debt. Trump has a Trump first agenda, and doesn't care about America, and especially not the constitution. He does not care about process, and is in th
Re: (Score:2)
I never said Trump was perfect. But those issues I find Republicans more supportive than democrats. I don't find many democrats conducive to those planks for a platform.
>Manifest destiny was
Well those Martians do have it comin' to 'em.
"was" being the key word. I don't care what it was about I care what it will be about. I want America to pioneer into space with fervor and ambition. I want an American flag to be first on all the reachable bodies of space. I am happy other countries do it as well as it is
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, fellow space enthusiast. Looks like we found something we can agree on! If that is all you mean by "manifest destiny" well I am even willing to overlook the unpalatable history of the word. I want us to be first in space too.
Look, can we also at least agree that we both love our country, the constitution is a wonderful thing, and democracy works better than tyranny? I may disagree with you on tactics but it seems our goals are the same. We want our country and its citizens to be prosperous and happy. I
Re: (Score:2)
Yet you seem to support Trump. Why?
All I really want to know is, when Trump loses, will you take up arms, or respect the constitution and allow your Dear Leader to be removed from office and tried for the crimes he has skirted around by being president? Because he will lose, and he will be tried, and he will be convicted. It's a certainty Trump will either die of some medical condition brought on by being a speed addicted fat-ass, or he will end his life in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
> Yet you seem to support Trump. Why?
He makes me laugh.
> Trump will either die of some medical condition
Having Raiden as president would be funny. Hopefully Midway Games doesn't get in a tizzy and goes all mortal combat in the courts for copyright violations when the meme magic happens.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you really don't care about the constitution, or the rule of law? This is all just lulz to you? You've confirmed why I don't, in fact, need to take you seriously.
I'll just bookmark this comment and refer back to it when you try to engage with me in the future. That will certainly save us both some time and aggravation, so thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
> So, you really don't care about the constitution, or the rule of law?
Number 7 [slashdot.org] if you ordered the list. The ordering is no particular sorting or preference.
> This is all just lulz to you?
Nothing wrong with having a good time. Enjoying a good laugh is not mutually exclusive to wanting good government. I think democrats have been outraged enough since 2016 for the all of us.
If you want an example. While AOC is angery proclaiming the world is on fire we are gonna die in 12 years... Mike Lee is as enter [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You know what's really funny? Transcripts of Trump speaking. And you fools lapping it up like the boot lickers you are. That's funny.
“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the
Re: (Score:2)
You seem rather delusional, are you a speed freak fat-ass?
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am not Trump, "Highdude702."
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they have enough discipline to *enforce* a narrative. They just don't have the initiative to explore alternatives.
Re:What? Mainstream media enforces a narrative? (Score:4, Informative)
A great example - The New York Times writes a glowing profile of a Youtuber who has 14k subscribers and a single video. [nytimes.com] Carlos Maza is the man who condoned marginalization and deplatforming and tried to get Joe Rogan cancelled. "Fresh from leaving Vox, Carlos Maza, a socialist who calls YouTube âoedeeply unethical and reckless,â is trying to bolster the video siteâ(TM)s left wing." The New York Times gives him a platform despite him being insignificant on Youtube.
Here's a clip of Intellectual Dark Web member Eric Weinstein talking with the hosts of "The Art of Charm". [youtube.com] He shows them how to read propagandizing media outlets like The New York Times correctly. He also discusses alternative media and online algorithms and their potential for creating bubbles.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm just shocked. Here I thought the mainstream media could be a trusted, objective, unbiased source of news.
Imagine my surprise to find out this is not the case.
More shocking is, the mainstream media here is defined as The New Your Times, BBC, Washington Post, Time Magazine, Wall Street Journal, ...
Hold it. Oh, I see the problem:
TFS mentions The Guardian, Vox, and The Hill, Ethan and Hila Klein of the H3 Podcast, Twitter, Vocal.
I read the Guardian occasionally, avoid Vox and the Hill, don't do podcasts, don't take Twitter seriously, and what the fuck is "Vocal?"
Re: (Score:2)
The MSM cannot b e trusted, unlike Rush and Hannity??
The MSM has a pro-establishment, pro-money way of looking at and prioritizing facts. The non-MSM (esp. on the right) just makes up bullshit
You cannot expect any lack of bias., You can expect biases to be disclosed and fact-based reporting.
I'm shocked that you're shocked (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm shocked that you're shocked (Score:5, Insightful)
All the major US networks have their favorites and they'll do their best to suppress or ignore any candidate with an opposing platform or viewpoint.
Almost all major US networks push the same damn narrative, so let's stop pretending there's a lot of different opinions out there. When one lies about something, the rest follow suit.
Says a lot when we're resorting to YouTube and podcasts to fact-check our entire political system...
Re:I'm shocked that you're shocked (Score:4, Informative)
All the major US networks have their favorites and they'll do their best to suppress or ignore any candidate with an opposing platform or viewpoint.
You're talking about Democrats. When it comes to Republicans they're fine covering un-electable candidates like Donald Trump. It worked out really well for them last time.
Re: I'm shocked that you're shocked (Score:2)
Psst. Your sarcasm detector is broken. ;)
That's nothing compared (Score:3, Insightful)
to what the mainstream media does to Trump. It's like 97% negative coverage. But he's still going to win the election. And you all know it.
And to all who are going to reply to this and say "Well 97% of everything he does is bad derp derp herpa derp derp", that kind of reasoning is exactly why he's going to win again.
Re:That's nothing compared (Score:5, Insightful)
to what the mainstream media does to Trump. It's like 97% negative coverage. But he's still going to win the election. And you all know it.
Trump is a prime example of Succes de scandale. [wikipedia.org] He proves again that there is no such thing as bad publicity (if you know how to spin it).
Andrew Yang suffered from true bad publicity, no publicity.
Re: (Score:2)
Andrew Yang suffered from true bad publicity, no publicity.
Not entirely. I just read what was clearly a hit piece on Yang a few days back. It was a feminist claiming he was sexist and racist, as I recall.
As I said, the entire thing read like a hit piece on him.
The real reason Yang got no press.... (Score:3, Informative)
Andrew Yang suffered from true bad publicity, no publicity.
Andrew Yang suffered from being a minor gimmick candidate. Nothing more, nothing less. He was a one trick pony with "Free Yang Bucks", and no one was biting on that line.
Everyone knows that the media has an agenda. We see it every day. The concentrated effort to stop Bernie Sanders on the Dem side. The concentrated effort to hinder Donald Trump on the GOP side. And they DO have a minor candidate that they're doing their best to Astroturf for (Mayor Pete). But in the great scheme of things, no one cared enou
That was a hook, not a gimmick (Score:3)
Andrew Yang suffered from being a minor gimmick candidate.
He really wasn't though. The $1k UBI was a hook to talk about a serious issue, what happens when automation sweeps over whole industries. Yang was talking about a lot of issues that politicians SHOULD be thinking about, but simply will not until the wave hits them.
Oh and BTW, Yang is the only candidate that could have possibly won against Trump. But whatever, the Democrats are way more into posing than winning these days (see: Impeachment).
Re:The real reason Yang got no press.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The media doesn't want anyone that's not a part of the party machine. Trump was just so loud and stupid that they couldn't help themselves, and like flies to shit they flock to cover him. I think he showed what it takes to be a successful outsider and break through it all. Maybe Bernie can do it as well, but last time he stooped to kiss the ring in the end and I have a feeling that the same thing will happen all over again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How to lie with facts (Score:5, Insightful)
This is called sampling bias [wikipedia.org]. If I want to smear a restaurant, I can hire a exterminator to covertly inspect it, then report that he found evidence of cockroaches. While strictly true, unless you run the exact same covert inspection on a bunch of other random restaurants, you have no way of knowing if the evidence of roaches found at that one restaurant was indicative of an excessive number of roaches, or is just the average of the number of roaches found in all restaurants (since doorways do not hermetically seal buildings), or if that restaurant actually has fewer roaches than the average restaurant. Facebook and Google abused this in the aftermath of the 2016 election, looking for and reporting only suspicious Russian ads during the timeframe of the election campaigns. That information is useless unless you also do the same inspection for such ads from all sources, then compare numbers.
Unless you first determine a baseline incident rate for your methodology, you cannot conclude whether an incident rate you find in a specific subgroup is high, normal, or low.
The media abuse this all the time [ourworldindata.org]. They vastly overreport deaths from terrorism and homicide compared to other causes. If you have a general sense of unease, that we live in a dangerous society where you're at high risk of being randomly murdered, that's why. You're actually far more likely to kill yourself in a car accident or drug overdose or suicide, or eating poorly, or not exercising. But because of the media selectively reporting only certain facts, they've caused you to create a skewed worldview which you think homicide, or even terrorism (LOL) is the biggest risk factor.
Perhaps the most severe example of a wrongfully manufactured mistaken belief due to the media selectively reporting facts is the stereotype against young unmarried males near children. People see a young male near children, and they automatically assume they're there to kidnap the child. Because the media grossly overreport incidents of child abductions by strangers. Every report is true - it really happened. But the rate at which they're reported far, far, exceeds the actual incident rate in real life. The vast majority of missing children cases are simply kids getting lost, or running away [pollyklaas.org]. About 9% are kidnapped by a relative. The stereotypical child kidnapping by a stranger only accounts for about 0.01% of missing child cases. Yet it's so over-reported by the media that it's created a stereotype where every young single male has to walk on tiptoes every time they're alone with children.
I think Trump is an idiot, and will be voting however I can to get him out of office this year. But I absolutely agree with his supporters that he suffers from persecution by the media. Overreporting of things which cast him in a negative light, underreporting of things which cast him in a positive light. All true and factual of course. The lie is in the rate at which these things are reported not aligning with the frequency at which they occur.
Re: (Score:2)
like a quote, out of context, is still technically a fact, yes?
You are absolutely right. The GP is wrong. Now moving on do you want to account for the other 96% now that you've picked your cherries?
Maybe actually go and read some of Trump's full transcripts and realise that for nearly all the negative shit Trump says, adding the context makes it even more negative.
Re: (Score:2)
Stale bread thinks it's safe (Score:2)
Fairly sure Trump is like a loaf of stale bread thinking it's safe from being eaten, when we decide instead of toast we're having pain perdu (or french toast) instead.
Still gets eaten.
What if? (Score:2)
What if there's no such thing as "mainstream" media? What if there's just this popular media company, that popular media company, etc. That MSNBC happened to disfavor some particular candidate for some particular office, is that really surprising? You wouldn't be surprised if FOX turned out to have a bias, would you?
You don't even have to reach for a cynical explanation. Sometimes it's about the advertising division, but every media company is going to have an editorial board and the people there are going
Alternate Candidates (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
His brand is being ripped off by somebody calling himself Boot-Head-Edge.
Re: (Score:2)
bravo!
Part 25072 in an ongoing series (Score:2, Insightful)
On how the mainstream media are bad. They hide information. They conspire. They hype and dramatize. They get facts wrong and aren't sorry about it. They're shallow. All their emotions are fake except the negative, childish ones. They're repetitive. They look down on their audience. They make up sources and report rumors. They pretend. And they don't care what damage they cause or who gets hurt by it.
Yang is not a drama queen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You'll note that on multiple occasions during the debates Yang basically said that instead of the usual Orange-Man-Hitler [oh and anyone who voted for him is Hitler too] koolaid we are supposed to drink, he pointed out that there are reasons WHY Trump got elected and that the Democrats ought to look at addressing those reasons if they want to succeed.
I don't agree with his policies but it was refreshing to see somebody who wasn't on stage to call millions of people racists because they didn't pass an arbitr
Re: (Score:2)
That’s why he was snubbed! He speaks calmly, and he seeks to bring clarity to issues as a good scientist typically seeks to do. The media don’t want that. People don’t want that. Just look at how briskly trump’s drama sells. It’s disgusting.
Clicks and Likes are what is valued in the 21st Century, not facts. And Attention Whore is a valid profession.
That "disgusting" problem is hardly confined to politics.
Re: Yang is not a drama queen (Score:2)
neither are Mayo or Cloud Boot Jar (Score:2)
....but both those candidates have gotten enormous pushes from the media and the DNC. Because they are centrist hacks.
Coverage is far from equal (Score:3)
There is not much fair and balanced about our media. As they all rant and rave about Trump being good or bad, they are missing the other 99% of things that affect all of us in our daily lives. For the most part these news shows have become soap operas. In the midst of their daytime stories Yang was hardly covered and Gabbard smeared as a Russian agent.
It is good for the people to see all of the choices no matter how boring they may be. There is nothing wrong with a boring leader. There is no reason the people need to hear the back and forth from these same republicans and democrats on repeat. That is not news, that's drama. Unfortunately these shows and media corporations are driven by ratings. Keeping the drama turned up is all that matters to them. This is nothing more than a filter bubble feedback loop.
This type of news is not helpful for any sane person and certainly does not lead to reasonable conversation's about reality.
--
To ride well to hounds is simply a diversion. - Daisy Goodwin
Gaining Acknowledgment (Score:2)
Even fence-sitters like The Hill are starting to call out media/political collusion. e.g. : https://youtu.be/ecg6oG9bfC4 [youtu.be]
But, hey, War is fantastic for cable news ratings. No conflict of interest there!
cf. Project Mockingbird
We need ... (Score:3)
Screw Iowa with their "we gotta be first" bullshit. Everyone hold their primaries and caucuses at one time. Two weeks to collect the states' votes and select party candidates. Then hold the general election.
Re: (Score:2)
Parliamentary systems are much better suited to extremely short elections - but, yeah. The duration of US presidential campaigning is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
What about Tulsi Gabbard, too? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She's being ignored because she doesn't have a chance in hell of winning. Why should news focus on the irrelevant?
Re:What about Tulsi Gabbard, too? (Score:5, Funny)
Relevance of candidacy (Score:2)
If this were Bernie Sanders then there would be a story here, because Sanders is a legitimate candidate. Andrew Yang was never a legitimate candidate which is why the media mostly ignored him. If Yang continues to work in the public sphere and continues to grow his base, he could make himself into an actual contender and thus earn more media spotlight. But this idea that he deserves some of the spotlight is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 1980's called and it wants it's hysteria back.
MSBNC is ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
Slightly funnier is when Matthews ran a clip of Carville trashing Sanders chance of winning, asked a Sanders staffer what he thought of it, and clearly against expectations, the staffer described how Carville said the exact same thing about Obama and worked on a winning campaign for someone who supported M4A when Carville said no candidate could win with that. Matthews just said "Well you did your research." and stammered off.
Wow (Score:2)
And this is unusual? (Score:3)
The media is STILL ignoring Bernie Sanders as much as it can, and downplays it when he does well. Bernie brings in 7000 people to an event in New Hampshire, and not a single mention, but if Biden gets 100 people in a room there would be coverage. What happened to Yang is more about there not being a big enough level of support, and until there is at least a 25% in a given state or in polls, the media will generally ignore anyone that is relatively new or unknown.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be so obtuse. (Score:2)
The DNC and the media have massively rigged the primary in favor of candidates they like and against candidates they don't. Tulsi has been repeatedly excluded from debates while candidates with lower polling and fewer donors have been allowed in. Meanwhile Mayo Pete has gotten such a push that a disphit mayor with 8,000 career votes to his name "won" Iowa. You can't even when the DNC has tossed the donor requirement out the window so Bloomberg can debate, after paying the organization over a million dollars
Re: (Score:2)
What's amazing is how many Yang supporters aren't falling in line with the democrats, and instead jumping on the Trump train. Go look over on reddit if you really want in the various political/dem/leftist subs, and then go use something like ceddit to view the deletions. Lot of extremely hardcore people didn't like what happened.
Re: (Score:3)
That's largely because Yang's policies were able to pull in Republicans, unlike most other Democrats.
Many Republicans were worried about immigrants taking their jobs.
Yang was running on a platform about automation taking people's jobs. It's no wonder that he was able to pull in a relatively large number of Republicans, compared to other candidates.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that there's a feedback loop. The media give attention to the candidates who have a chance of winning. But a candidate has no chance of winning if the media don't pay any attention to him. All nice and airtight.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem here is that there's a feedback loop. The media give attention to the candidates who have a chance of winning. But a candidate has no chance of winning if the media don't pay any attention to him. All nice and airtight.
If that was the case, you'd have reality TV stars winning the election. Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
If that was the case, you'd have reality TV stars winning the election. Oh, wait...
Who are you talking about? Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jesse Ventura? Shirley Temple doesn't count because ambassadors are assigned, and not elected (although presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush all gave her assignments as ambassador).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
None of those people are "reality TV stars".
Go ahead. Spot the difference between reality TV star and a fictional character in a movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Except they gave plenty of attention to people like:
Williamson, Delaney, Castro, Swalwell
and Hickenlooper. None of whom ever stood any possibility of realistically securing the nomination. All of them are as much gadfly candidates as Yang was and they got media coverage. In the case of Williamson, and Casto significant coverage.
Re:Holy crap (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a reason we have such a drawn out selection process and it's so that we can choose from a wide selection of candidates and see how they stack up. If you pervert this process it only means that you wind up with a weaker candidate in the end. If the DNC hadn't been so hell-bent on Clinton, they would have selected a candidate that possible could have won.
Even though people like to complain about so-called "low information" voters and the like, I think that people are on average far more informed. Maybe they're still not as informed as you, I, or anyone else might like for them to be, but it's quite clear that people are far less trusting of the establishment and aren't going to just sit there and swallow the bullshit that they're being fed and play along like good little citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
By this logic we shouldn't have any more news coverage of Biden, correct?
Re: (Score:2)
You'll see Joe's coverage drop like a rock if he doesn't do anything in Nevada or South Carolina. Whether you like it or not, the press does a relatively good job (Sanders notwithstanding) of following the voters' lead.
Re: (Score:2)
The media didn't pay equal attention to a candidate who had no chance of winning...
Care to tell me how that's a fair and accurate statement, in June of 2019?
Then you can explain why they continue to shine a spotlight on those who obviously had no chance of winning.
Hell, we haven't even gotten to the bullshit of last-minute rule changes for billionaires, flipping votes, and rigged primaries sponsored by Shadow, Inc, a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation...
Re: (Score:2)
The mainstream media, since being acquired by large conglomerates, have ditched journalism and are now the muscle behind the public narrative for at least a decade now
Little slow indeed. For at least several decades now.
Re: (Score:2)
But are you promising to give away another $4 trillion a year that you don't have? Because that gets 1-2% of democrats super excited.