What the hell happened in Michigan? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 05:00:42 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  What the hell happened in Michigan? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: What the hell happened in Michigan?  (Read 5926 times)
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,344
Kiribati


« on: March 11, 2016, 08:33:48 AM »


Are you seriously trying to deny that the Washington Post ran 16 negative Sanders stories in sixteen hours? Because there's proof right here.

Oh no! Our candidate is being covered like any other candidate would be! #conspiracy #Illuminati
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,344
Kiribati


« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2016, 11:33:24 AM »


Are you seriously trying to deny that the Washington Post ran 16 negative Sanders stories in sixteen hours? Because there's proof right here.

Oh no! Our candidate is being covered like any other candidate would be! #conspiracy #Illuminati

Give me an example of the Washington Post running 16 negative stories on another candidate, or for that matter, anybody else in as many hours.

well DOnald Trump for one, lol.

Basically most journalists neither have the motivation nor brains to carry out a concerted attack on an individual candidate. for ideological reasons - it's not in their nature (the exception is the British press, but the American press tends to lack that sort of obsessiveness that British tabloids have, mostly because most American newspapers are  either relatively highbrow or milquetoast sh**te like USA TODAY).

The only thing that drives journos is driving a story - which is why they will happily swing en masse against and then for the "HILLARY THE MONOLITHIC" story. "Women easily wins" is a terrible story that will get them no credit, while magicking up stories about her coming death of an incurable cough will. So they wree quite happy to chug along painting Sanders as more af a force of nature than an actual candidate - and that force represented the longstanding gripes journos have with the CLinton family. Of course, once that got tiresome they all turned at once on Bernie scurrying to be the hack with the award-winning TAKEDOWN of loval hero Berine Sanders (helped, of course, by the fact that clickbait about Sanders is $$$$$, as I'm sure the moneypeople have said). And you have an unusual spurt (actually not that unusual, you could probably collect 24hr periods of time when other candidates are swept up with a gish gallop of negative press - remember the point where Carson began to implode?) of a mixture of genuine hit jobs (about a quarter of the articles listed), "recontextaisations" and bland neutral pieces that have been packaged as anti-Sanders to pad out the OUTRAGE by whoever wanted to cojure up the EVUL WAPO yarn.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,344
Kiribati


« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2016, 11:47:47 AM »

I beg to differ. Whether you want to admit it or not, the Washington Post did run such classic stories as "Clinton Is Running For President. Sanders Is Doing Something Else," "This Is Huge: Trump, Sanders Both Using Same Catchphrase," "'Excuse Me, I'm Talking': Bernie Sanders Shuts Down Hillary Clinton, Repeatedly," "Five Reasons Bernie Sanders Lost Last Night's Democratic Debate," "Here’s Something Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders Have in Common: And the Piece of the Argument That Bernie Doesn’t Get Quite Right," and "Why Obama Says Bank Reform Is a Success but Bernie Sanders Says It’s a Failure," not to mention many more, all in the span of 16 hours.

Seriously?

The first is blatantly not a hit piece, the second is just dumb horseshoe clickbait, the third is literally just facts, the fourth is a journalist editorialising who won the debate (and the same journalist penned an article later about Donald Trump winning, and it's not like Wapo are in the tank for Trump), the fourth I give you is a bit dumb and the fifth is definitely not a hit piece at all. What weak arguments!
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 12 queries.