Bernie Sanders TRIGGERS Washington Post With Facts

>>The media coverage of Bernie Sanders’ candidacy
seems very reminiscent of the 2016 media coverage of his candidacy. And it’s finally gotten to Bernie, and he’s
responding to the way he’s covered. And also the general lack of coverage that
he’s experienced so far. Here he is talking about one particular outlet. Anybody here know how much Amazon paid in
taxes last year? Nothing. Yeah, and I talk about that all of the time. And then I wonder why the Washington Post,
which is owned by Jeff Bezos, who owns Amazon, doesn’t write particularly good articles about
me. I don’t know why. So he was immediately attacked about that. By the Washington Post. What a twist, I didn’t see that coming. They’re biased, though. Bernie attacked them. So they had a headline, Sanders accuses The
Post of biased coverage due to his criticism of Amazon, cites no evidence. And then two lines in, they say he cited no
evidence. So Martin Baron, Washington Post Executive
Editor, said, Senator Sanders is a member of a large club of politicians of every ideology
who complain about their coverage. Contrary to the conspiracy theory the senator
seems to favor, Jeff Bezos allows our newsroom to operate with full independence, as our
reporters and editors can attest. Okay. As one example of what he’s talking about. And this is not just the Washington Post,
but it’s a lot of mainstream coverage. Someone put together a list of all of the
polls recently and how Bernie did in it. And they showed how many media stories were
written about each one, and as he did worse in the polls, the number shot up. So if he did pretty well, one, or two, or
even zero stories were written about it. There was one where he did really badly, 47
different articles were written about it. Let me give you specifics on that exact one. It was a Quinnipiac University poll, and there,
Biden was beating Sanders 32 to 14. That’s a big range, or obviously a big difference. Biden’s significantly leading that one poll,
47 stories written about it. Okay, look, look, let’s be fair. There was a Democracy Corps poll right around
the same time, because these polls fluctuate. That one was way closer, 31 to 22. In fact, that has Biden dropping, Sanders
gaining. He did really well in the debate last time
around, and in fact, the polls indicated he rose. When you go to a Real Clear Politics average,
the average of all the polls, he rose by two points. So Sanders clearly rising after the debates,
that’s a fact, right? And so Democracy Corps is more close to the
average of the polls, where he’s closing in on Biden, 31 to 22. So how many people wrote about that? Was it 45, was it less than the 47? Like high 30s? Maybe 49, maybe more people wrote about it. You know how many people wrote about that? Two, two articles about that poll, 47 articles
about the poll where he’s not doing well. And they claim that they’re like, what bias? No, we criticize all the politicians, really? If you’re a mainstream media reporter, editor,
publisher, it doesn’t matter, and you can’t see that the coverage against Bernie Sanders
is more negative. Well, it’s like asking a fish, how’s the water? And he says, what water? How’s your bias? What bias? How can you not see that? How could you not see that? It actually proves your bias. Here, I’ll give you another data point. Look, I love Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. I think they’re both wonderful progressives. Anybody who watches TYT knows that I think
that, right? And knows that that is 100% the case. Yet I could objectively say that they have
received different coverage. In the beginning, Elizabeth Warren was criticized
over the nonsense racist attacks against her by Trump, Pocahontas, etc. But since then, her coverage has been good
to arguably great. Which I’m thrilled about, I’m thrilled about
it. So you don’t see me coming out here and going,
I like Warren, but damn it, they’re being unfair to her. No, because then I’m being unfair. Thank God for the first time in my lifetime
they’re treating a progressive fairly. I think that if Bernie Sanders wasn’t in the
race, that might be a different dynamic, but that’s the case. But I can see that clearly and objectively,
even though I support her. On the other hand, almost every article, almost
every one about Bernie Sanders, is negative. Once, every once in a blue moon, literally
once every three months, there’ll be a positive article. We’ll come on here and be like, my God, somebody
wrote a positive article about Bernie Sanders, that’s unbelievable, breaking all records. And Baron, who’s, look, otherwise a good editor,
and Washington Post does some good journalism. They do. But on the other hand, they also have one
attack after another, certainly all of their editorial section, right? From the Never Trumpers, to the conservative
Democrats, to the establishment Democrats, to the right wing, to the Trump people. They all are unified only around one thing,
how much they despise Bernie Sanders. If as an editor you can’t see that, your bias
is deeper than any other bias that I’ve ever seen. So it’s about damn time Bernie fought back. I love that he’s fighting back. Yeah, and we’re gonna play, he responded to
the criticism of his criticism. Really fast, I wanna mention, though, the
difficulty is when you say, the media is biased. It’s very easy for members of the media to
be like, well, I’m not biased, maybe other people are, I’m not. Even Washington Post, that’s a lot of different
people, they would rebut the charge. But we know, even at the individual level,
how difficult it is for these people, who were fine, professional at their job for the
most part, to see their bias. And I think you interacted with them today
actually. Nate Silver was tweeting a ton about Bernie. He really does not think that he’s biased
against Bernie Sanders, even though it drips from every one of his tweets constantly. And you like Nate Silver. I generally do. Nate Silver likes numbers, and nobody else
does anymore, so I kinda like that. Aside from the fact that I can see that he’s
clearly biased against Bernie Sanders. I generally am a fan of him. I like his website, I follow their live coverage
from time to time. No, but the irony was built into the tweets
that Nate did today about that. He’s like, he thinks the media is biased against
him. Eye roll, hey haha, ridiculous, Bernie Sanders
sucks. You see how we’re not biased against him? Nate, look at your tweets. I’m paraphrasing, obviously. He didn’t say the sucks part, but he did do
the weird eye roll thing. Yeah, he did the eye roll. No, but the second tweet was full-blown criticism
of Bernie Sanders while saying, I can’t believe he thinks we’re biased. Yeah. How do you not see, you just wrote it. Look, I don’t like Joe Biden as our nominee,
it’s not personal. As a person, he’s probably a decent guy. But I call him Status Quo Joe. But unlike the establishment media, I don’t
go around pretending to be neutral. I call him Status Quo Joe because I don’t
think he’s the right candidate, and I’m a progressive. Whereas they go, no, no, no, I’m neutral. My opinion is the correct opinion, hence it
is objective. And if you disagree with me, then you’re biased. But I by definition am not biased cuz I think
the establishment is awesome, and I write positively about almost every establishment
candidate. And I despise Bernie Sanders, and I spit on
him three times a day. But you’re the one who’s biased. What? Look, finally, even that same Washington Post
article, look at the framing. At the end, they compared him to Trump. Yeah. Yeah, I wonder right? And by the way, look, knuckleheads. These guys, these media reporters, and publishers,
and stuff, and there’s a lot of good guys there, and they do a lot of good journalism. But when it comes to politics, they just literally
cannot see how biased they are. That cloud is so thick, that group think is
so thick in front of them. But guys, if you do this without the context,
and it’s not like we don’t see when you say, hey, Joe Biden made a gaffe. And they’re like, but I guess you ignore that? No, we don’t ignore that, we see it. Stop patronizing us when in reality you’re
the biased ones and can’t see straight. Did you know we also once criticized Gillibrand? Yes, of course we know that, but we’re asking
you to look at the full context. But then you also write positive things about
Joe Biden, and you will also claim without any evidence that Joe Biden is more electable. Why, well, he appeals to the same people as
Trump. But Trump’s polling in the 30s, right, so
that doesn’t make any sense. But you’ll say it as a matter of fact, as
a matter of course, without disclosing your bias. And then finally, in that headline, they say
Sanders says this, citing no evidence. Wait, wait a minute. First of all, there was two different events. There was the call that gentleman was referring
to, led by his campaign, where they cited evidence, including the polling, how much
coverage received, etc. So you can’t say they didn’t cite any evidence
in the call. So I guess you’ve selectively chosen to ignore
where they made their major point and take that 15-second clip of Bernie Sanders talking
about the Washington Post. But you know that’s in the middle of his speech. And if you ask them for evidence, they can
give you reams of evidence. The famous 16 headlines in 24 hours that the
Washington Post did in 2016. And I covered it when Bernie made his announcement
this time around. Four articles about Bernie Sanders in the
Washington Post, all four deeply negative. Some of them were editorials, some of them
were articles. But I read you the exact verbiage, and it
was scathing. So to say in the title, cites no evidence,
as if there is no evidence, and then he’s a Looney Toon that’s just making stuff up
like Trump. And then saying, see, I’m not biased against
him, is preposterous. Well, two can play that game. Cuz the title of this video is gonna be, Amazon
Says He Cites No Evidence, But Cites No Evidence. Aha. And guys, we’re not like the right wing. We know that Bezos owns the Washington Post,
not Amazon. And it doesn’t have to be that Bezos comes
into your news room and goes, okay, hey John, you’re gonna write this, and Sally, you’re
writing this. And remember, protect Libertarians, and we
wanna pay no taxes. But in the choices that you make and the people
that you hire, who gets to select the people writing the articles. Who gets to select the editors, who gets to
select the Op-Ed writers, on and on and on. And you think that doesn’t filter down? And then they mentioned, Bernie is being conspiratorial. And then sometimes they’ll say, could it make
a difference that you’re multibillion dollar organizations? Now, Washington Post, to be fair, is not worth
that much. But overall, most of the media organizations
are worth a tremendous amount of money, and mostly owned by corporations. Now, in this case, Bezos owns it personally. But I say, well, their profit motive, in terms
of the advertisers, drug companies, oil companies, etc., defense contractors that advertise on
cable news and other media outlets, that could influence you. And then reporters will turn around and go,
that sounds conspiratorial. Corporations wanna make money? Really, do you hear yourself? Do you hear yourself? Yes, multibillion dollar corporations want
to make money. And yes, their advertising might affect them. And maybe, just maybe, you should keep that
in mind while writing headlines and picking editors so that you’re more careful, not less

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *