The Media and Bernie Sanders
Debate Rounds (3)
Opening remarks: In my belief Bernie Sanders is being treated poorly as a candidate for the nomination of the president of The United States of America. The media tends to either scrutinize him or ignore him, even though he is polling at 17% nationally and growing rapidly in important states such as Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire. (Eg: from 14% to 32% in New Hampshire, 41% in the Wisconsin Democratic party straw poll, and a jump from 12% to 24% in Iowa) Then there are the crowds he draws 11,000 people in Arizona, the most of any candidate. However, the media doesn't treat him as (in my opinion) he should be. Where is the argument for that? Well, let's take Ben Carson for example. He is polling at around 6.4%, which is okay, but however the media, when bringing him up, doesn't attack him/ his supporters, because he most likely won't win, they just interview him, give the news on him, or bring him up in a poll. Now for Bernie Sanders, (even though he Is polling much better than Ben Carson) will aggressively attack him as shown in the video below. That is what I am trying to point out in this debate. I await my opponent's response, whoever that may be.
Instigator states "The media "needs" to take Bernie Sanders more seriously as a Presidential Candidate.
The media can report however they would like. The majority of news reports are op-eds ("opinion" editorials). http://www.businessinsider.com...
Study I linked focuses on GE, Newscorp & Timewarner. Which covers more than half of the news.
The Instigator may think there are many news outlets reporting unfairly but I would be surprised to know if the "instigator" knows this: http://www.therealstrategy.com...
6 companies control 90% of what we all read, watch and listen to.
Hillary Clinton has received massive contributions from at least half of those companies, Here is the list of her largest contributors: https://www.opensecrets.org...
You will notice on that list, there is "Time Warner", "Cablevision Systems", "21st Century Fox". Those 3 companies control massive amounts of media.
Also Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup and JPMorgan probably own more than half of General Electric who owns Comcast and NBC.
These companies don't donate to Sanders or report for Sanders. They are essentially the same companies with the SAME AGENDA.
Your sources that show Bernie supposedly being unfairly treated are biased sources. Politico is a sister company of RealClearPolitics. Both of which are owned by who?
The Chinese who are contributing to Hillary's Campaign. http://www.cbsnews.com...;
Also, the Huff Post you cited twice is owned by "TIME WARNER".
I think the only 2 media outlets Hillary is not in bed with are Disney and CBS.
Your only source that isn't biased is the washingtonpost which is owned by Amazon.
The media does not need to treat Bernie Sanders fairly or take him more seriously as a Presidential Candidate because
1. News is opinion based
2. Big money invested in Hillary is depending on her win to secure $ for the future in the Big 6 Media Oligarchy.
3. Polling facts are the strongest data submitted which is neither empirical nor relevant to the media's agenda. Most of your sources come from Hillary's contributors.
By the way, Bernie is a good guy with bad ideas. Increasing taxes for the rich demotivates people to advance in their careers. This will stall growth and increase the divide between elites and everyone else. There is no such thing as trickle down or "redistribution of wealth". Socialism makes more people poor. Look at history. "YOU ARE ENTITLED TO NOTHING" - Frank Underwood
Let me first state, I am using the word need to stress that I feel this is an obligation to treat Bernie Sanders as a legitimate candidate. The reason? Because, America is choosing a leader, and regardless if they are "a good guy with bad ideas" they have an obligation to treat every legitimate candidate seriously. Now Con argues that they have no obligation, because they are opinion based, depending on Hillary Clinton's win to secure cash for the future of the Big 6 media oligarchy, and polling data is irrelevant to the media's agenda. My opponent makes a good point. However I am not arguing that they have an obligation to there contributors, they have an obligation to there viewers. Though news is opinion based, as my opponent cites that there is a media oligarchy, therefore unfortunately for my opponent that strengthens my argument therefore making the obligation they have even larger. Lastly my opponent argues that polling factors are irrelevant, but my the point that I am trying to make is: The media has a need to provide fair and balanced (no pun intended) information to there audience. So the poll numbers were relevant, because it shows that he is a legitimate candidate (more so than a lot currently running in both the Democratic and Republican party).
The media as a necessity to treat Bernie Sanders fairly or take him more seriously because:
1. He has strong support (even coming from biased sources as my opponent points out) and therefore is a legitimate candidate.
2. The news has no business infusing their opinion into information that is important to the viewer.
I await my opponent's response.
RisKYourself forfeited this round.
The media needs to take Bernie Sanders serious as so any other candidate, because in a democracy news outlets have no business inserting there opinion into facts. I would like to thank my opponent for providing a good debate for the first round. Goodbye.
RisKYourself forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.