2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWill the Media Again Rush to Declare Clinton the Winner of Tonight’s Democratic Forum?
Last edited Sat Nov 7, 2015, 11:15 AM - Edit history (1)
ETA:
The article is an excellent history lesson, not only because of the history it reminds us of, but because it applies that history in a way that teaches an important lesson about current events.
Why TVs talking heads discount Bernie Sanders
BY JOEL BLEIFUSS
Sanders won the October 13 Democratic debate hands down, according to every major debate focus group. Yet that was not the conclusion of the media elites ,who declared Hillary Clinton the victor.
In his inaugural editorial for the first issue of In These Times, in November 1976, Editor & Publisher James Weinstein wrote:
Corporate capitalism, this societys system of property, investment, resource- and labor-allocation, is a political taboo. It is [the major parties] job to keep corporate capitalism out ofabovepolitics, just as it was the job of the pre-Civil War Whig and Democratic Parties to keep slavery out of politics. They failed then because determined people brought the reality of slave power into the electoral arena, giving birth to the Republican Party.
So who are the determined people of today taking the great issue of our time and putting it into the electoral arena? In These Times readers like Bernie Sanders, who during the Democratic debate was questioned by Anderson Cooper about his views on capitalism and answered thusly:
Do I consider myself part of the casino capitalist process by which so few have so much and so many have so little? By which Wall Streets greed and recklessness wrecked this economy? No, I dont. I believe in a society where all people do well.
That message resonates. On October 13, Sanders won the Democratic debate hands down, according to every major debate focus group. Yet that was not the conclusion of the media elites, who declared Hillary Clinton the victor...
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18565/the-media-rush-to-declare-clinton-the-victor
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)For the media to get in full swing, but we're already seeing it a little from her operatives here. A few more for my ignore list.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)i.e. people with an opinion different than mine.
Response to Dem2 (Reply #3)
Post removed
Dem2
(8,166 posts)It seems no response is needed here.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)Just MY humble opinion, I could care less what narrative one is pedaling.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Candidates do not go head to head in a forum, thus there are no "winners".
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The function of forums is to present candidates. Since candidates do not go head to head, there can be no winner or loser.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)in which the candidates weren't on the stage at the same time and weren't even questioned on the same topics. So how could there be a "winner."
Essentially, it was a TV special on one cable news network. The papers and news media aren't going to cover it at all.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)I wonder what the on-lines polls are saying who won a "forum" where no two were together at the same time!??
This is America....we all want to know who won and who lost and the score if possible!
What issues were discussed and how were the candidates different on those issues is what Sanders would say is the main thing.
How can you say picking winners and losers based on "performance" is important and definable, but at the same time say only the issues matter and no one knows what "Presidential" means??
kristopher
(29,798 posts)As for whether there can be a "winner" in a forum format I'll just say that people are watching a political race, and this forum was one leg in that race. As such it is natural to seek consensus on who performed in a manner than most favored their overall effort.
And I'm pretty sure that in the English language, we refer to the person doing that as being 'the winner'.