Sanders Calls Out CNN for Airing Pharma Commercials During 2020 Debate

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

“By the way, the healthcare industry will be advertising tonight on this program,” Sanders said after accusing CNN moderator Jake Tapper of deploying “a Republican talking point” against Medicare for All. “They will be advertising tonight with that talking point.”

(snip)

Sure enough, during the debate’s commercial breaks, ads by pharmaceutical giants and industry-backed organizations dominated the airwaves, further vindicating Sanders and other progressives who have raised alarm at the role corporate advertising plays in America’s media coverage.

(snip)

The American Prospect‘s David Dayen noted that, in addition to ads from the pharmaceutical lobby, the debate’s breaks also featured commercials from “the anti-single payer group Partnership for America’s Health Care Future (PAHCF), funded by hospitals and drug companies, and an Alzheimer’s disease patient advocacy group that takes major funding from drug companies.”

“The unfiltered 90 seconds of three of these commercials in succession comprised more screen time than anything in the debate about money in politics,” Dayen wrote. “The country cannot afford to have CNN creating the proscenium through which America gets informed.”

(snip)

https://truthout.org/articles/sanders-calls-out-cnn-for-airing-pharma-commercials-during-2020-debate/

TV’s latest emerging hit takes all the thrills of a traditional reality competition program and mixes in an awful lot of drama.

It’s not a knock-off of “American Idol” or a new MTV series. Instead, it’s something that might be best compared to a Sunday public-affairs program laced with amphetamine.

CNN is seeking exponentially high prices for ad packages set to run in its broadcast of two debates among Democratic presidential hopefuls next week, according to a person familiar with the matter. The AT&T-owned cable-news outlet is requires a commitment of $300,000 in advertising on the network before a potential sponsor can purchase commercials within the two debate telecasts. The minimum requirement is pegged at around $300,000, according to a person familiar with the matter, while a 30-second spot airing in the debates is seen costing around $110,000. A 30-second ad in CNN’s primetime programs has over the last few months cost between $7,000 and $12,000, according to SQAD MediaCosts.

(snip)

“There is significant demand around our debates,” says Katrina Cukaj. an executive vice president of ad sales at WarnerMedia, the AT&T unit that houses CNN. “There are some really intense storylines that came out of that [previous] debate. I think the curiosity around those storylines is at a peak,” she says, referring to a clash between former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris, slated to meet again during CNN’s second-day telecast. She adds: “I will tell you, we are nearly sold out. We’ve got a couple of pending accounts still in there, but we are going to be done pretty much any day now.” She declined to offer a specific cost for advertising during the event.

(snip)

https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/cnn-democratic-debate-tv-commercials-news-1203278418/

Got inherent conflicts of interest?

[ancianita]

1. Sanders is absolutely right. Big Pharma is all over cable news channels. I mute every ad.

[NurseJackie]

2. ...

[Princetonian]

3. Good for him. Bernie is sharp as a tack.

He and Liz did a great job.

[lapucelle]

8. Will BS take a principled stand and boycott any network that runs big pharma ads?

[George II]

14. Bazinga!

[ehrnst]

27. Yes, indeed he knew going in this would be the case.

Then afterwards states how offensive it was, and how unacceptable and weighted against him.

Not the first time he's done this.

[Princetonian]

30. How is that principled? Being principled means not taking their donations.

Gotcha questions like that are best directed to the campaign where they will be given the consideration they are due.

[lapucelle]

35. His campaign manager said that CNN might be incentivized by money to ask the right questions.

With the ads “basically paying your bills and the bills of all of this,” Shakir said, “what that ends up doing is incentivizing you and others to make sure you’re asking the questions and driving the conversations in certain areas and not in certain areas.”

Being principled is not just about not taking donations. If the claim is that the system may be corrupted by financial incentives, why promulgate it through participation?

Yes, it is difficult to advance one's political ambitions without participating in systems allegedly "incentivized" by big pharma money, but that doesn't mean one should go along to get ahead if one believes that there may be corrupt influence afoot.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1907/28/rs.01.html

[ehrnst]

55. +1000.

[Princetonian]

57. How kind of you to care so much about what Bernie does.

I am happy he made it to the September debate, aren't you?

[lapucelle]

65. I admire people who actually walk their talk

even if might negatively impact their personal ambitions.

As for next debate, when ABC asks the tough questions, it will interesting to see exactly who questions the integrity of the news organization by linking it to apocryphal "incentivization" by network sponsors.

[Princetonian]

70. It's good to see Bernie speaking out, I know. And his trip to Canada to get insulin was great.

I wish more Democrats would do that.

[lapucelle]

80. How frequently will the BS bus be ferrying people across the border to buy their monthly insulin?

Has he arranged next month's trip yet? I know lots of people who would help out.

I wish that many of those who have spent decades in Washington collecting a paycheck from everyday Americans would work harder and talk less.

[Princetonian]

81. Perhaps you could go with him and walk your talk.

Take photos. Post them here.

[lapucelle]

91. My "walk" involves long bus trips for voter registration drives in poor and marginalized communities

as well as work with the Network lobby, keepers of the most famous bus this side of Ken Kesey.

Please don't make assumptions about me, and please don't ever think you are entitled to tell me what to do.

[Princetonian]

92. But you seem to feel you are entitled to tell Bernie what to do, right?

And me too:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=212630

Take your own advice.

[ehrnst]

108. Straw man?

It's interesting that you're a Biden supporter.

What is is about Joe that appeals to you most?

[ehrnst]

117. I see that my question hit a nerve

judging by your frantic attempt to redirect and get me on the defensive. Easy there....

But getting back to the question, what appeals to you about Joe? You seem to be much more of a Berniecrat, judging from your responses here.

[Princetonian]

124. I believe you are projecting.

I myself like and respect both Joe and Bernie.

As to why, well Joe looks good in aviators and Bernie rocks white hair.

[ehrnst]

128. Still trying to evade the question.

Must really be uncomfortable.

Particularly since you felt a need to hurry back and cover- soften your response.

. I believe you are projecting.
Bernie Derangement Syndrome is alive and well.

[Princetonian]

131. What question?

Last edited Thu Aug 1, 2019, 08:09 PM - Edit history (1)

You softened your reply so I owed you one.

[George II]

139. Dear? That's a bit condescending, don't you think?

[ehrnst]

141. You think so? If Princetonian was offended by that, I'm sure they

would let me know.

We're close.

[ehrnst]

142. What is it that you "own me?" You certainly don't feel any obligation

to answer a simple question.

What is it about Joe that appeals to you?

I can't imagine you'd be embarassed to answer that.

[Princetonian]

137. lol

Last edited Thu Aug 1, 2019, 08:27 PM - Edit history (1)

I already answered you.

[ehrnst]

138. Where?

Give someone who needs new glasses a link, will you dear?

I'll wait if you need to edit something.

[rzemanfl]

133. Third try at bookmarking this post. n/t

[rzemanfl]

135. Something weird going on with replying to this post.

Look for a PM.

[lapucelle]

110. I didn't tell either of you or BS what to do.

One should use quotation marks when quoting others, even if one is quoting misinformation. It's the intellectually honest thing to do.

How frequently will the BS bus be ferrying people across the border to buy their monthly insulin? Has he arranged next month's trip yet? I know lots of people who would help out.

snip==================================================================================

I didn't say things like this:

Aim your schooling at Poster X.

Walk your talk.

Take pictures.

Post them here.

See the difference?

[Princetonian]

114. Same difference.

[lapucelle]

122. It's a difference with a distinction.

There are clear differences among general statements, questions, and imperatives.

There are even distinctions between types of imperatives -- the polite request versus the imperious demand , for example.

But I digress. These matters are better left to the classroom.

[Princetonian]

125. Blah blah blah

Last edited Thu Aug 1, 2019, 08:28 PM - Edit history (1)

[ehrnst]

129. Now THERE's a MIC Drop!

[George II]

147. Photos and a video of the trip this weekend have already been posted here.

[ehrnst]

96. That certainly got publicity, didn't it? (nt)

[George II]

146. Just today I got an email from his campaign boasting that he's gotten 5,063 contributions from....

.....Wal-Mart.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

101. He sure is... they sure did!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[ProudMNDemocrat]

4. Trump/Pence Re-Election ad on MSNBC last night....

during the follow-up on the Debate. Telling lies of course.

[dalton99a]

5. Our barbaric so-called healthcare system must perpetuate itself to further enrich the few

[brooklynite]

6. Does he object to progressive commercials airing on Fox News? (yes, they appear)

Unless he has evidence that CNN blocked a progressive group's ad, he's going against the First Amendment.

[lapucelle]

7. Wait...what? CNN has conflicts that disqualify them from asking debate questions?

[Uncle Joe]

9. I don't believe it does, but at the very least they should disclose

who their funding is coming from during the actual debates, full disclosure and all.

Perhaps in the future we can have a debate devoted to money in politics but I doubt any corporate media conglomerate will sponsor it, maybe PBS?

[lapucelle]

11. That information was readily available before the debate.

Report: CNN Is Seeking a $300,000 Commitment Upfront to Buy Ad Time in Next Week’s Democratic Debate
A.J. Katz on Jul. 25, 2019

According to Variety’s Brian Steinberg, CNN is requiring an commitment of $300,000 in advertising on the network before a potential sponsor can even purchase commercials within the two debate telecasts on July 30 and 31st (next Tuesday and Wednesday) from Detroit.

The minimum requirement is reportedly pegged at around $300,000, while a 30-second spot airing in the debates is seen costing around $110,000.

snip==============================================================

Has the network been successful so far? “I will tell you, we are nearly sold out,” WarnerMedia ad sales chief Katrina Cukaj told Steinberg. “We’ve got a couple of pending accounts still in there, but we are going to be done pretty much any day now.”

Who is advertising on the broadcast?

Not surprisingly, it’s movie studios. We are in the summer months, after all!

Four different studios are slated to advertise during the event, she [Cukaj] said, with Walt Disney’s 20th Century Fox running TV ads and buying a home-page takeover of CNN.com on desktop and mobile for its sci-fi drama “Ad Astra,” which stars Brad Pitt. Movie studios haven’t typically been the biggest advertisers on cable-news networks, which rely on pharmaceutical commercials and direct-response ads to fill a good chunk of their schedules, though CNN has made efforts to win more movie advertising with its documentary programming.

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/report-cnn-is-seeking-a-300000-commitment-upfront-to-buy-ad-time-in-next-weeks-democratic-debate/409687/

[Uncle Joe]

12. As I stated, that information should be announced during the actual live debate.

when millions of Americans are viewing it.

There is no doubt that continuous heavy big pharma funding not just during the debates but all day and night on every broadcast and cable network affects the questions asked by the moderators during debates.

Who wants to cut off their own gravy train?

As Faiz put it during an interview when have they ever covered the value of Medicare for All, they always present it as "do you want to keep your private insurance" what does that have to do with actual health care?

[lapucelle]

17. Who besides the BS campaign is complaining about the putative bias of CNN?

Millions of Americans watching the debates also see the commercials. They know who bought ad time.

The implication that CNN coverage or questions are dictated by monied special interests is insulting.

Isn't that the reason why Trump has his own "news" channel?

[George II]

20. I read earlier this week that one of our "Democratic" candidates has his own channel now, too.

[lapucelle]

24. I don't think any Democrat would be taking pages from the Trump playbook.

"Alternative fact news" is something we expect from Trump, not Democrats. Look at the harm it did to the electoral process during the 2016 general election.

[ehrnst]

98. Democrats. Indeed. (nt)

[George II]

16. When ads run on CNN or any channel we know who is "funding" them, don't we?

e.g., does Verizon run McDonald's ads?

[lapucelle]

22. Is it a Hollywood conspiracy?

Movie studios bought a lot of the air time.

Here's what Faiz Shakir told Brian Stelter:

Appearing Sunday on the CNN show “Reliable Sources,” Sanders 2020 campaign manager Faiz Shakir said this about Sanders’ longtime criticism of “corporate media”: “This isn’t a personal commentary on you or any other journalist,” Shakir told host Brian Stetler. “But in about a minute or so, or two minutes or so, you’re going to cut to commercial breaks, and you’re going to see pharmaceutical ads.”

With the ads “basically paying your bills and the bills of all of this,” Shakir said, “what that ends up doing is incentivizing you and others to make sure you’re asking the questions and driving the conversations in certain areas and not in certain areas.”

If people didn't know better, they could almost see this as some sort of whispering campaign to undermine people's trust in legitimate news sources.

[George II]

23. What an inane observation by Faiz. Now BS wants to censor network advertising? Unbelievable.

[ehrnst]

26. They did prior to the debates. The candidates participated knowing that this would be the case.

Including Senator Sanders.

He could have refused to participate, like many here state that Speaker Pelosi should refuse to work with Trump at all on anything.

[Uncle Joe]

29. They did not disclose during the live debate when millions of Americans were viewing,

who their primary commercial purchasers were.

Bernie is the only one that brought attention to it.

[ehrnst]

34. Yes, and Bernie knew that prior to the debate. He didn't feel that it was enough

of a problem to refuse to participate.

It was an opportunity for a surprise announcement that no one else would see coming, as well as a way to attack the credibility of CNN when Tapper asked a question that displeased Senator Sanders.

[Uncle Joe]

39. Any serious candidate for the Presidency is not going to miss a debate with his/her competitors

that's televised to millions of Americans.

The point is to get your message across to the people, and you know that.

Bernie did attack the credibility of CNN insofar as their financial conflicts of interest were concerned and rightfully so.

The candidates or "players in the game" are required to disclose who their funding is coming from, at the very least I believe any televised network or "referee" hosting a Presidential debate should be required to do the same, full disclosure.

I don't believe that's too much to ask.

[ehrnst]

45. I understand - like any responsible Speaker of the House is going to attempt to get legislation

passed despite having to work with a POTUS that they are at odds with. One does what is necessary to do their job, and take the heat for it when that heat comes. Politics requires some compromise from everyone, no matter how much they talk about how clear it is to avoid that which is less than flawlessly ethical and morally spotless, yes?

However, why do you think that Sanders didn't call out CNN publicly before the debate? Why do you think that he waited until that moment to bring it up?

It appears that he saved it to use it directly to punish Tapper for a question or statement that upset him - attacking the messenger instead of calmly and confidently addressing the message.

Of course all candidates prepare zingers, but planning to attack the credibility of person doing the moderating when they don't follow your narrative doesn't show strong skills in close listening, quickly accessing information as needed to respond as the conversation moves, information that may not be part of a standard list of talking points or stump speech.

It would have been much more impressive to have said, "That's not accurate, and here's why..."

Ad hominems don't suggest strong arguments.

[Uncle Joe]

56. Bernie and his campaign have brought up the issue of commercial purchasers

and how that affects corporate media conglomerate coverage, you actually posted a thread here a few days ago with Faiz being interviewed by CBS when he brought the subject up and I recommended it.

There is nothing ad hominem about full disclosure, it's how the public is protected from those in power that would take advantage of them in all manner of profession from real estate to law.

[TexasTowelie]

59. Does TYT disclose who their contributors are

and how they incentivize the coverage of the candidates that they favor? I don't recall any TYT videos that state that Buddy Roemer (R) contributed $4 million to the network. It would be nice if they had full disclosure during each of their episodes.

[Uncle Joe]

60. When TYT holds a major Presidential debate then they should be required to disclose as well.

I'm speaking specifically of Presidential debates that's when the medium's moderators are most called on and needed to be honest brokers.

[ehrnst]

63. TYT is as likely to host a Democratic Primary Debate (which is what we are talking about)

as FoxNews is, and for the same reasons.

That you use them as a hypothetical is interesting, but not surprising.

[Uncle Joe]

68. It's interesting that you couldn't be bothered to read the post I was responding to,

that poster brought TYT up in a question to which I answered.

[ehrnst]

75. I did, and that's why my point hit a nerve.

You moved the goalposts on what responsible full disclosure of one's funders involved - once TYT was brought up.

Then "responsible full disclosure of one's funders" didn't apply to TYT unless it was hosting a PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE!

And I pointed out that you chose an entity for a hypothetical that would never ever hold a presidential debate, especially for Democrats.

Is that clearer?

I pointed out the folly of your hypothetical.

[TexasTowelie]

72. Personally, I don't see why anybody is drawing a dividing line between whether it is a debate

or if it is some other format (town halls, interviews, documentaries) that is being used to influence people such as what TYT, the Intercept or Jacobin attempts to do (and those that offer centrist or conservative also). I'm surprised that you are being so selective by limiting it to debates.

If you want to be fair, then Full Disclosure = Full Disclosure. No exceptions.

[ehrnst]

67. Well... well... Disclosure is not really relevant unless you are hosting a presidential debate!

Because REASONS!!!

REASONS!!

[Uncle Joe]

73. Full disclosure is important all the time but it gains added significance when

hosting a Presidential debate viewed by millions or tens of millions of Americans.

[ehrnst]

76. So NOW it's numbers of veiwers that excuse TYT from the standards

of funding disclosure you demand of CNN.

Next it will be that Buddy Roemer's $4 million to TYT isn't really 'corporate' or makes TYT 'corporate media" or has any influence over content when it comes to Democrats, at the same WAPO is clearly untrustworthy when it comes to Bernie because Bezos has way MORE MONEY that $4 million.

Keep on moving that goalpost.

[Uncle Joe]

78. I never excused TYT, reading is fundamental.

The entire OP and thread is about commercialization of Presidential debates and full disclosure.

I stated clearly and unequivocally that this should apply to any network hosting a Presidential debate.

[ehrnst]

84. And now we have the red herring.

You were just fine responding to the TYT comparison, pointing out why they should not be held to the same financial transparency standard you demand of CNN. Now you regret it, and you want people to forget that you did.

Joe, reading is fundamental. If you don't want people to point out your inconsistent standards, don't write them for people to read.

You applied different, less stringent requirements on TYT for transparency about their funding.

When asked about applying that metric of basic financial backer transparency to TYT, you didn't ignore it because it was SO off topic, you didn't say, 'I'm not discussing TYT, OR any network that isn't hosting a POTUS debate, because that's off topic, or "yes, they should be just as transparent as I am demanding of CNN," you suddenly made your demand of up front transparency conditional with an "IF they were hosting a POTUS debate, then yes."

Then I pointed out how unlikely that would ever be, so your hypothetical really didn't address any reality about TYT ever hosting a POTUS debate.

Then you tried to say that CNN had MORE responsibility than TYT to be transparent about funding sources, because they have more viewers... as well as hosting POTUS debates. Again drawing a rather unrelated distinction, that absolves you of applying this standard to ANY media source that you consistenly use as a source, no matter how small an audience, and no matter if they host a POTUS debate or not.

You've been shown to have double standards, and you're unhappy that it's been pointed out.

And now you want people to FORGET you said anything about TYT and talk about WHAT YOU DECIDE gets talked about.

Can't unring that bell, Joe.

[ehrnst]

61. Back to the point I was making:

Bernie and his campaign have brought up the issue of commercial purchasers and how that affects corporate media conglomerate coverage, you actually posted a thread here a few days ago with Faiz being interviewed by CBS when he brought the subject up and I recommended it.

But somehow and for some reason, Sanders' campaign missed pointing out ahead of time that the debates would have those ads. Again, that really gives the appearance of one of those distracting and off the point 'gotcha' moments that he rails about being at the recieving end of.

There is nothing ad hominem about full disclosure,

Straw man. I didn't call the full disclosure ad hominem. I referred to Sanders waiting until there was a question that didn't sit well with him to use it as an ad hominem, rather than addressing the substance of the question. It appeared to be used instead of addressing the substance of the question.

Full disclosure could have been done prior to the debate - and the public could have been prepared and observing it ahead of time. Perhaps that would have been more effective as a tool for public discussion prior to the debate.

But that wouldn't have been useful as a gotcha moment that could be deployed against the messenger when the messenger put forth a question that Sanders didn't like.

It didn't display a calm confidence in a mastery of the subject when it went outside his talking points.

[Uncle Joe]

64. Common sense and logic dictate the best time to point it out is when you have maximum viewership.

[ehrnst]

71. You mean like at the beginning of one's opening statement so viewers know before the first ad?

That kind of logic and common sense?

Keep on moving those goalposts...

[Uncle Joe]

79. Ideally from the moderators or "referees" at the beginning of the debate.

That's what I have speaking of from the beginning.

[ehrnst]

87. Well, did Bernie ask them to? I haven't seen anywhere that he stated that he did.

And once they didn't, wouldn't that have been the time for Bernie have pointed it out - as close to the beginning as possible?

Where you state it would have been most effective - as you say, "logic and common sense" would indicate.

So why do you think that Bernie couldn't have figured that out like you did?

If this was something that he wanted to really get out to the viewers minds before the first ad, and not just something to keep in his pocket as a gotcha attack to retaliate for a question that Tapper gave that irritated him, then it didn't really convince people who aren't cheering for everything he says, and decide ahead of time that he WON THE DEBATE!!

[Uncle Joe]

89. Bernie brought the subject up insofar as conflict of interest was concerned, the idea

of the moderators announcing their commercial sponsors (full disclosure) at the beginning of Presidential debates is my own.

[ehrnst]

90. The timing of it very much appeared to be an ad-hominem retaliation for a question he didn't like.

His angry demeanor when he said it also fed that perception.

I understand that he has issues with things CNN has said about him - fact checks, etc - and tends to view anyone that doesn't keep to the pre-screened and approved questions, nod, smile and say, "What else do you want to say?" as hostile.

Starting one's own media channel to ensure smiling, nodding compliant questioners, and furious screeds against those who disagree is the idea behind the founding of FoxNews channel.

We already have a POTUS who views the free press as an adversary, and misrepresents sound journalism as 'hit pieces' and 'fake news.'

[MrsCoffee]

150. Did Bernie call out Fox News during his town hall?

Or did he perhaps do a town hall on their network helping them out while they were struggling to meet their advertising needs and basically go along with the pretense that they are legit?

Some of these things Bernie does that get painted as heroic, I just don’t understand.

[LanternWaste]

47. Another stunt by Sanders offering zero additional context to any of the candidate's platforms..

[George II]

19. This reminds me of the complaints that CNN had DEMOCRATS ask questions....

..at a Democratic Town Hall! The nerve.

[ehrnst]

36. Oh, yes. Me too. (nt)

[SCVDem]

10. I also noticed.

Ask your doctor if arsenic is right for you!

How much are they paying the Doctors to recommend this crap?

Why not a cheaper generic which has worked well for a hundred years?

Break up the lobbys and the advertising budgets and either their profits go up or we will see prices drop.

WE are paying for those ads!

[dalton99a]

15. +1

[crazytown]

13. Agreed

[lunasun]

18. "By the way, the healthcare industry will be advertising tonight on this program,"

Good on him for highlighting this

[ehrnst]

102. Why do you think that he didn't point this out on NBC?

And waited to use it to try to discredit Jake Tapper on CNN as having a CONFLICT OF INTEREST when he asked a question that clearly irritated Senator Sanders.

Did NBC not run commercials?

[SidDithers]

21. What ads did Fox News air during his Town Hall?...nt

Sid

[ehrnst]

25. Good point. (nt)

[Uncle Joe]

28. It makes no difference which corporate media conglomerate sponsors the debates.

They should disclose who their primary commercial purchasers are during the actual live debate.

[SidDithers]

32. And did Bernie go after Fox News for their advertisers when he granted them exclusive content?...nt

Sid

[True Blue American]

33. Cthe executives at CNN

Knew exactly what they were doing. They also gave Tapper Lemon and the woman marching orders to let them all attack Biden last night!

I knew when I heard April Ryan, the 2 pundits laughing hysterically this morning about the Koolaid joke they all were in it together.

I am not for Bernie but he sure exposed CNN for what they really are. So did the attackers expose themselves.

[George II]

41. The commercials themselves disclose who they are. Ford ads are run by Ford...

...McDonald's ads are run by McDonald's, Pfizer ads are run by Pfizer.

[LanternWaste]

48. Airing the commercial *is* a disclosure. A most obvious one...

except to anyone who fails to grasp the most common denominators of American free-market broadcast media... or someone who simply wants to pretend a debate point is somehow heroic.

[Uncle Joe]

62. Commercials don't disclose anything except a one sided view.

If a major media outlet is given the honor of hosting a Presidential debate, when the moderators are most visible to the American people supposedly as honest brokers or "referees," then I believe full real time disclosure during the debate is not too much to ask.

[lapucelle]

42. "Fox News runs full-page ad in Washington Post to tout viewership for Sanders town hall"

Oh no! I hope Fox News isn't attempting to "incentivize" WaPo

to make sure [they're] asking the questions and driving the conversations in certain areas and not in certain areas

as per Faiz Shakir's concerning concerns.



https://thehill.com/homenews/media/439499-fox-news-runs-full-page-ad-in-washington-post-to-tout-view

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1907/28/rs.01.html

[BlueIdaho]

31. Weak sauce from Bernie

Ad placement is not the problem, skyrocketing drug costs are the problem.

[ehrnst]

38. Rising drug costs weren't something that could be used to discredit CNN when Tapper asked a question

Last edited Fri Aug 2, 2019, 09:47 AM - Edit history (1)

that didn't sit well with Senator Sanders.

It would have been more effective to have countered the substance of what Tapper was saying, and take the opportunity to say, "That's not accurate, and here's why..."

It appeared that Senator Sanders took the question personally, and was more interested in attacking the messenger than correcting the message.

He has been upset lately that the media isn't delivering the message what he wants them to deliver, and fact checks him, like they would any candidate.

He seems frustrated that other than lefty journalists, established media as a whole isn't functioning as stenographers, like Jacobin, YT and The Intercept, who praise and promote him, who instead do things like ask followup questions, or repeat a question when he pivots away from answering it to something that he had planned to talk about instead.

[BlueIdaho]

54. Very well said! nt.

[NurseJackie]

153. The American people deserve to have a president who can listen and respond thoughtfully...

It would have been more effective to have countered the substance of what Tapper was saying, and take the opportunity to say, "That's not accurate, and here's why..."

The American people deserve to have a president who can listen and respond thoughtfully. Someone who listens and then THINKS before speaking. Someone who doesn't immediately and automatically take great personal offense at every imagined insult or legitimate criticism... no matter who he (or she) may be.

[qazplm135]

37. so if a progressive group wants to advertise during a republican debate

a network should tell them no?

[Uncle Joe]

40. I'm speaking of financial disclosure not censorship.

Presidential candidates or "players in the game" are required to disclose their funding, why shouldn't the televised networks or "referees" hosting the debates do the same?

I'm speaking of disclosure during the actual live debate by the moderators.

[George II]

44. Here's your subject line:

"Sanders Calls Out CNN for Airing Pharma Commercials During 2020 Debate"

If they're airing the commercials, don't we know who paid for them? Does BS now want to pick and choose what commercials are aired on CNN?

[ehrnst]

46. Good point. (nt)

[Uncle Joe]

49. As I stated up-thread, that should be disclosed during the actual live debate

by the moderators, ie; our program has been sponsored by whoever it is.

It should be taken into conscious consideration by the viewers of the program.

[qazplm135]

52. why?

How does that change how the candidates perform and answer questions?

If a "corporate question" leads to a bad answer, the answer is still a bad answer.
If it leads to a good answer, it's still a good answer.

This is just more corporations suck stuff. Which ya, corporations suck, but they aren't going anywhere anytime soon, and ultimately if our candidates are beaten by a 60-90 second commercial, well, then we need better candidates.

[Uncle Joe]

69. During maximum viewership stepping outside the commercial bubble

if only for an instant.

There is nothing in my OP or this thread advocating against "tough questions" being asked of our candidates.

This is all about full disclosure to better inform the American People in making their judgments.

[qazplm135]

82. what commercial bubble?

Telling them...you know that insurance industry ad you just saw, it was put out by the insurance industry...is going to change their judgment how?

Are they not going to make their judgments based on answer to questions?

[Uncle Joe]

83. Television is literally hypnotic.

It should be announced at the beginning of the debate by the moderators or "referees."

Our debate tonight is being sponsored by...

It's that simple, full disclosure.

[qazplm135]

97. which does what

exactly? How does that change how they view the candidates?

[ehrnst]

119. Apparently it's only happens on CNN. Not a peep about NBC hosting the last debate.

[ehrnst]

93. Apparently the masses don't have any ability to resist

the message of commercials, nor to understand that commercials are intended to sell something.

Unless of course someone in the middle of the debate responds to a question they don't like by accusing the network that they agreed to appear on has a CONFLICT OF INTEREST because they didn't announce at the beginning a list of what commercials are being run, and some of those were commercials for industries that might be talked about in the debate.

[LanternWaste]

50. Odd you apply your sentiment to one set of advertisers only.

Most inconsistent of you.

[ehrnst]

106. And only one network. Not a peep about the debates or ads on NBC....

[qazplm135]

51. the point being?

Why would that matter?

I don't think the Trump campaign or Hollywood movies or no not even any of the industries are writing the questions.

It's not going to change the questions asked nor the answers.

[lapucelle]

53. There was advance disclosure in AdWeek. People who were watching saw the commercials

as they were being broadcast. Those people aren't stupid. They were well aware of who paid for them.

The implication that CNN's debate moderators were "incentivized" by ads buys is insulting.

[Uncle Joe]

58. Millions of Americans view the actual debate and that's when it should be disclosed

as part of the actual debate.

I don't understand why anyone has an issue with that?

CNN debate moderators are human as is their corporate conglomerate CEOs, owners, board of directors and major shareholders and if anyone believes serious money doesn't "incentivize" then what's the point of capitalism?

[lapucelle]

74. The information is there for anyone who wants it.

Saying that the point of capitalism is to make money is one thing, but if the claim is that the incentive inherently corrupting, that's another thing entirely, especially for those who follow the dictum "capitalism for me, but not for thee".

[Uncle Joe]

77. It's human nature, to deny corruption is to deny reality.

Perhaps you have a logical explanation as to why Canada charges one tenth the price for insulin than the U.S.?

[lapucelle]

85. Claiming that a news organization is "incentivized" by ad money to frame debate questions

a particular way is dangerous and insulting.

[Uncle Joe]

103. To believe otherwise is naivete at its' height.

No profession is immune, that's why we have conflict of interest laws in the first place.

[lapucelle]

107. Wait...What?

I disagree with the specific claim that "a news organization is 'incentivized' by ad money to frame debate questions a particular way", and you think that my skepticism is "naivete at its' [sic] height" because conflict of interest laws exist?

[Uncle Joe]

109. Yes.

Why do believe those laws exist in the first place with all manner of professions?

[lapucelle]

112. And you think CNN is breaking or skirting conflict of interest laws because the tough questions

are really just a front for furthering their advertiser's business interests?

[Uncle Joe]

113. They're not breaking the law, but I do believe the corporate media conglomerates

are being unethical without offering full disclosure and yes I absolutely believe their major commercial purchasers adversely affect their coverage, which issues are covered and which are given very sparse superficial coverage, ignored or obfuscated.

[lapucelle]

148. You believe that "major commercial purchasers adversely affect CNN's coverage"

and that they affect it to the extent of influencing debate questions?

[ehrnst]

100. "The entire OP and thread is about *commercialization of Presidential debates and full disclosure.*

Not Canada and their drug prices!!!!



https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=223643

[Uncle Joe]

104. And it still is, try to follow along.

[ehrnst]

105. So Canadian drugs are now part of that topic....

I'll get whiplash trying to "keep up" with that kind of sudden reversal of arguments...




Gotcha, didn't I?

Again.

[TexasTowelie]

43. Absolutely meaningless indignation.

It's almost a certainty that some industry that is vilified will be airing ads during the debate whether it is Big Pharma, Big Oil, Wall Street banks, agribusiness, or some corporation that produces some products that are not environmentally friendly. Almost every company can be considered to be a villain in some aspect (e.g. Facebook and Google facilitating Russian involvement in the elections).

CNN did not agree to host the debates purely for the sake of ratings or because they felt it was their civic duty. They are a business too, which means that they are going to sell ads to raise revenue from someone. Would Ben & Jerry's (one of Bernie's supporters) also be criticized since their primary product is dependent on cows which add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere when they burp?

[George II]

66. If he wasn't happy with who was airing commercials why did he participate in the debate?

[JI7]

145. maybe for the same reason he buys and sells things on Amazon

[JI7]

86. what's with these Gimmicks all the time ?

[Uncle Joe]

88. Full disclosure is not a gimmick.

[ehrnst]

94. Certainly not on TYT...

[GulfCoast66]

143. There was full disclosure...we saw the Ad!

What are they supposed to say? “The Healthcare ads being shown in CNN are paid for by the healthcare industry”?

Like the car ads are being run by the car companies? And the Wal Mart ads by Wal Mart?

Jesus.

[brooklynite]

95. Even in the glorious LVW days, the networks didn't say who was running commercials.

FWIW - do you imagine that Fox News would shift its editorial policy if they got a good ad buy from Tom Steyer? (hint: he advertises on them)

[ehrnst]

99. Why do you think that he didn't call this out in the previous debate on NBC?

He could have stated that there was a conflict of interest there as well.

Did NBC not run any ads from industries discussed in the debate? Did they adequately disclose their funders prior to the debate?

Why do you think that he waited until Jake Tapper on CNN asked a question that irritated him to proclaim that not disclosing advertisers and yeah, even to run ads from industries that might be mentioned in the debate was a CONFLICT OF INTEREST?



Oh...


Fact check: Poll numbers undercut Bernie Sanders' claim on private insurance

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/03/politics/fact-check-bernie-sanders-private-health-insurance-popularity/index.html

[Uncle Joe]

111. Polls are entirely dependent on how the questions are framed,

any reputable pollster knows this as does the corporate media conglomerates.

I believe or at least hope you know it as well.

Why is the question never framed as "If you could have comprehensive 100% health care with no premiums, no co-pays, no deductibles that would cover dental, hearing and vision would you accept government coverage in place of private insurance and pay some higher taxes?

However it's never framed that way, the questions usually run along the lines of "Do you support Medicare for All but you would lose your private insurance?" as if that had some intrinsic value in its' own right.

They try to equate private insurance as both actual health care and "freedom" when in truth, it's the opposite, every dollar of profit they make takes away from actual health care and it keeps the people enslaved to their employer.

Medicare for All eliminates the insurance profit motive by removing a needless middle man, greatly adds simplicity and stability to the system, takes a needless burden off doctors and hospitals dealing with countless insurance forms, and gives the people true freedom.

[ehrnst]

116. So you think that his "conflict of interest because commercials" statement was more about CNN's

article about that poll, and not so much about the commercialization of Presidential debates and full disclosure judging by his lack of any mention whatsoever about NBC's commercials in the earlier debate?

Your response indicates that you think that the Poll was certainly more relevant to the OP than any commercialization of Presidential debates and full disclosure on the part of the other commercial network, NBC.

You convinced me.

[Uncle Joe]

118. I don't believe so but I'm done wasting my time over nit picking.

"You convinced me."

Peace to you.

[ehrnst]

120. Give up? Probably for the best.

You might find more 'peace' posting in areas of DU that limit those who can reply.

Or use the ignore feature. That way you won't see distressing responses from people who don't comply with your directives about what is and isn't relevant to the point of OP.

[Uncle Joe]

121. I have never put anyone on ignore and don't plan on it now.

I have great peace as it is.

[ehrnst]

123. Perhaps sometime I'll see that peace in the face of a post that

doesn't comply with your directives on what is acceptable concerning your OPs. Especially when they point out a problem with double standards.

"Reading is fundamental..."



Until then, I'll have to take your word for it.

[Uncle Joe]

126. Reading is fundamental, good luck with that.

Peace to you.

[ehrnst]

127. The very same right back to you!

[GulfCoast66]

144. When you attack the press, you admit you are losing.

Or so I see it.

[betsuni]

149. ...

[Uncle Joe]

156. ...

[NYMinute]

151. Scary when a person advocates against first amendment rights

Anyone has a right to advertise any legal product in any medium.

Who is BS to decide? They control media in Russia - not in the US.

[Uncle Joe]

154. It is scary, so why are you criticizing Bernie for exercising his First Amendment Rights?

Bernie never said they didn't have the right advertise their product, he just stated who they were getting their advertising from and the OP points out the hefty sum of money they're getting paid for doing it.

[NYMinute]

157. He is complaining about advertising content

BS has a first amendment right to say authoritarian things.

It is my right to call him out on it.

No TV show has ever controlled what gets advertised on their show -- from I love Lucy to Big Bang Theory.

Democratic debates are also a show and its participants shouldn't have any control over the ads. Period.

Ad prices are fixed and they are first come first served. Pharma companies don't pay any more for the slot than what is set up by the network.

[Uncle Joe]

158. Bernie was exercising his First Amendment Right in pointing out their advertising source.

There is nothing authoritarian about that, it was full disclosure during the real time Presidential debate in which that network was getting paid a hefty sum of money for ads counter to the issues and candidates in the actual debate.

If the moderators should be considered as honest brokers or referees and that is the role they are at least pretending to take on insofar as the public is concerned in not favoring any particular candidate or issue during a debate, then getting one sided big bucks for sponsoring said ads is an inherent conflict or at the very least an appearance of conflict of interest.

The networks most assuredly can and do control who advertises on their platform.

The debates are not a just a "show" they're at least to some degree a public service in exposing the American People to the issues and candidates running for the highest office in the land.

The network determines what the prices will be as pointed out in the OP and the moderators most assuredly know who cuts their paychecks.

Pharma corporations being awash in major money thanks in part to U.S. Americans paying ten times the price for insulin than Canadian Americans are most assuredly in the strongest position to pay exorbitant fees for commercials and the networks know it.

[SharonClark]

152. Those ads are running about every 5 minutes on Morning Joe

The sheer repetition will have a negative impact on the Dems.

[still_one]

155. Says the person who sells his books on Amazon