• blandfordforever@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    I recall that in 2016, it was apparent to me that those in control of the media were intentionally giving Bernie as little coverage as possible. The stuff they were doing was blatant, once you became aware of it.

    I remember seeing a news segment where they said something like, “The current leading Democrat in the primaries is Hillary Clinton. Yeah she’s doing great. Also in 3rd place is Martin O’Malley or something.” They would just blatantly omit Bernie.

    I kept seing stuff like this and it really made an impression on me. Then, when the whole GameStop stock thing happened and all those private investors were making tons of money, taking it from rich hedgefunds, the media started telling everyone how dumb they would be to try to get in on the action. They were protecting the interests of the rich. It was a little intimidating to see them all do it, implying who was really in control of information and public perception.

    So, I disagree. It’s not as simple as, “America is not that progressive.”

    • forrcaho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 hours ago

      That was back when Facebook was actually doing something useful: there were so many huge Bernie rallies posted to Facebook that the MSM was forced to acknowledge him. Now that social media has been “fixed”, we won’t see anything like that again.

      • blandfordforever@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        22 hours ago

        What the media presents has a strong influence on public perception. When the races are close, they only need to sway a few percent of voters.