Media Matters president knocks Bernie Sanders for timing of Fox News town hall

[MrsCoffee]

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/437876-media-matters-president-knocks-bernie-sanders-for-fox-news-town-hall

The president of the progressive media watchdog group Media Matters on Monday knocked Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for agreeing to appear in a Fox News town hall, objecting to the timing of the event.

Angelo Carusone, the president, told HuffPost in a statement that Fox News "is in the midst of a critical ad sales period" and that Sanders's town hall could help the network "assuage advertisers concerns."


“Fox News is in the midst of a critical ad sales period where they need to sell 60-70% of all their ad inventory for next year. But, due in large part to concerted efforts of activists and organizations, Fox News is having an ad sales crisis and is not able to fully persuade the advertising community that it is safe to come back in the water," he said.

“Doing this town hall in the middle of this moment will be used by Fox News to try and assuage advertisers concerns in a way that doing the town hall in a few weeks from now would not have done,” Carusone added.

[Hortensis]

1. Sanders helping Fox, Fox helping Sanders. Here's WHY for Sanders:

Sanders is a running a populist campaign that creates divisions along class-loyalty lines (not national like Trump) and is trying to draw those antagonistic to what they see as "the elites," and other groups that draw their hostility, like the Democratic Party dominated by liberals.

In this Democracy Fund Voter Study Group graph, the blue lower left is people who are overall BOTH socially and economically liberal and voted solidly Democratic. The red upper right is BOTH socially and economically conservative and voted Trump.

But see that upper left quadrant? All the people in THAT? Those people are socially conservative and economically liberal, far more resentful than informed, a combination that makes them natural suckers for populist movements. They practically define them. Antagonism's strongly correlated also. Some Democrats fall in that group but aren't exactly happy campers, some decamped to the right in 2016, and some are Republicans.

Basically, these are people who want to kick groups they don't like and eat their Medicaid-For-Me cake at the same time. Right or left, they despise liberal Democrats trying to protect our liberal democracy. In any case, the hostility's in a wide range of degrees, very mild to rabid, but THIS is where Sanders has to go to draw more people to his populist flag. And plenty of those watch Fox.


Howard Schultz is also chumming over there; what he wants out of this is unclear. I think we should pay Sanders due respect when he says he wants a revolution, no fine print to examine.

Btw, this vast group also shows why other, solidly liberal Democratic candidates are making populist noise -- to draw discontented people who want progressive government toward positive goals without posing danger to our democracy. They will vote for someone, and we need most to believe our best, only viable course is to repair and build on what we have.

[betsuni]

4. +1

[BlueFlorida]

5. Great post ... should be an OP. nt

[sharedvalues]

7. Except it's wrong

Schultz is in the bottom right of the plot.
Not the upper left.

It’s also unclear to me if Bernie could ever get a Fox-brainwashed viewer to vote for him. Fox is just gonna lie about Bernie after the town hall is over.

[thesquanderer]

9. Typo? I think the chart's economic axis is notated backwards.

There are tons of people who are socially liberal but economically conservative, and this chart shows very few, while showing many with the more unlikely combination of socially conservative and economically liberal.

[plimsoll]

24. It's beyond a typo.

If I were to take it at face value economically liberal and socially liberal people always vote solid democrat.

If that were so, why was President Obama telling progressives they need to compromise. I suspect the methodology is flawed.

[DanTex]

62. It's not a typo.

The chart, and the study it came from, found that there are a lot more socially-conservative economically-liberal people than there are socially-liberal economically-conservative.

Yeah, it does seem like the opposite. But, there are a few factors here. First, a lot of the media is socially-liberal and economically-conservative, so watching the media gives the impression that that is a common thing. Second, in certain professions, there are a lot of social-liberal economically-conservative people. When I worked in tech that was very common.

[Hortensis]

66. I've wondered that there are so few in that lower right, but

it makes sense in these highly polarized, mega-identity times. Graphs showing voter behavior now show a basically blank space between large right and left clusters. Most people who might have once voted both sides of the ballot have moved away from that center toward one group or another.

As one young Texas mother who had once considered herself Republican put it, she cares about both babies in the womb and immigrant children. She sounded to me like a typically social liberal but economically somewhat conservative female, a very common mixture, in women especially, but what the Republican Party is doing forced her to align against it, not vote a split ballot as was once so typical in this group.

No doubt some others from this quadrant have instead aligned with the right.

Btw, "mega-identity"?

Vox: "In Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity, Lilliana Mason traces the construction of our partisan “mega-identities”: identities that fuse party affiliation to ideology, race, religion, gender, sexuality, geography, and more. These mega-identities didn’t exist 50 or even 30 years ago, but now that they’re here, they change the way we see each other, the way we engage in politics, and the way politics absorbs other — previously non-political —spheres of our culture."

I believe this theory is true, that these days most people have been captured by one mega-identity or another, beliefs of which pervades all facets of identity and interfere with ability to reason objectively. Political identity was once mostly limited to political behaviors. These days, for so many even where we choose to live and religious beliefs re-form to conform to "the group," and of course our politics.

[MarcA]

74. Exactly. A false image fostered by the MSM.

A libertarian reality show. May not be true but its good for Corporate America.

[sharedvalues]

76. No it's correct. That is why the chart is suprising.

Much of the GOP base likes social programs but is “socially conservative”.

They hate Obamacare only because the rightwing media lies to them about it.

[dalton99a]

17. +1

[ehrnst]

21. That's some research.

[lostnfound]

34. Great graphic but centerline is totally messed up

They obviously didn’t ask enough far left questions on their survey — how many dots on the left axis and only one dot on the right.
Limiting debate about topics on the left is typical in a country that pretends that the single question of universal healthcare makes you a far far left radical crazy communist, while believing that a corporation is entitled to force a truck driver to risk literally freezing to death in the cab of his truck makes you a Supreme Court Justice.

A country that pretends that trillions for unending wars is a centrist position, and that average CEO compensation of $16 million per year (top 350 corporations) is fair but $15 per hour minimum wage will be a total drag on the economy.

[Hortensis]

70. Here's their explanation of methodology for

their 2018 voter survey.

file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/Methodology4_2018dec11.pdf

The Voter Study Group has brought together analysts from across the (rational) spectrum to provide conclusions they can agree on and seems to be pretty well regarded.

Here are some of their reports, very interesting stuff. They found, for instance, that religious voters average more supportive of diversity and immigration than secular voters. In spite of the religious far right, not all that great a surprise when you think about it. I was just visiting with a neighbor where we used to live who's both conservative and very religious, attending church groups at least a couple times a week, and is very decent and principled. Her church teaches that as doctrine.

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2018-voter-survey

[Eliot Rosewater]

51. Gonna get way worse. There is an agenda at work, electing someone with a D after their name

is not it.

[Me.]

65. LOve This Post Hortensis

especially the use of the word chumming which made me think of chum and hence, attracting sharks, especially sharks in goldfish disguise.

[melman]

71. url for that image

https://i0.wp.com/www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Picture1-1 dot png


National Review. Interesting.


You could have pulled that same image from New York Magazine

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/06/new-study-shows-what-really-happened-in-the-2016-election.html

Or any number of other places as a google reverse-image search will show. It's all over the place


But you didn't. You got it from National Review. That's interesting.

[Hortensis]

72. That research is widely quoted, Melman,

Last edited Tue Apr 9, 2019, 07:21 PM - Edit history (1)

by many journals, most center and left, as you may know? You would, of course, have researched the research group itself to look for dirt there.

But this is interesting stuff! Maybe put whatever you imagine you're doing on hold and take a look.

Since you like Sanders, how about this article linked from Vanity Fair (leans left) about his potential run in 2020 and how Sanders could pull a lot of voters? It's from 2017 but solidly prescient.

As we look ahead to 2020, Bernie Sanders might be Trump’s strongest opponent. ... That makes him uniquely positioned to move—at least a little—to the right and win back some of the support Trump gained.

We’ll never stop debating what happened in 2016. But if we look at the numbers, we can see that Trump was playing to pent-up demand. Nearly a third of Americans, it turns out, are conservative on social issues but liberal on economic ones. Until Trump came along, they didn’t have an obvious candidate. (A report released by the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group this summer, authored by New America fellow Lee Drutman, makes the numbers clear, particularly in Chart 2.) They were populists forced to choose between what they saw as lousy economic policy from Republicans and lousy social policy from Democrats. They might be the type who were, say, fine with Obamacare but unhappy with new gun laws or school-bathroom regulations.

Donald Trump played to this neglected group of Americans and implicitly offered to revive the New Deal from the right, defying the economic and foreign-policy orthodoxies of the Republican Party and moving left on a few social issues. It was an unprecedented feat of political audacity. What we’re likely to see by 2020, however, is that Trump was too in sync with the donor class to fulfill his promises in practice. He has been willing to throw poorer Americans to the wolves on consumer protections and health care and workplace rights. ...

Democrats have their own vulnerabilities, though. Their stance on several social issues has moved well to the left of the median, and Trump has a talent, however uneven, for calling them on it. (Picking a fight with the N.F.L. worked well for him, for instance.) The second term of Barack Obama saw a robust push to the left on issues like immigration, guns, and civil-rights enforcement. ...

A Pew study from 2014—highlighted by The New York Times’s Nate Cohn in 2016—lays out some of the challenges more specifically. In a poll of white Democrats without a college degree, 45 percent answered that gun rights are more important than gun control, 38 percent that immigration is a burden, and 26 percent that abortion should be illegal in most cases. Again, these are Democrats. And we are leaving out an unknown, but presumably significant, share of them who are less hard-line but still right of center on these issues.

This is where Bernie Sanders comes in. ...

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/bernie-sanders-2020-election-social-issues

[Hassin Bin Sober]

79. Very interesting

[lapucelle]

2. Is it a bug or a feature?

I'm sure Fox will mine the town hall for everything it's worth in advancing their agenda.

[Hortensis]

3. :) Fox and friend -- natural enemies and current allies.

I imagine they'll both be trying for a balance that makes this work for them.

[BlueFlorida]

6. Don't be too hard on Sanders

Fox and Sanders both dislike Democrats. Not-so-strange bedfellows.

This is par for the course.

[Lonestarblue]

8. My biggest fear is that Sanders will eventually run as an independent.

Let’s assume that Biden gets in the race and wins the nomination, not a given by any means, but someone other than Sanders. Bernie knows that this is his last chance, and he is wedded to his own ideas rather than what is best for the Democratic Party.

I don’t think Bernie will win California or the early primaries in the south. If Bernie falls enough behind other candidates, he will once again claim that the Democratic Party is against him and he will believe that he can win over Trump as the first independent because he has a substantial numer of supporters and a lot of campaign cash. He then splits the vote and we get four more years of Trump.

If Bernie wins the nomination, I will certainly vote for him and encourage everyone I know to do the same. But the uncertainty around Bernie and his “Bernie or no one” supporters is greatly concerning because this country will be irrevocably damaged by Trump’s reelection.

[Honeycombe8]

10. True.

Bernie has different goals than seeing the Democratic Party Platform agenda gets advanced. He has his own agenda. I believe that he's okay if a Democrat loses, as long as his agenda advances. I could be wrong, but that's the way it seems to me.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

12. Bernie has his own agenda? Whattt?! I've been told repeatedly that most of the Democratic candidates

and the party in general has moved left and adopted Bernie's progressive agenda, so he should step aside, let them carry the baton, since their goals are basically the same. IOW, there is no justification for Bernie's candidacy. Now, you're telling us Bernie has his own agenda... so, which is it?!


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

[betsuni]

14. Bernie:

"This campaign was never just about electing a president of the United States -- as enormously important as that was. This campaign was about transforming America."

[dalton99a]

33. Let me repeat it here

During the fifteen months of the campaign there was one central point that I made over and over again, and let me repeat it here: This campaign was never just about electing a president of the United States—as enormously important as that was. This campaign was about transforming America.

- Our Revolution: A Future to Believe by Bernie Sanders

[BlueFlorida]

31. The party has not moved much left at all from where it was

Bernie is only giving comfort to the angriest voters who think he will take money from corporations/rich people and give it to them. It is riling up people with torches and pitchforks by using words like "revolution."

This divisiveness will only result in a defeat of the Democratic party, the one that Bernie doesn't care about. Bernie is only a fair-weather friend.

Bernie's agenda has a public and a private compartment. The public part of the agenda has been adopted by many other candidates so - we don't need Bernie. He keeps running due to the private part of his agenda that I shall not speculate on but most smart and wise people have figured it out.

[watoos]

13. Can you be more specific?

Are you only talking about Medicare for All? If so, Bernie isn't the only candidate who is pushing for this, right? When do we start bashing them too?

Let's face it folks, Bernie has the guts to take on Goliath and now I'm being told that is something bad?

That chart is total nonsense, plus it's from the 2016 election. In 2018 we had a blue tsunami because our candidates ran as old fashioned FDR Democrats. I'm being told by people on DU that our candidates need to move back to the center closer to the Republican agenda. Democrats lose because they waffle from their liberal principles and move to the right. 2018 showed me that what the M$M is calling the left is really the center of America.

The only way we lose in 2020 is if we fight among ourselves, and bashing Bernie is going to discourage a lot of young voters from voting. I can picture a thread like this posted on the Daily Caller.

The truth of the matter is that right now I'm not planning on voting for Bernie but maybe threads like this will change my mind. I will bash any thread that bashes any of our candidates.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

16. Couldn't agree more... we need to stop eating our own!!

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

[BlueFlorida]

32. We will not be defeated in 2020

if Bernie drops out or is defeated early.

[Demsrule86]

35. No they didn't. Moderates took back the HOUSE. They flipped seats.

We need moderates to win. The left left might spoil again but they can't win.

[Lancero]

26. I remember his opp. supporters pushing the whole 'He's gonna run Independent!' story in 2016.

Why they pushed that fantasy I'll never know, considering he outright said that he wasn't going to do a Independent run for 2016 in 15.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/249800-sanders-vows-no-third-party-run-in-2016

Haven't found anything about him planning a Indy run in 2020 should he fail to get the nomination, but the reasonable conclusion would be that he'll - Just as he did in 2016 - come out in support of whoever does win.

Seriously though, the whole FUD about him running Indy was already tried 2016. No need to keep spreading it.

[ehrnst]

23. The horseshoe effect

Where the far left and far right start to meet up.

I find that both are overwhelmingly straight (or closeted gay), white and male.

The thing is, while those who still actually hold the money and the power are overwhelmingly white straight males, they are not the majority demographic anymore. They sense this, and are drawn to white male leaders who reinforce the idea that they are the downtrodden, the oppressed, the ones who are really being screwed over, and truly suffering, especially in terms of their paycheck, and any justice issues that are not solved by a bigger paycheck are "identity politics." They feel that those other demographics don't really understand what it's like to to have been PROMISED so much, then DENIED it.. For them, THAT is what needs to be addressed first and foremost - the American Dream as lived by their fathers, was their inheritance that has been stolen from them.

Once that's been "made right" then the others (POC, women, LGBTQ) who weren't promised all that can get a turn. Well, you know, if they "earn it," and it doesn't require anything from White straight men in the way of discomfort, effort or sharing of authority. They don't want to see any men kissing in front of them, or have to take sensitivity/harassment training, or be told that having an all white male staff in upper management shows some problems with hiring practices.

These two groups also both hate Democrats, especially the female Demcoratic leaders.

[Demsrule86]

36. +100000

[Gothmog]

59. Those two have so much in common

[pdsimdars]

11. Isn't that what Obama warned about? The left attacking their own.

[watoos]

18. Pick out one of our candidates, any one,

I can bash him/her because none of our candidates are perfect but all of them are far better than Trump.

Heck, I can even bash president Obama, he wasn't perfect either. Why would I be stupid to do what Republicans want me to do, to bash our own candidates?

The only way we lose in 2020 is if we fight among ourselves, and this thread fits that description.

[pdsimdars]

22. Right on. Seems people just like to bash old Bernie. Bad idea. They all have good and bad.

[Demsrule86]

37. If Sanders wants to give Fox ad revenue and ratings...it is his right but I wouldn't do it

and no one on our side should help...I won't be watching or helping Fox in any way.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

42. Where do you come up with this stuff? You know other Democrats have appeared on Fox, yes?

[Demsrule86]

44. This should be a big deal as it really helps Fox and was done after it was said no debates

On Fox...a propaganda network for Trump.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

46. Good thing this isn't a debate.

And you know the head of the DNC is ok with it, yes?

Republicans are going to be exposed to ideas they favor, like MEDICARE For All. What’s the problem with that?

Bernie spoke to Liberty University and got a standing ovation all while telling it like it is and not compromising his values.

This is another NONTROVERSY. Framed as helping fox.

[Demsrule86]

48. It is a town hall and parsing words doesn't change that. This was a bad move

And shows clearly that while Sen sanders is running for the nomination,he is not a Democrat. Fox is a propaganda network.

[Honeycombe8]

39. No. He said that good candidates might be passed over 'cause they don't pass purity test.

That's what I recall he said.

[pdsimdars]

41. Knit picking. Knocking Bernie for being on FOX. People find any excuse to knock him.

Isn't that a kind of a purity test? Holding him to some standard you made up.

[Honeycombe8]

49. Not to my way of thinking.

He was talking about not wanting a candidate because he didn't hold, or wasn't going to push for, their positions on issues, like Medicare for all, a wage without a job, a more extreme plan for dealing with climate change, etc. That's the way I took it.

How a person campaigns has nothing to do with purity of position on issues. It could have been a moderate who planned his town hall at that time (altho we have hardly any moderates in the lineup).

[pdsimdars]

53. How a person campiagns has to do with how someone ELSE thinks YOU should campaign

They want to enforce THEIR standard on someone else. They have their standard of purity for how to run a campaign and Bernie doesn't fit into that standard. That is a purity test. He doesn't measure up to their purity standard of how to run a campaign.
"to your way of thinking" and that's what the global warming deniers say,"not to their way of thinking."

[Cha]

63. Yet, some of BS' fans complain

if the WaPo or the WSJ is vetting BS. But, it's ok for him to go on faux news and help them out.

BS is the one who started the "purity" tests with his buzzwords.

Now he gets pushback.

[TCJ70]

15. A media company selling ads?! Say it ain't so!

I’ll file this under “Most ridiculous Sanders criticisms”.

[watoos]

19. It's worse than that.

[chwaliszewski]

20. +1

[MrsCoffee]

28. Well people were just getting lectured in another thread about the evils of Fox News.

And the Wall Street Journal. And anything associated with Murdoch.

I am not surprised to see a completely different take since Bernie chose to hold his town hall on Fox.

Not one little bit.

The DNC rejected any Fox News debates because Fox is Trump’s propaganda outlet.

At a time when getting advertisers to pull their support has come close to crippling Fox, who cares that Bernie is going to end up helping them out? Amirite?

Why is this guy’s timing always so off?

[TCJ70]

29. Who's saying Fox is good?

Not Sanders. Not anyone here. What different take are you talking about?

The DNC not dignifying FOX with a debate is very different from individual candidates being on...which several of them already have if I recall correctly.

Bernie “helping them out” is Media Matters take on it. It’s pre-emptive division rhetoric and you’re buying it.

[MrsCoffee]

30. It's not like it's a quick stop or interview.

I don’t think ANY of our candidates should be doing town halls or debates on Fox. Period. Especially if it’s going to help bail them out.

[Demsrule86]

38. Yes by appearing there he says Fox is OK.

[Demsrule86]

45. By appearing there Sanders gives Fox stature.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

47. I have a feeling the VIEWERS of Fox News are going to get a lecture on the evils of Fox

[Honeycombe8]

50. By whom? nt

[rgbecker]

43. OMG! What next? Political pundents have opinions?

[Snotcicles]

25. I can't believe Bernie doesn't carry around a calender with each networks add buy schedule on it. nt

[Autumn]

27. I'm down with the vapors about that too. A Democrat or a Not a Democrat being on Fox

is just unforgivable!

[BlueFlorida]

40. I feel your pain

[Honeycombe8]

52. It's not that it's Fox, is the way I understand it.

It's the MONEY that it will give Fox to fuel anti-Democratic junk, at a time when Fox is struggling to get ad money.

So if Bernie helps them fund at this critical time, .... well, that's what they're saying. I can't say they're wrong. The #1 media that will hurt a Democrat's chance to win is Fox. So go on it, by all means. But at a time when it needs to the ad money lined up for the coming year...not cool. Democrats don't do that...normally.

[Honeycombe8]

60. Well, that's a horse of a different color. I'll read that. nt

[ehrnst]

64. +1000.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

54. Not surprising. Media Matters President Angelo Carusone doesn't seem to like Jews

I guess it would make sense he would go after Bernie for “financial reasons” when he refers to “Jewery” and “Jewish bags of gold”


According to The Daily Mail he:

Wrote a blog which degraded 'jewry', 'trannies' and Bangladeshis



Angelo Carusone is head of liberal advocacy group Media Matters for America

One blog entry from Nov 2005 was called 'Tranny Paradise' - and commented on report of Bangladeshi man who was 'robbed by a gang of transvestites'

Carusone also blogged that his boyfriend only leaned conservative 'as a result of his possession of several bags of Jewish gold'


.......

In a piece posted on November 14, 2005 titled 'Tranny Paradise', Carusone commented on a news report of a Bangladeshi businessman who was robbed by 'a gang of transvestites'.


Part of the blog reads: 'Apparently a gang of transvestites in Thailand is spitting sedatives down their victim's throat and robbing them.

'This is definiitely [sic] an odd story, but what's even odder are some phrases...

'Isn't anyone curious why this super strong sedative doesn't affect the trannies?... Are trannies just immune to sedatives?'

And reacting to the news report's description of the transvestites as 'attractive', the blog reads: 'Uhhh. Did you notice the word attractive? What the f**k is that doing in there? Is the write[r] a tranny lover too?'

.....

In another post, from October 2005, Carusone wrote of his boyfriend that 'despite his jewry, you KNOW he's adorable'.

[George II]

67. You mean the guy who had a Jewish boyfriend doesn't like Jews?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

68. You know you can still be anti Semitic and have a Jewish spouse, yes?

Referring to his love of his “Jewish pot of gold” is prima facie evidence.

The same goes for racists with African American spouses.

Heck, gay people can be homophobic. Did you know that?

[George II]

69. You can also joke about and with your Jewish boyfriend and not be anti-Semitic.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

73. Do joke with your Jewish friends about being money grubbers? Do tell.

Posting that shit publicly is not “joking with your boyfriend “

And I guarantee you, most Jewish people don’t want to hear that shit in private either. They’ve most likely heard it their whole lives

[George II]

80. What are you carrying on about here? Please explain. TIA.

[Autumn]

75. That sounds like someone David Brock would hire.

Good for Bernie. I'm glad he's doing this.

[George II]

82. What is the relevance of David Brock in this discussion? "Good for Bernie"?

Is Brock any less credible than David Sirota?

[lapucelle]

83. Here's what a media watchdog group had to say about the Daily Mail

Detailed Report

Reasoning: Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Some Fake News
Country: United Kingdom

Analysis / Bias

The Daily Mail is a known a supporter of the Conservatives. They are also one of the pro-Brexit tabloids and according to a Reuters article, the Daily Mail published a controversial headline in response to a Brexit Court ruling criticizing the judges, by branding them as ‘enemies of the people’ According to CNBC, the Daily mail also has been criticized by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales for publishing fake news articles and “hyped up” headlines and “mastered the art of running stories that aren’t true’”. Further, CNBC reported that DMG media responded by saying “DailyMail.com is the very antithesis of click-bait and hype headlines. We just tell stories better than anyone else.”

In review, the Daily Mail tends to publish stories utilizing sensationalized headlines with emotionally loaded wordings such as “Woman, 63, ‘becomes PREGNANT in the mouth’ with baby squid after eating calamari”, which is obviously a fake news story. In 2017, Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail as an ‘unreliable’ source. When it comes to sourcing information they use minimal hyperlinked sourcing as well as sourcing to themselves. In general, most stories favor the right, however the Daily Mail will report either side if the story is sensational enough.

A factual search reveals that the Daily Mail has a poor track record with fact

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

[betsuni]

90. #WhataboutDavidBrock

Correct the Record was about debunking conspiracy theories and propaganda against a Democrat.

[Autumn]

91. Yeah I remember him well from Bill Clinton's presidency. nt

[betsuni]

92. When both he and Elizabeth Warren were still Republicans.

So what.

[Autumn]

93. I don't remember Liz Warren pushing conspiracy and lies about Bill Clinton. He did. nt

[lapucelle]

81. Is your information from a story defending Tucker Carlson? Isn't the Daily Mail a right wing source?

[George II]

84. Got a link to the "according to the Daily Mail"?

[lapucelle]

85. Why would anybody here cite "information"

from a source considered to be

Questionable due to numerous failed fact checks and poor sourcing of information.

Detailed Report
Reasoning: Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Some Fake News
Country: United Kingdom

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

[George II]

86. The Daily Mail isn't much more credible these days than Daily Caller or even Breitbart.

[lapucelle]

87. ...

[George II]

88. END OF DISCUSSION!!!!!

[lapucelle]

89. Apparently when people aren't busy watching The Three Stooges,

they are busy sourcing information from right-wing rags.

Why is anybody posting that garbage here?

First of all, in a post I made here some years ago, one of the top Clinton Foundation donors gave Politifact millions before the 2016 election - became their top donor handily. I posted the links to back that up on this site around the time when it went down. Politifact had gone to town on Hillary's statements during 2008. They were not the same in 2016. Like the DNC, in my opinion, they suffered some "influences" from one campaign. This is but one example.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128752193#post238

As for your allegation that Politifact was "influenced" by money from a Clinton Foundation donor...that's a shameful right wing talking point/conspiracy theory from the 2016 general election campaign, first "exclusively" reported by The Daily Caller News Foundation (and then picked up and amplified by RT, right wing outlets, and Facebook fake news sites) whose purpose was to undermine the fact checking of Donald Trump.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=61945

[Renew Deal]

57. Fox loves "democrats" that attack Democrats

So he'll fit right in. Is it any surprise he said yes?

[MrsCoffee]

58. None at all.

[Honeycombe8]

61. Oh...it's not how it might sound at first blush.

He's a "shock" guy, making a joke about his boyfriend, who is gay and Jewish. That his boyfriend leans conservative because he has a bag of gold (the implication being that otherwise, he'd be fully liberal like Carusone). Just a joke about someone he loves. 14 years ago.

He also said,

'My intention ultimately is to enforce a change of behavior, not to eradicate Fox,' he said.

That jives with his criticism of Bernie helping the station get much needed advertising money when they're planning their annual budget...used to fight Democrats.

This habit of crawling through statements made over a decade ago of people in the spotlight, and judging them by today's standards, is getting out of control, IMO.

[sharedvalues]

77. K_&R. I love Bernie. But don't go on Fox!!!!

[Progressive dog]

78. Not surprised

that Bernie would accept an appearance on the Trump network.