RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Reich writes: "Political reporters know only four stories: (1) who's up and who's down, (2) how much money candidates have raised, (3) which candidates have made what gaffes, and (4) who's attacking whom."

Robert Reich. (photo: Getty Images)
Robert Reich. (photo: Getty Images)


Shortfalls of Political Reporting

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook

06 September 15

 

olitical reporters know only four stories: (1) who's up and who's down, (2) how much money candidates have raised, (3) which candidates have made what gaffes, and (4) who's attacking whom. They're not trained to report on what the candidates actually say, or the economic and social realities that are fueling what they say and why their candidacies are catching on (or not).

Yet even given these realities, I continue to be surprised at how little of what's reported about Bernie mentions widening inequality, flat wages, CEO pay, the depredations of Wall Street, and the flooding of our democracy with money from big corporations and the wealthy. Indeed, I'm appalled at how little Bernie's campaign is being covered at all.

Today, after delivering a major policy address calling for an investment of $1 trillion over 5 years to modernize our country’s physical infrastructure, thereby creating and maintaining at least 13 million good-paying jobs while making our country more productive, Bernie happened to mention to a reporter that the Clinton campaign is getting nervous about his rising poll numbers. His comment about Clinton was all that was reported.

Bernie's surge has nothing whatever to do with Hillary's campaign; and her campaign's supposed "nervousness" is completely irrelevant to Bernie's message or the enthusiasm it's garnering.

Your view?


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+48 # Caliban 2015-09-06 12:30
Professor Reich--My view is your view, but as a veteran of mainstream media interactions, how would you suggest remedying this problem?
 
 
+36 # dbrown 2015-09-06 13:13
I've heard that coaches of professional speakers counsel them to always start with a joke. In this case, apparently, it's "only three stories" numbered 1 though 4.

Once I stopped chuckling and then shaking my head, I agreed with the point of the article. I also second Caliban's request for suggestions.
 
 
+17 # economagic 2015-09-06 13:54
I have a T-shirt that reads, "There are three kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't." I'm guessing this was the point, but these days anything goes!
 
 
+22 # gdsharpe 2015-09-06 15:40
Quoting dbrown:
I've heard that coaches of professional speakers counsel them to always start with a joke. In this case, apparently, it's "only three stories" numbered 1 though 4.

Once I stopped chuckling and then shaking my head, I agreed with the point of the article. I also second Caliban's request for suggestions.
Tell everyone you know. Talk about his record, don't exaggerate. Talk about his policies, don't exaggerate. Write to the editors of the newspapers you read, write Op-Eds, spread the word. Do real grass-roots ground support.
 
 
+65 # Radscal 2015-09-06 13:21
90% of all media "news" comes from just 6 corporations, most of which are owned by or have shared board members with the corporations and financial industries that dictate US policy.

I don't know for certain if Sanders really is a strongly progressive and moral official, or if he is serving as a heat-sink to draw revolutionary energy into the DNC.

But either way, the policies he promotes are NOT in the best interests of the 0.01%, and so they are barely mentioned, lest more people realize that those policies are best for all of us.

The power of the Sanders campaign is almost entirely genuine grass roots activism. To use a basketball analogy, we are dribbling below the kneecaps of the giants who tower over the court. They are flailing away at the air, but cannot reach the ball.
 
 
+22 # bardphile 2015-09-06 14:01
I like your analogy. So, we get the ball down the court. Can Bernie stuff it over all those giants (HRC, DNC, MSM, NYT, etc.) come next summer? When he gets hacked, will the refs call it?
 
 
+14 # Inspired Citizen 2015-09-06 15:32
I have another example. Revolt Against Plutocracy is using a historically unprecedented strategy to help Bernie Sanders secure the nomination. WaPo, Politico and CNN all know about this, but from them we hear...crickets.

We say it's Bernie or else! http://wp.me/p6itlU-5r
 
 
+13 # Radscal 2015-09-06 17:00
The hacking is a VERY real problem that has been documented to have happened for sure on several occasions, and most likely on many others.

One hope is that, if we can motivate a HUGE (or, a "YU-AGE") majority to vote Sanders, either TPTB will not dare fix the election, or if they do, it will be so obvious to so many, that it could be the spark that (finally) causes the masses to unite in revolution by non-electoral means.
 
 
+18 # economagic 2015-09-06 14:19
Nice metaphor. I think it applies much more broadly to the worldwide "movement of movements" that is emerging to re-create and strengthen local communities and economies for resilience in the face of what is likely to be a very rough period ahead.

A friend with a background in field biology and ecology finds another metaphor in the expansion of the niche of the small mammals in the wake of the disappearance of the great lizards. Lacking much background in that area myself I'm probably not stating the situation accurately, but the point is the opportunities for small creatures not only to survive but to thrive in the shadow of the giants even as they fall.

As Gar Alperovitz says, despite his considerable optimism, we are going to lose some, including some big ones. But the opportunities for those who survive to learn from the past and create better societies in the future are great.
 
 
+10 # Merlin 2015-09-06 15:51
Radscal 2015-09-06 13:21

I love your basketball analogy! A truly accurate visual!

It has been a given, right from the start, that sHillary is, and always was, the candidate of the Democratic establishment and the pawn of the .01%ers. Also given was the lack of fair reporting from the corporatist owned MSM. And lastly it was a given that all the establishment Dems like Mondale, et al, would come out vocally for her. All this was understood by Bernie and his campaign, before he decided to throw his hat in the ring.

Bernie’s strategy of building a powerful grassroots support network was the only answer to taking on the formidable “opposition” that Radscal neatly analogizes. Ignoring sHillary now, and concentrating on getting massive popular support is the basis of this early “opening game” strategy. If he manages to gain that nationwide name recognition and gets his popular message out there he wins that, “opening game.” The .01% is doing everything possible to not allow that to happen, and their only real tool is not reporting him, to keep him unknown. Thus, caliban’s question is moot. There is no solution to changing the reporting through their MSM rags. “Ignoring” him, is their purposeful strategy!

Cintinued below
 
 
+10 # Merlin 2015-09-06 15:52
Continued

I think it is very noticeable that sHillary is completely ignoring The People. These articles today, makes that very clear. She is in effect saying, “You People don’t matter. I have the backing of the rich and powerful and that is the way it is! I will get the delegates and win, and there is nothing you People can do about it! Your numbers don’t matter.”

The “middle game” begins with the fight for the primaries. If Bernie wins New Hampshire and Iowa he will have momentum going into the South. I’m sure that Bernie and his campaign were also aware of the “Southern Strategy” that Clinton would use, and the heavy handedness in twisting super delegates arms to “sign the pledge”, comes as no surprise. It will be interesting to see how the campaign deals with this in the “middle game” that is fast approaching.
 
 
+4 # tgemberl 2015-09-06 16:57
"I think it is very noticeable that Hillary is completely ignoring The People."

Which people are you talking about?
 
 
+1 # Merlin 2015-09-08 02:12
tgemberl 2015-09-06 16:57
"Which people are you talking about?"

I capitalize "The People" to indicate the 99% of us.
 
 
0 # tgemberl 2015-09-08 16:51
Thanks. But when a Black Lives Matter protester showed up at her rally, she did talk to him. I don't know if it's entirely true that she's ignoring the People.

I'd rather have Sanders or Warren than Clinton, too, but I will vote for Hillary if she's the Democratic nominee.
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2015-09-06 17:09
Thanks. That analogy was the actual strategy that my Dad and his buds used. Playing basketball in Chicago, his team of short Irish and Jewish kids developed that strategy when playing the very tall, mostly black kids from the Southside.

It won them the regional championship back in the Roaring Twenties, and became my model for both politics and business.

BTW: one of my Dad's team mates was Abe Saperstein, who founded (or at least transformed) the Harlem Globetrotters.
 
 
+5 # Kimc 2015-09-07 20:10
I would like to add something that most people don't think about. When you hear "so-ans-so spent ten million dollars on his campaign" we think about the cost, but we don't think much about who gets that money. A large portion of the money that gets spent in political campaigns goes TO THE MEDIA! Those six big corporations are making out like bandits on our money-influence d elections, so they have plenty of motivation to make sure it doesn't get changed. They are afraid that Bernie really will take the money out of politics and they would be the big losers in that.
If big media is afraid that Bernie would take the money out of politics, that's a good endorsement that he really would do it. Makes me like him more.
 
 
+1 # Merlin 2015-09-08 02:21
Kimc 2015-09-07 20:10
"A large portion of the money that gets spent in political campaigns goes TO THE MEDIA!"

Yup! The money goes from one pocket to the other. Donations to the candidates are spent with those who gave them the money. Tax write offs all around! "Donating" and "spending" are both illusions. Neither is true!

A similar illusion is the foreign aid that the government gives with the proviso the money must be spent with American firms supplying arms and equipment. So the money is essentially taxpayer money transferred to private industry.
 
 
+51 # tswhiskers 2015-09-06 13:29
I agree with you, Dr. Reich. I think part of the problem with the U.S. media is their sound-bite journalism. First it requires an informed journalist and the TIME to sufficiently explain a politician's stand on issues, and here the public is also a problem. The explanations of all platform issues must be done in the most basic terms because most of the public are not well informed on the issues. Second, the corporate media now charged with informing the public don't want many issues even mentioned, let alone seriously addresses by the media. MSNBC has just fired Ed Schultz and a few other of its anchors for taking a very strong stance on environmental issues, e.g. the XL pipeline and climate change. I think NBC and MSNBC are still owned by GE and GE and other corporations don't want their dirty laundry discussed on air. That is why I admire Greg Palast, who works for the Manchester Guardian, and other ex-pat journalists who need not fear for their jobs when reporting on examples of corporate polluting of the oceans and lakes. This raises the question of just how free the U.S. press really is. The press was much freer when we had family-owned papers. Corporations now control the press and are working hard to control govt. at all levels. Scary, hunh.
 
 
+4 # babalu 2015-09-07 09:11
sound-bite journalism! A "print" journalist scheduled a time to interview me and apologized for being late because she had to tweet a "breaking" story. Not only have the newspapers leveraged themselves so they had to fire reporters to service their purchase loans, they now expect writers for one media to cover multiple media! so, one story gets blasted around the web, while others are put off or ignored. They can write a longer, more detailed article, but have to constantly think how to boil down to 130 characters.
 
 
+30 # Carol R 2015-09-06 14:00
I believe that Bernie is slowly becoming known to the public. When he reaches a certain level the media will have to recognize that he is a force. At that time, the word socialist, with all its negative connotations, will become widely used.

Bernie is saying everything that will help average and poor Americans. He is consistent in his message. Corporations don't want him.

Meanwhile, Trump is being given headline news everyday. Hillary is also being given news but it usually is something negative. Trump is a clown who knows how to use the media for free coverage. Do corporations really want him to be President?
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2015-09-06 17:53
My impression is that it is not the corporate Republican who want Trump. It is the Teabaggers. Most of the corporate types want Bush and the Koch's have bought Walker. They have lost control of their base.
 
 
+36 # Santacruzer 2015-09-06 14:05
I believe it was Gandi who said "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you and then you win"
If such is the case we are in the first stage of being ignored. However since Gandi's time there is a new element in the equation namely social media where we can talk to each other over the head of the mainstream media. Already this has had such an effect that 70,000 people showed up on the west coast when Bernie was out here. Lets use use it. Post Bernie articles and videos on your Facebook wall, Tweet about him, be creative in finding different ways to spread his message and know that all it really takes is for a person to listen and watch anyone of his speeches or interviews because what he says and the sincerity of his message resonates with the ring of truth that we all can recognize.
 
 
+8 # wordly 2015-09-06 14:07
The situation might improve if editors insisted on comprehensive, well-researched stories and reporters declined to write for publications or broadcasts that warp their reports.
 
 
+34 # tswhiskers 2015-09-06 14:26
Reporters, like most of us who need our jobs, are cowards. And they do not work by free-lancing; they work FOR a particular paper and therefore must write the stories their editors and the editors' bosses want them to write or will allow them to write. This is NOT how a free press works; this how Izvestia works.
 
 
+28 # Blackjack 2015-09-06 14:07
Corporations now control public news, just as they control everything else. Add to that the fact that a good reporter must do good research on the subject about which he/she is reporting. Apparently, that has become just too much to ask of our sound-bite reporters, who appear to be giving most of the public what it wants--quick, easy-to-swallow pabulum.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2015-09-06 17:16
Are they giving us what we want, or are they propagandizing us to want what they give us?

Modern, scientific propaganda that incorporates brain chemistry and magnetic resonance imaging, psychology etc. is carefully crafted to reach us at subconscious levels.

They know how to make us respond favorably or in fear, and therefore they create our desires and revulsions.
 
 
+6 # Merlin 2015-09-06 20:28
Radscal 2015-09-06 17:16
Yes, this is why I have been saying that emotions will be the deciding factor in this election.

Note, just because the rich psychopaths have the control you speak of, does not rule out overcoming that pseudo power. I believe in People. We all have the same needs (food, clothing, shelter, sex and love.) We also, down deep, have the ability to see a phony when one is presented to us. We can see when we are being lied to and scammed. In short we all want the same things. And they are good things! That is why The People are in favor of the Liberal agenda, and to which Bernie speaks.

Sadly, we have not been presented with any real alternative over the last 50 years. The good politicians were “disappeared.” Now we finally have a politician in Bernie Sanders, who is real and not some shill for the banksters. He is appealing right to the heart of The People and stirring their emotions like no one else can now.

When The People are aroused, fear loses its potency! People become brave in the face of reality! There are tons of brilliant People in this country who, if aroused, can stop the crooked machinations where ever scams are being perpetrated. The solutions are already there, like paper ballots for instance. They just need to be implemented!

The problem has been a lack of powerful, brave leadership, to counter the TPTB and create a gathering point for The People. We have that leader in Bernie!

It is time to spit in the face of the TPTB!
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2015-09-07 12:13
Thank you for clarifying your call for an emotion-based campaign.

And yes, cross-cultural studies for more than a century show that all "normal" human beings have the same needs and wants, and they are overwhelmingly positive.

Which when one thinks about it, they'd have to be for a social species to have survived and thrived to the awesome degree ours has.
 
 
+33 # Anne Frank 2015-09-06 14:20
Rocket science, this ain't. You report what the oligarchs don't want to hear, you lose your job as a reporter. You allow into print (or on the air) something the oligarchs don't want to hear, you lose your job as an editor or anchor. It is not a matter of giving the public what it wants. It is a matter of giving the oligarchs who own the media what they want. As A.J. Liebling said, "Freedom of the press belongs to the man that owns one."
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2015-09-06 17:21
I saw a perfect example of this on Chris Haye's MS-DNC show near the end of the "pro-democracy Maidan protests."

He said that his automatic reaction is to side with (mostly young) people who were protesting against a corrupt and authoritative government, especially against riot police.

But then... and he showed videos of these "peaceful protesters" burning police alive, beating other protesters, starting arson fires, torch-lit marches carrying neo-nazi iconography, etc.

And he closed by saying he just didn't know what to make of this situation, but these protesters clearly weren't "Occupy Wall Street."

Well, the very next night, he was totally onboard with the "Putin is a madman" or "Putin is Hitler," meme. And never again mentioned the neo-nazi aspects of what would soon be the coup and terrorist attacks on civilians of the South and East of Ukraine.

Clearly, he got the memo.
 
 
+1 # Kimc 2015-09-07 20:34
We have noticed something interesting, especially in newspapers. Sometimes, there will be a headline with a right wing slant and then you read the story and the first paragraph or two go with the headline, but by the end of the story, especially the last paragraph, the story is completely contradicting the headline. We feel this is the way reporters are sneaking the truth out through the haze of money. The moral of the story is to read to the end.
 
 
+17 # Elroys 2015-09-06 14:22
I believe the answer is pretty clear - the mass media, wealthy elite and political class do not want Bernie, or for that matter, Donald. They are comfortable with folks like Hillary and Jeb, perhaps even someone like Marco. They are perceived as "normal." What these elite want is, "business-as-us ual" because that's how they make their fortunes, own and control the policy making apparatus of our nation, and prevent real change from happening. That's too scary for them. My hope is that Bernie will at least force or inspire Hillary to her more progressive roots. In an odd twist of fate, perhaps even Donald's call for higher taxes on the wealthy and his shockingly progressive economic pronouncements will also force / inspire Hilary to move her heart and policies to a more inspired and progressive place than where her husband left off - killing Glass-Steigal the result of which devastated the economy for the masses and made a few greedy MFrs extremely wealthy. One can always pray that there really is a place called "hope".
 
 
+15 # jimallyn 2015-09-06 15:39
Sorry to have to disappoint you, but there is nothing anybody can do that will force Hillary Clinton to the left. She's a Republican, she has always been a Republican, and she always will be a Republican. Her advisors may have talked her into spouting the progressive rhetoric, but her corporate owners know she doesn't mean it. If you don't want to see a Republican in the White House, my advice to you is to do everything in your power to ensure that Bernie Sanders is our next President.
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2015-09-06 17:27
"Bernie will at least force or inspire Hillary to her more progressive roots..."

Hillary has no progressive roots. She's been a corporatist/Wal l Street shill her entire adult life, and will use military, police and covert operations to enforce their will on those who resist anywhere in the world... including right here.
 
 
+9 # Merlin 2015-09-06 19:23
Ellioth 2015-09-06 14:22
“My hope is that Bernie will at least force or inspire Hillary to her more progressive roots.”

As both jimallyn and Radscal emphatically note above, sHillary has no Progressive roots. That is a myth based around her being part of “3 Dollar Bill’s” supposedly Liberal Presidency. As Radscal has also noted in previous posts here, she was a Goldwater Girl in the 1960s. Her supposed Liberal Roots are all image, and no reality. Liberal roots? Look at her record as SoS. Look at the Ukraine. Hope won’t help here!

If you want to “hope” about something, hope that the American People hear Bernie loud and clear!
 
 
+25 # Vardoz 2015-09-06 14:28
The fact that Bernie is being left out in the corporate media and Hillary is not tells one which side she is on and it's not the 99%. So we should understand that the corporate media pushes those who they want to support the Oligarchy and horrible inequality.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-leads-hillary-clinton-points-hampshire-poll/story?id=33570129
 
 
+12 # diamondmarge7 2015-09-06 14:37
As evidenced by the enthusiastic, huge crowds Sanders is saying what voters want to hear. A grassroots organization is not letting corporate hack jobs have their usual say;e.g. LTE re his August 21 SC TownHall:[pleas e see 2nd post below]:
 
 
+13 # PABLO DIABLO 2015-09-06 14:45
The MSM wants Hillary so that Jeb can win the presidency. Don't let that happen. Go Bernie, GO
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2015-09-06 17:59
Quoting PABLO DIABLO:
The MSM wants Hillary so that Jeb can win the presidency. Don't let that happen. Go Bernie, GO


Jeb seems to put his foot in his mouth every time he opens it. At this point it doesn't look like he can win the nomination much less the Presidency. Bernie could beat him, but so could Hillary.
 
 
+17 # xflowers 2015-09-06 14:55
I don't know what to do about the media. It's the same old, same old story. It's been going on like this for years. What's amazing and very exciting is that Bernie is able to get his message out in spite of the shallow reporting. That says something very important in multiple ways. 1) People who hear him or read him are excited enough about the real content of what he says to pass it along. 2) There are many other avenues now for them to get his message out in mass, particularly if it resonates with millions of people. It's called the internet. Whether you do what RSN does, or whether you comment, or blog it, or Facebook it, or twitter it, we've all got an audience now, not just the corporate press.
 
 
+13 # Old Uncle Dave 2015-09-06 15:32
You think it's bad now? Wait until after Iowa and New Hampshire. Watch for this phrase to be used extensively by all the networks: "Sanders, a socialist running as a Democrat..."
 
 
+1 # Hey There 2015-09-06 15:45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvvRkmmeFzo
Same idea--even if different subject news plays down.

Highlight link--right click--then left click on
go to.

Good post--Good replies
 
 
+4 # perkinsej 2015-09-06 15:46
Journalism these days is not meant to inform but to entertain. Got to get those good ratings.
 
 
+13 # Citizen Mike 2015-09-06 15:53
Yes, but the news and commentary websites like this one have become the "underground newspapers" of this generation and have instant mass distribution. Most of the Bernie supporters are getting their news and opinion online, not through MSM but through underground journalism. This is The Oracle and EVO for today's omliners.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2015-09-06 17:33
Thanks for the memory-tug.

We had the Chicago Seed.
 
 
0 # NM*Woman 2015-09-06 16:30
Robert Reich has oodles of articles on RSN and other places in which he makes numerous suggestions. Some of the commenters here have apparently missed those. I am a Bernie fan, but I am still distressed that so many are so down on Hilary -- she is a much better person than the powers that be and the disaffected left wing want to give her credit for being. The GOP is not going to do anything for the 99%, so we need to get behind anyone who can win the election -- don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. There is, in fact, no perfect candidate.
 
 
+9 # Radscal 2015-09-06 17:35
I can't speak for others, but I am "down on Hilary" (sic) because I've actually looked at her record as a Corporate Defense Lawyer, Senator and Secretary of State.

She tossed a few crumbs to the Democratic base, but almost entirely she has supported the corporate/Wall Street/Military Complex to the great suffering of hundreds of millions of real people.
 
 
-1 # Kimc 2015-09-07 20:20
She's still better than any Republican. I am going to vote for Bernie in the primary, but if Hillary becomes the candidate, I will vote for her over the Repub choice. She will appoint better Supreme Court Justices than any Repub.
But the congress is really more important to our laws than the President, so that is where we should be also putting energy.
 
 
0 # Bruce Gruber 2015-09-08 06:41
Me'thinks the oligarchy, nervous behind the militarized defenders of 'order', will quickly slip-slide to Biden as Hillary becomes more tarnished and shrillish. If he won't or can't transform the gender vote, the media will start making an O'Malley vs. Walker or Bush race more palatable for 'maintenance' purposes.

Bernie can win in any event, but their desperation will be exposed and Spring is in the air.
 
 
+6 # Merlin 2015-09-06 19:50
NM*Woman 2015-09-06 16:30
“I am still distressed that so many are so down on Hilary -- she is a much better person than the powers that be and the disaffected left wing want to give her credit for being.”

If she is this “much better person” as you believe, why do her actions not match that image? There is little difference in sHillary’s corporatism than that proposed by the .01%. Like Obama, she will be, (or rather will seem) better only by the degree in which she carries out the oligarchs orders.

My belief is that the oligarchs would rather have sHillary as President, because she would carry out their orders without raising the ire of The People. Obama, the greatest Trojan Horse The People ever dragged into their “compound,” will do more to get the TPP passed than any rethug (like McCain or Romney) would have. Look how “W” was shut down in his attempt to cash in on his “supposed” political capital in 2005, regarding the privatization of SS. He was crushed! Obama on the other hand, got Romneycare passed, (that rethug insurance plan devised in 1988), and tons of people love this insurance scam. Meanwhile where is Single Payer, THE real insurance plan? No need for that, right? Hey we have Obama…er Romneycare.

I don’t want another Trojan Horse dragged into The People’s compound. sHillary and the .01%ers in it, can stay outside and stew in their juices.

Vote Bernie and reject sHillary.
 
 
+1 # Bruce Gruber 2015-09-08 06:56
There are not many who are "down" on Hillary. Rather, she is perceived by most as 'normal'. She is the typical Democratic "establishment" candidate, doing the "establishment" game of expressing 'interest' in what the people 'say' in controlled, positive environments for 'ordinary' establishment media messages to show empathetic, 'hope' for change ... THAT SHE DOES NOT specifically define or offer as a demonstration of leadership, but rather as symptom of shared concern.

'Handled' and 'groomed' by the same old machine establishment that has 'worked' Humphrey, Mondale, Muskie, Kerry and Biden in the past, she has not caught the essence of progressive Democratic Party evangelists seeking a return to FDR principles - that were abhorred by that same plutocratic establishment that works both Party apparatus machines.

It is not that she is 'bad' ... it simply 'appears' that she is NOT independent as a LEADER on issues and policies. Instead she conveys a 'willingness' to follow what her 'advisers' determine is 'electable'.
 
 
0 # Nominae 2015-09-08 22:07
Quoting Merlin:


My belief is that the oligarchs would rather have sHillary as President, because she would carry out their orders without raising the ire of The People. Obama, the greatest Trojan Horse The People ever dragged into their “compound,” will do more to get the TPP passed than any rethug (like McCain or Romney) would have......

I don’t want another Trojan Horse dragged into The People’s compound.......


This *entire* post above is precisely the kind of trenchant and incisive analysis that admits of, and requires, no addition save a wholehearted and *fully* enthusiastic :

SECOND *THAT* !!
 
 
+5 # tgemberl 2015-09-06 16:46
I agree with Reich. I hate political reporting. If a candidate is behind in the polls, all reporters seem to want to talk about is "what did he do wrong?" So it has a kind of snowballing effect: once you start to slip in the polls, you slip all the more. More and more people assume you can't be a leader.

I seriously think it might be good if we outlawed political polling in America. It contributes nothing. It takes the focus off substantive issues and puts it on political success, which is not important.

Yes, I'd say eliminate polling and eliminate political advertising. Make every candidate post their statement on a web site. Candidates will rise in prominence by how many people find their statements interesting. That will lessen the power of money.

I realize polling is important to the professions of sociology and political science. But if we outlawed polling, they could stay busy analyzing the trends AFTER the election, the only poll that really matters.
 
 
+11 # MDSolomon 2015-09-06 18:02
The banking cartel owns the media, polls, and voting machines:

"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press. ... They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers.

"An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought ... an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding ... things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers." --U.S. Congressman Oscar Callaway, 1917

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. The business of the Journalist is to destroy truth; To lie outright; To pervert; To vilify; To fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals for rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." --John Swinton, former Chief of Staff, The New York Times, circa 1880
 
 
+11 # gdsharpe 2015-09-06 18:59
"I don't know for certain if Sanders really is a strongly progressive and moral official, or if he is serving as a heat-sink to draw revolutionary energy into the DNC."
Research his record. It will show that he is truly progressive but in a way that ends up making all participants happy. He also certainly seems to be one of a very, very few ethical politicians around.
 
 
0 # Vardoz 2015-09-06 18:59
http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html

Learn about our tax system and how the top pays almost nothing and in come cases nothing. This is unacceptable given that we have the most poor of any developed nation. This is why we are voting for Bernie and other Progressives in the house and senate IT NO TO CHANGE THE GAME.
 
 
+3 # Robbee 2015-09-07 14:07
"Today, after delivering a major policy address calling for an investment of $1 trillion over 5 years to modernize our country’s physical infrastructure, thereby creating and maintaining at least 13 million good-paying jobs while making our country more productive, Bernie happened to mention to a reporter that the Clinton campaign is getting nervous about his rising poll numbers. His comment about Clinton was all that was reported." - if, on labor day, bernie talks a trillion dollar program to fix infrastructure and nobody hears it, that sucks!

- today bernie learned a cute little lesson in politics - given half a chance the MSM will bury the lead! never talk hill! not when she's not your message! okay?

we need to give considerable attention to this very dilemma, on his campaign trail bernie mentions it often - that this election is about issues, not personalities, it's about peoples' lives and how we live them! okay!

reich recently wrote a story that ended with "Your thoughts", well media is important enough for us to devote time here!

merlin says that "bernie’s strategy of building a powerful grassroots support network was the only answer" - i say that most folks crave an informative media - i believe that a free media will report news - i believe that the murdocks, the kocks, ainsworth, bimbo, cannot drown media news - i believe that al jazeera america or cnn or moyers or maddow or krugman or reich or colbert or someone will satisfy our craving! go bernie!
 
 
+3 # Robbee 2015-09-07 14:27
ps: your words are too important to bury!

bernie, if MSM won't report what you say on labor day, give them hell! give the same speech, in front of a crowd of tens of thousands, at some labor-sponsored forum - in other words, force MSM to report your words, okay? blizzard the media! okay?

remember! people care you will employ $13 million workers for five years and fix our crumbling roads and bridges! people care!

ef 'em! the MSM! the donald saw "blood in the eyes" of a fox questioner! you've seen it, i've seen it! if the MSM can't take it, ef 'em! go bernie!
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN