Jump to content
270soft Forum
admin_270

Was NBC gaming the debates?

Recommended Posts

Guest

The candidates in the lead are largely there because of name ID. Which to a degree is because of cable news.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

The candidates in the lead are largely there because of name ID. Which to a degree is because of cable news.  

Sure, but cable news is also led by name ID.  I went to school for communications.  One of the things that determines how "newsworthy" something is, is whether the people involved are well-known.

If I spill my drink all over myself, that's not going to be on the news.  Same for Yang.  If Biden does it, it's a "gaffe."  It cuts both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

Well...no.  Their “vesting”, to the point that it exists, is just in selling ad time.  That was already accomplished before the debates began.

Seriously.  You think there’s a wide conspiracy against, say, Yang who doesn’t even have any ideas beyond give everyone $1k...but NOT against Bernie Sanders who was treated perfectly fairly and has far wider range of wealth redistribution ideas?

Why?

Who are you imaging is pulling these magical strings?

Are they also the same people who are falsifying literally all of the polls from all of the polling places, ALL putting Yang’s support at a whopping 1% at BEST?

WHO WOULD EVEN BOTHER.

Seriously, some of you have got to get your heads out of your asses and actually acknowledge that reality is a thing that exists.

To be fair, though not trying to flair up a vicious fight again, but just to point out recent counter-examples, it COULD be said the Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 and Bernie Sanders in 2016, who did have a popular following and message for a while in straw polls and good receptions at rallies and debates, were marginalized by party primary machines in a way that was VISIBLE. And both had messages that an "American Establishment" - whether hooded figures around a darkened Illuminati table, or just party high party functionaries in a room frustrated by DC anti-smoking laws - could be seen as finding repugnant and a real "problem" if allowed to get a nomination. Think of Paul and Sanders' platforms, and remember how they're supported made much more complaint of cheated Primaries than any other defeated candidate in those election cycles. I'm just pointing this out, and not desiring a vicious fight, but trying to show my beliefs are not ENTIRELY based on irrational Chomsky, Icke, and Bannon material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

To be fair, though not trying to flair up a vicious fight again, but just to point out recent counter-examples, it COULD be said the Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 and Bernie Sanders in 2016, who did have a popular following and message for a while in straw polls and good receptions at rallies and debates, were marginalized by party primary machines in a way that was VISIBLE. And both had messages that an "American Establishment" - whether hooded figures around a darkened Illuminati table, or just party high party functionaries in a room frustrated by DC anti-smoking laws - could be seen as finding repugnant and a real "problem" if allowed to get a nomination. Think of Paul and Sanders' platforms, and remember how they're supported made much more complaint of cheated Primaries than any other defeated candidate in those election cycles. I'm just pointing this out, and not desiring a vicious fight, but trying to show my beliefs are not ENTIRELY based on irrational Chomsky, Icke, and Bannon material.

You're talking about parties.  Not news stations.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

You're talking about parties.  Not news stations.  

The news stations have well-known party biases. No one even denies it anymore. And certain news stations thus naturally cover certain party's debates. Fox does not typically cover a Democratic debate, nor CNN a Republican one (not to knowledge - and if it does happen, it's probably a PR stunt, frankly). The networks are run by corporates and news managers who are not devoid of devoid of political agendas, thus. And, at that level of influence, and having the privilege of hosting, they probably are on a "odd lunch and formal function basis" with DNC and RNC members respectively. This type of reciprocity is NOT a conspiracy - it's how the world works, and it's a well-known process. In fact, Trump calls it "the Art of the Deal."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

The news stations have well-known party biases. No one even denies it anymore. And certain news stations thus naturally cover certain party's debates. Fox does not typically cover a Democratic debate, nor CNN a Republican one (not to knowledge - and if it does happen, it's probably a PR stunt, frankly). The networks are run by corporates and news managers who are not devoid of devoid of political agendas, thus. And, at that level of influence, and having the privilege of hosting, they probably are on a "odd lunch and formal function basis" with DNC and RNC members respectively. This type of reciprocity is NOT a conspiracy - it's how the world works, and it's a well-known process. In fact, Trump calls it "the Art of the Deal."

Actually, the parties have refused to have debates on those stations -- it's not the stations refusing the parties.  

But now we have to come back to WHY would they intentionally ignore people like Yang, outside of the reality that Yang is a nobody with no chance of winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

Actually, the parties have refused to have debates on those stations -- it's not the stations refusing the parties.  

But now we have to come back to WHY would they intentionally ignore people like Yang, outside of the reality that Yang is a nobody with no chance of winning.

I may have overreacted personally about Yang, because he was one of few candidates I, myself, had taken any liking to. BUT the precedent of such treatment I based more "radical" primary candidates on, such as Paul and formerly, in 2016, Sanders, does APPEAR to be an extant thing that happens from time to time, even if I potentially brought it up in error around Yang based on my personal bias. I'm willing to admit part of my whole message may have been incorrect there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

I may have overreacted personally about Yang, because he was one of few candidates I, myself, had taken any liking to. BUT the precedent of such treatment I based more "radical" primary candidates on, such as Paul and formerly, in 2016, Sanders, does APPEAR to be an extant thing that happens from time to time, even if I potentially brought it up in error around Yang based on my personal bias. I'm willing to admit part of my whole message may have been incorrect there.

Fair enough, and I appreciate the measured response, but then we're back to talking about parties -- not news stations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Fair enough, and I appreciate the measured response, but then we're back to talking about parties -- not news stations.

As I said above, I believe there's favours given and favours received, as the term goes, between media moguls and the DNC and RNC. While my previous posts may have exaggerated that relationship, I believe it still exists and is still there, to some degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

To end the primary process as fast as possible. 

Does that sound like something the news industry wants to do?  

Why?

If you've ever watched a minute of news, you don't see a lot of stories about people getting along.  CONFLICT drives the news.  They WANT opposing sides to every story.  

Right now, people are tuning in to the news to watch the primaries play out.  If it just becomes a coronation instead of a competition, viewer numbers will drop off dramatically.

You are proposing that they are intentionally harming their own income, out of...what?  Boredom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

Does that sound like something the news industry wants to do?  

Why?

If you've ever watched a minute of news, you don't see a lot of stories about people getting along.  CONFLICT drives the news.  They WANT opposing sides to every story.  

Right now, people are tuning in to the news to watch the primaries play out.  If it just becomes a coronation instead of a competition, viewer numbers will drop off dramatically.

You are proposing that they are intentionally harming their own income, out of...what?  Boredom?

I'll take it a step farther.  Most news stations are owned by, or at least operated in partnership with, broadcasting companies.  Broadcasting companies make a FORTUNE in advertising from presidential candidates -- and this election has more candidates buying advertising than ever before.  

You think they want this to end tomorrow?

I'll bet if they had the ability, they'd encourage 50 more candidates to join the race with those sweet, sweet advertising dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I just clicked on the CNN mobile home page. I stopped counting at 50, none of those first 50 stories mentioned the democratic primary.  None.  However the first 6 stories all had Trump in the title.  The cash cow is in the White House.  They want to get to a 1 on 1 scenario as quick as possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

I just clicked on the CNN mobile home page. I stopped counting at 50, none of those first 50 stories mentioned the democratic primary.  None.  However the first 6 stories all had Trump in the title.  The cash cow is in the White House.  They want to get to a 1 on 1 scenario as quick as possible. 

That's today.  All six stories are different angles about Trump's July 4th extravaganza.  That wasn't the case yesterday, when it was Harris vs. Biden (debate) and Buttigieg vs. Sanders (fundraising).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...