Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Press Is Finally Taking Bernie Sanders Seriously" video.

@golternator333 Ignore you, laught at you, fight you, purport to be like you (Medicare for XX maybe), fight dirty, then you win - and it won't be easy.
2
Ratings only count if the they have a subscription model (see HBO - but of course the bias of the rich owners still skews views and what they are allowed to cover) / Sure they want the views - because the advertisers want that. So if they get tons of views because of reporting that the audience appreciates - but NOT the advertisers / owners - the potential good ratings are worse than worthless for them. If a series on fracking would get them TONS of views they still would not air it. - They have to maintain a minimum of plausibility. (but that is a very low bar). For instance they cannot ignore Sanders when he wins the Iowa caucus. After the election 2016 Sanders got more chances for interviews (usually only the short ones) than when he had been a candidate. I guess they thought he wasn't dangerous anymore, the old man was done - and his impact in Senate was limited. useful for another angle of Trump dismissal (although Sanders did not fully deliver on that. He shortyl went though the motions - and then skipped to talking about the issues, always and without exception about healthcare). It became apparent that he continued to build the mass movement and to campaign for healthcare reform, and they were kind of torn. Sanders brought ratings and the appearance of journalistic impartiality but they did not want to give him too much exposure. Did the old man really consider to run again ?? This was when he kept getting the question if he considered to run for 2020, or if he was determined not to (Sanders did the I-can-neither-confirm-nor-deny routine, which kept also the audience engaged and suspension high - and also spared him very early snide coverage).
1
Money in policitics and campaigns that need to run lots of TV advertisements (or now on social media so that is interesting for the tech giants) are also extremely important. Many of the Billions end up being spent on TV advertisments. - Sanders is a threat to that business model as well. - in most countries the amount they can spend on TV ads or the campaigns in general is limited. The campaigns are shorter. But that would not be so much of an issue, if they could not buy their way in. They would need to have grassroots supports. And unions. And the media would see little of no of the money that is spent on the campaigns (it would go towards staff, rallies, ....).
1
Some outlets have been bought to shape public opinion (which is even more important than making money with ad revenue, although they try to combine that). Weapons manufacturers (or their investors) and big finance make a point of owning outlets (and not only in the U.S.). WaPo belongs to Jeff Bezoes owner of Amazon. - Sure Rupert Murdoch made his media empire of trashy newspapers and right wing TV channels very profitable (race to the gutter tabloide-style). But they also take care to guarantee certain election outcomes by influencing the voters and riling them up, and shifting the Overton window to the right / neoliberal stance (lower wages, no welfare state and cut taxes, divide and conquer tactics, anti immigration, anti Muslim, anti gay, ... does not really matter as long as "look over there" works with the resepctive audience). That wasn't necessary back in the day, but now with "democracy" and the unwashed masses having the vote and being allowed to run for office .... - gotta contain them somehow ! Bloomberg also does not directly profit from his massive campaing spending now (but it is tax deductible most likely). Nor does he want to or need to win - if he just can make sure that either Trump or a Corporate Democrat win he (and his ilk) are fine. Likewise the billionaires that buy media outlets could even afford to have them if they are not profitable. Media outlets are also megaphones for the Military Industrial Complex (that is why they have ads for Boeing, which do not have a consumer product). The TV network pays off even if they are less profitable, because the people owning them also are invested into war, weapons manufacturing, for-profit healthcare, ... a crooked financial system and economic order.
1