>>THE WASHINGTON POST APPEARS TO HAVE GIVEN UP ON THAT WHOLEJOURNALISM THING. NOW THEY ARE JUST MAKING STUFF UP. THEYPUBLISHED THIS ARTICLE EARLIER TODAY, WE WANT TO SHOW YOU THEFRONT PAGE, SAYING THAT BERNIE BROS ARE OUT IN FULL FORCEHARASSING FEMALE REPORTERS. YOU MIGHT SAY WHAT IS WRONG WITHTHAT? THAT IS A PICTURE OF BERNIE. THAT IS NOT THE RIGHTGRAPHIC, THAT IS MY FAULT. WAS ORIGINALLY IN THE IMAGE WAS APICTURE OF THE WOMAN WHO HAD BEEN EGGED IN SAN JOSE BY BERNIESANDERS SUPPORTERS, SHE IS DUCKING HER HEAD AND SHE HAS EGGIN HER HAIR AND SHE IS RUNNING AWAY. BUT THE HEADLINE IS,BERNIE BROS ARE HARASSING FEMALE REPORTERS. SO SOME CRAZY PEOPLETHOUGHT MAYBE THERE WAS A LINK BETWEEN THE PICTURE AND THEHEADLINE. SO THEY ADDED THIS ONCE THEY CHANGED THE PICTURE -->>COME ON, MAN. COME ON. >>IT GETS WORSE. FIRST OFF, ON JOHN'S POINT, YOU CLAIM TO BE AREPORTER AND YOU DIDN'T CHECK TO SEE IF YOU HAD THE RIGHTPICTURE?>>IDIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT PICTURE IN THAT GRAPHIC, SO GLASS HOUSES. >>IF YOU ARE REPORTER YOU CHECK TO SEE IF THAT WOMAN IS AREPORTER IF YOU ARE GOING TO CLAIM SHE IS A REPORTER. HOW DOYOU WRITE A STORY AROUND THAT IDEA, AND THEN YOU ARE LIKE, IDON'T KNOW, LET'S JUST PICK THIS PICTURE. SHOULD ANYBODY CHECK IFSHE IS A REPORTER? NO. >>THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHAT WAS IN THE PICTURE. AT THE END OF THEARTICLE THEY SAY -- THEY START SMEARING CENTER SUPPORT FOR ALLSORTS OF THINGS. THEY SAY -->>OF COURSE THEY PROVIDE NO EVIDENCE THAT THOSE WERE BERNIESANDERS SUPPORTERS WHO DID THOSE ATTACKS. WE BELIEVE THEY WERELIBERALS, THEY WERE PROBABLY DEMOCRATS, WE HAVE NO REASON TOBELIEVE THEY ARE BERNIE SANDERS FANS. BUT BY PUTTING THAT AT THEVERY END OF THE ARTICLE, THEN THEY CAN SAY THAT'S WHAT WE WEREILLUSTRATING WITH OUR THUMBNAIL FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE, THEHEADLINE FOR WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PICTURE. >>THAT WAS THE SECOND POINT I WAS GOING TO GET TO, JOHN, WHICHIS EVERYBODY, ESPECIALLY THIS ARTICLE, ASSUMES THAT THE PEOPLEWHO DID THE ATTACKS IN SAN JOSE WERE BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTERS. BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE? WE SHOWED YOU THE VIDEO, THEY LOOKLIKE A COUPLE OF DUDES FROM SAN JOSE. THEY HAVE NO BERNIEPARAPHERNALIA, THEY NEVER SAID THEY WERE FOR BERNIE SANDERS,AND I SAID IT WHEN WE COVERED THE STORY, I'M NOT EVEN SURETHEY WERE VERY POLITICAL. IT LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE MAINLYPISSED AT TRUMP'S ATTACKS AGAINST LATINOS. WHY DO I ASSUMETHAT? BECAUSE THEY WERE CARRYING MEXICAN FLAGS. I DENTAL PROBLEMWITH THE FLAGS, I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE ATTACKS, AND I HAVETROUBLE WITH YOU CLAIMING THEY WERE BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTERSWHEN YOU MADE THAT UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH. THEY HAVE GIVEN UPALL PRETENSE. NOW YOU DIVE INTO THE ARTICLE AND IT GETS WORSE. HERE'S A QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE, IF THERE IS A TROPHY FOR BADBEHAVIOR, BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTERS APPEAR HELL-BENT ONTAKING IT FROM DONALD TRUMP'S. BASED ON WHAT?>>THEY ARE THE SAME, BERNIE, TRUMP. CHOCOLATE, P BUTTER. SAME THING. >>AT TRUMP RALLIES PEOPLE GET PUNCHED AND ATTACKED BY A MOB,RACIST CHANTS GO UP. AT BERNIE SANDERS RALLIES THEY CHANT BERNIE, BERNIE. >>EARNING THINGS?>>AND IN THE QUOTE THAT JOHN READ, AT THE NEVADA CONVENTIONALL THESE TERRIBLE THINGS HAPPENED. NO THEY DIDN'T, YOUNEVER PROVE THAT ANYONE THREW A CHAIR, THERE WERE NO ARRESTS OREVIDENCE OF VIOLENCE, BUT YOU KEEP SAYING BECAUSE YOU ARE NOTA JOURNALIST, YOU ARE HELL-BENT ON SMEARING BERNIE SANDERS ANDHIS SUPPORTERS AND YOU WILL DO IT NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCEIS. DAMN THE FACTS. AND YOU WONDER WHY PEOPLE DON'T TRUSTTHE MEDIA ANYMORE. IT IS NOT JUST BECAUSE CONSERVATIVES SAIDTHEY HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS, IT IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE ANESTABLISHMENT BY US AND THEY CAN'T SEE STRAIGHT. AND THISARTICLE IS SO BAD I NORMALLY SAY THEY DON'T REALIZE HOW BIASEDTHEY ARE, THIS GUY MIGHT KNOW. THIS GUY SEEMED FAR MOREMALICIOUS THAN OTHER ONES WE HAVE POINTED OUT. BECAUSE THENWE GET TO THE THIRD EGREGIOUS PART OF THIS ARTICLE. REMEMBERTHE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER WHO ASKED TO SANDERS AT A RALLY, HERNAME IS YAMICHA ALCINDOR, IS IT SEXIST TO REMAIN IN THE RACEAGAINST HILLARY CLINTON? AND BERNIE, I BELIEVE JUSTIFIABLY,SAID IS THAT A SERIOUS QUESTION? CAN I RUN AGAINST CARLY FIORINA?CAN ANYONE RUN AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON?I THINK IT IS THE MOST LOGICAL QUESTION EVER ASKED. >>IT WAS SEXIST OF OBAMA TO BEAT HER. >>AND THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER SAID SHE'S GOT THEDELEGATE LEAD, SO --OKAY, A QUESTION ABOUT THE DELEGATE LEAD IS FAIR. BUT IDON'T KNOW WHY YOU ARE CONNECTING IT TO THE SEXISM. SOTHIS WRITER TURNS AROUND AND SAYS, SANDERS HIMSELF GOT INTO ATESTY EXCHANGE WITH A FEMALE TIMES REPORTER, AND SANDERSINITIALLY CUT ALCINDOR OFF BEFORE SHE COULD FINISH HERQUESTION. THEN THERE IS NO WINNING. >>THAT IS THE TRAP. >>I THINK THIS GUY IS SO MALICIOUS THAT HE KNOWS THE TRAPHE IS LAYING. BY THE WAY, ANYBODY CAN DO THIS. THEY AREJUST CHOOSING TO DO IT TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO BERNIE SANDERS. HERE, I WILL SET UP A TRAP THAT WE COULD DO IF WE WERE EQUALLYMALICIOUS, BUT WE DON'T, AND THAT IS WHY THIS IS AN UNEVENPLAYING FIELD, BECAUSE BERNIE SANDERS OPPONENTS ARE MALICIOUSAND HIS SUPPORTERS ARE LIBERALS. HERE'S A TRAP YOU CAN SET, IT ISANTI-SEMITIC OF ALL THESE REPORTERS WHO ARE UNCOMFORTABLEWITH A JEWISH CANDIDATE DOING SO WELL, I WONDER WHY THEY ARE SODEAD SET AGAINST A JEW BECOMING THIS POWERFUL. AND THEN WE HADOUR REPORTER, JORDAN, ASK HILLARY IF SHE WAS ANTI-SEMITICFOR RUNNING AGAINST THE HISTORIC CAMPAIGN OF BERNIE SANDERS, ANDSHE GOT A LITTLE TESTY. BUT JORDAN IS JEWISH. >>SHE GOT INTO A TESTY EXCHANGE WITH A JEWISH REPORTER. >>IT ONLY PROVES HOW ANTI-SEMITIC SHE IS. >>IS THAT THE POLITICAL SYSTEM WE WANT TO HAVE QUEST WEDON'T WANT THAT. >>THAT SEEMS LIKE A PREPOSTEROUS EXAMPLE -- THAT IS LITERALLYWHAT THEY'RE DOING TO BERNIE SANDERS BUT ON A FEMALEQUESTION. A FEMALE ASKS IF YOU ARE SEXIST, YOU THOUGHT THAT ISWEIRD, BUT IT IS SEXIST FOR YOU TO DO IT AGAINST A FEMALEREPORTER. IF YOU DO THAT WITH ANTI-SEMITISM IS UGLY ANDHORRIBLE BUT IT IS ALSO BAD WHEN YOU DO IT WITH SEXISM INTHIS CASE. >>AND IT MINIMIZES THE REAL SEXISM THAT SHE WILL FACE ANDHAS ALREADY FACED, THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS, AND YOU ARE CLOUDING THEISSUE BY IMPLYING THAT EVERYTHING THAT EVERHAPPENS TO HER IS SEXIST. >>AND AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE HE COMES BACK TO THE STANDARDLINES, WHICH IS, WHILE THIS HAS BEEN AN UNDENIABLY IMPRESSIVECAMPAIGN -- WHAT? FIRST OF ALL, A PAT ON THE HEAD. SECOND OFALL, THE WASHINGTON POST FAMOUSLY DENIED HOW IMPRESSIVETHE CAMPAIGN WAS. 16 HEADLINES IN 16 HOURS IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIMPRESSIVE CAMPAIGN. WHEN HE HAD A GREAT CHANCE TO WIN, NOT NOW,WHEN HE HAD A CHANCE TO WIN, THEY WERE LIKE, HE IS NOTHING, ALOSER, WHY DOESN'T HE GET OUT OF THE RACE? SOCIALIST. WHAT ISWRONG WITH THEM, ETC. AND NOW THEY ARE LIKE, IT WAS UNDENIABLYIMPRESSIVE. PAT ON THE HEAD. NOW THEY SAY HE HAS TO MAKE SURETHERE IS NO MORE HOOLIGANISM LIKE THIS. YOU GUYS ARE THE SAMEPEOPLE WHO ATTACKED HIM FOR BEING THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOROF OUR LIFETIMES. SO WHICH ONE IS IT? HE DOESN'T KNOW WHEN TOGO TO WAR, HE IS NOT PRAGMATIC AND PRACTICAL. YOU HAVE TO DROPBOMBS AND KILL PEOPLE IF YOU ARE PRESIDENT. HOOLIGAN, HOW DAREYOU OPPOSE THE ESTABLISHMENT? MAKE UP YOUR MIND. THIS WAS AHATCHET JOB, AND OTHER STUFF IS UNCONSCIOUS BIAS, IT LOOKEDLIKE THIS WAS CONSCIOUS.
No comments :
Post a Comment