So, so Trump-like. Oy.
I've never seen or heard a hint of @jeffbezos interfering in @washingtonpost coverage, as @postbaron pointedly states here, responding to @SenSanders:https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/12/politics/bernie-sanders-washington-post/index.html …
-
-
-
As David Koch pays your salary to study phrenology, I presume you intend the comparison to Trump be a compliment?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Wow... Bernie really screwed the pooch on this one. I believe this is disqualifying. He can pull up a chair alongside Trump and the two can commiserate on how the Media is plotting against them. Sorry Bernie, but we already know what this looks like.
-
He's going to win
-
Only if he can change his style of communication. Right now he is barking at us... perhaps at the moon. We've had 3 years of that already.
-
He reminds me of my grouchy, irascible grandpa, and I like that. But I wouldn't ever have recommended my grandpa be president. Unfortunately, I don't think Bernie runs in any other gear.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Yikes, his comments sound familiar - disturbingly like trump.
-
Yeah Bernie mildly criticizing the corporate media is exactly like Trump calling them “the enemy of the people”
-
He can mildly criticize them all he wants. But what he’s doing is lying. He discredits negative press, accusing it of being bias or rigged or unfair, as if he’s a perfect candidate without flaws. He attacks women who say on TV they don’t like him. He just pushed a reporter.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
“You’ll never find a more attentive keeper of the henhouse than a fox,” Fox assures credulous farmer.pic.twitter.com/59tY40Qqig
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Bezos doesn't have to "interfere " the so called journalists already know the narrative. Just gross.
-
They would not be working for the Post if they were not already disinterested in any reporting that might go against Amazon interests
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
that’s not how influence works
-
Imagine thinking "corruption" of any kind has to be 100% out in the open, explicit, and proclaimed nakedly in front of the world for it to exist.
-
Like, this is literally the logic used by the SCOTUS in the objectively disastrous Citizens United case. This is the infamous line "independent expenditures do not lead to, or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption" etc etc It doesn't have to. It's still corruption!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is a central fiction of “objective” US journalism: papers pretend to have no worldview, and pretend that analysis can happen in some kind of assumption-free vacuum where you’re “uninfluenced”. Nobody actually believes it but it’s the party line
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.