Home | About | Donate

PBS Decides What Debate Watchers Need Is More Talk From Pundits

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/12/21/pbs-decides-what-debate-watchers-need-more-talk-pundits

Nice article.
What should we expect from pro-corporation PBS and any of the major media outlets? Attacking the “socialist” policies like Medicare for All, taxing billionaires and corporations, reducing offense spending, eliminating college student debt and making college free, universal basic income, etc. etc that Warren and Sanders and other candidates like Yang have espoused is to be expected from the elite media gatekeepers. The corporations and the media that shapes public discourse on their behalf are only interested in economic “growth”, “profits”, and “power”, all of which are just illusions in this ever changing world. The corporate media propagandizes the American mind all in support of these apparitions of money and power that will soon become dust in the wind.


It would appear as if corporate underwriting is having its’ intended effect on PBS.


Question: In the Spin Room ( their term ) after the debate on PBS and, on CNN’s Pundit Panel, which two candidates were not interviewed? Or, chose not to be interviewed and take any more questions from the moderators and reporters in attendance, etc?
Answer: Sen. Sanders and former VP Biden.
Since the MSM including PBS, chooses to cover the Sanders primary campaign in a denigrating and dismissive manner, it’s pretty understandable why Sen. Sanders was a no-show. Really, who needs the abuse and derogatory framing sure to come from a Bash or a Desjardins?
This political piling on, this interference by the MSM is happening, even though the % aggregate of almost all polls shows Sen. Sanders in 2nd place, nationally. The polls also show Sen. Sanders defeating President Trump in 2020, outside the margin of error, in some instances. ( Along with VP Biden. )
Yes, Bernie is winning on his policies and, trustworthy and sincere character, too. What a refreshing combination in these times. What reputable person, including professional journalists, wouldn’t want to interview and discuss this development in a serious and substantive manner?
Answer: None of the professional journalists who covered this event. Who, we are led to believe, know what their role is in these settings. And, their role is not to be professional antagonists and obvious naysayers, btw.
So, where was VP Biden after this debate? He’s the front runner, supposedly. Even though this means Joe is the choice of only 28-30% of primary voters, currently. And, he has certainly received the press coverage that position rightfully garners. As it has historically and, certainly should, in an open primary contest with no incumbent.
VP Biden appears to be employing either the inevitability or, the hide and seek strategy, at this juncture in the primary. At 28-30% though, this is quite a risky political strategy with the contests still about 50-60 days away. What reputable person, including professional journalists, wouldn’t want to interview and discuss this strategy in a serious and substantive manner?
Answer: None of the professional journalists covering this event.
Just why is that, anyway?


Hi mesannhitts:

I was confused about the meaning of PBS, as I thought PBS stood for Public. Broadcasting System. Apparently it stands for Poor Beleaguered Suckers----where “news,” has been exchanged for"views." I expect that behavior from the BIG media–but then----- if the repeaters of what is said to be truth can only repeat without questioning-------then that FREE PRESS idea is slipping away faster than "We are the Greatest Nation in the World-----hmmm add the word FIBBER after greatest—and I think we have a winner for our lost press, but a loser for the People.


Poor Beleaguered Suckers has a very nice ring to it. Much like many cell phones at X-mas/New Years time it has warm, seasonal and cheery song naturally attached to it. I’m thinking, Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer, here.
I wonder which journalist at PBS is tasked with picking up on that and saying, " Who? Sen. Sanders? Who? Never heard of him. You know, this number is on the Federal Do Not Call List Registry and the hotline at the Homeland Security Adm. too. So, take that into consideration. Understand? Now please go away. "

1 Like

Hi mrsannhitts:

As funny sounding as, “grandma and the reindeer” sounds --we actually don’t need any more pundits. They are getting stale---------so let’s ship them off to all the wars and have them give their viewpoint and see what happens when the bought and sold press has to deal with angry, and hey------maybe meat eating reindeer! : )

Politico was all in for Hillary in 2016. They hated Bernie then; they still do.

Politico is one of the many voices of establishment Democrats.

It’s not just the MSM that one needs to remain skeptical of; much of the so-called progressive media are establishment sources as well. (HuffPo, Raw Story, AlterNet, The Guardian very much so. Truthdig, perhaps less so. I truly regret the loss of The Atlantic, in particular. It was a delightful place to go for a long time.)

Consortium News seems generally reliable.


Any American voter who expects “honesty” and “balance” from PBS is smoking some good weed. Go back to the First Persian Gulf War and see how PBS jumped into bed back then with the lies and the “flash/bang” projection of the slaughter with the same generals that the major networks were “using”.
Disgusting. Haven’t watched them for “news” since.

1 Like