Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumThe Wall Street Journal gets whacked: How its Bernie Sanders hit piece completely backfired
A provocative headline claims his proposals will cost taxpayers $18 trillion. Nonsense, says an Amherst professor
THOM HARTMANN, ALTERNET
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/24/the_wall_street_journal_gets_whacked_how_its_bernie_sanders_hit_piece_completely_backfired_partner/
(snip)
You see, the Wall Street Journal piece cited research by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. And there was just one small problem with their interpretation of his research. They blatantly omitted his conclusion.
(snip)
But in the age of information, major newspapers are rightfully under more scrutiny than ever. Professor Friedman saw the Wall Street Journals piece and responded in the Huffington Post with An Open Letter to the Wall Street Journal on Its Bernie Sanders Hit Piece.
He writes that the Journal wasnt completely wrong: the program would involve spending $15 trillion over a decade. But they left out the key detail: it would actually save the country a total $5 trillion over those 10 years. Wed see those savings in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by decreasing the rate of medical inflation.
(snip)
Unfortunately the Wall Street Journals analysis of Bernies proposals isnt just another routine example of shoddy corporate journalism. Its an example of how the corporate media tries to discredit and discard anyone who they cant control. And thats not just bad news for our political process. Its also bad news for the Fourth Estate, which really should at least try to be honest in its critique of policy issues.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)in a nutshell.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Yep, it's Satan.
think
(11,641 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)think
(11,641 posts)One thing just lead to another
daleanime
(17,796 posts)please don't copyright it.
NealK
(1,918 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)so a regretful people can return the favor.
NealK
(1,918 posts)Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)that buys these phone polls that we all wait eagerly for.
If their written propaganda doesn't brainwash us then their bought and paid for pollsters tell us who is winning and to just accept it. They trash and ignore internet real people polling because it clouds their control over the people.
They have bought and paid off our politicians, how hard do you think it is to bribe corporate and small university pollsters who govern themselves?
When their polls dictate who will win and then control the election counting they can stifle a people's uprising by pointing to those dictated matching poll results.
Let's keep pounding the pavement for Bernie.
Dustlawyer
(10,500 posts)say about journalism and how it is to be practiced.
TubbersUK
(1,439 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,746 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
aspirant
(3,533 posts)turbinetree
(24,757 posts)that this enterprise was and should be considered deeply involved with what transpired in the death of a thirteen year old girl in England.
They fired and have now re-hired the managing editor that tried to cover-up that murder and Murdoch was brought in for questioning, because he knew from the reporting, I find it remarkable that they re-hired her, when she was eye ball deep into the situation and Murdoch knew----------------that's what is so disgusting they knew and didn't do anything to help the parents or the police.
So if anything this man and his team of greed is just that nothing more, they have no principles and there morality is who buys of whom
And they consider themselves journalists and should be trusted------------------no thanks people have died under this team-------------I rest my case
Oh, by the way fix noise and the wall (toilet) paper journal:
Honk-------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016
WillyT
(72,631 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Doncha love how they try to make it sound like it's $18 trillion ON TOP OF the trillions we pay now?
Who buys into these sophomoric deceptions.... besides uneducated Teabaggers... who don't read the WSJ?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)There's a lot of 'blatancy' going on about Sanders. See it all over the place. Even on DU!
lostnfound
(16,208 posts)$15 trillion minus $5 trillion in savings for net cost of $10 trillion? It's still not clear to me from this article.
Maxinedaily
(32 posts)if If only he was fully against all these wars that arguing on. I haven't seen any serious discussion about our terrible foreign policy yet.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)smokey nj
(43,853 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)He has clearly and frequently talked about the disastrous Iraq and Afghan war, as well as the gulf war, and Vietnam just to name a few. And how he was against each from the outset.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)thesquanderer
(12,008 posts)It seems to me that it accomplished just what it intended to. AFAIK, there was no fallout of note for the WSJ, and I bet far more people saw the original report than saw any of the "corrections" elsewhere.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)let the people listen, and let the chips fall where they may. All that money they must have spent so far that has only gone to HELP the target of their smears.
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.