Because someone seen as being “communist” (ie anyone to the left of Thatcher) is not going to get the necessary votes to beat Trump, look at the polling numbers.
Anyway, it’s immaterial, Sanders or Warren won’t get the nomination anyway.
Citing the media as being responsible for failure/success, isn't what happens, folk use the media to support their core beliefs.
It's what he doesn't offer, compared to what Sanders does, ie; unworkable socialist infused policies.
Going down the leftist route nowadays is political suicide, simply look around the rest of the world, and America
is not like the rest of the world, they simply won't have it.
Joe Scarborough calls out Trump's lies every morning on MSNBC.It depends.
IF the media decide that enough is enough, they do have the power to shape the narrative. It pains me to say this, but Fox News has the power to remove Trump from the White House in the next election if it so chose.
Scarborough is a bit of an odd one (he's a Dipper's fan for a start). Being a Republican, he kind of has some credibility, but he also likes the sound of his own voice. He also strikes me of a bit of an evangelical, which also shapes his views somewhat.Joe Scarborough calls out Trump's lies every morning on MSNBC.
However. Watching their coverage I could argue they are as Fox News in their anti Trump rhetoric as Fox are pro shitgibbon.
Scarborough is a bit of an odd one (he's a Dipper's fan for a start). Being a Republican, he kind of has some credibility, but he also likes the sound of his own voice. He also strikes me of a bit of an evangelical, which also shapes his views somewhat.
The rest of the MSNBC crowd seem almost restrained at times in comparison to Scarborough, and with Chuck Todd's attempts at sitting on the fence I'm surprised he doesn't get splinters on his arse.
Yeah but it’s like United are the most “supported club” in the UK.Could be wrong, but aren't Fox the most watched news programme?
I think CNN and NBC (MSNBC) have a big part to play. They are often fearful of reporting the truth, or they downplay the severity of Trump's actions to the degree that people just become numb to it.
Fox on the other hand play to his strengths, of for want of a better phrase 'preach to the converted'. There are journalists on Fox who are desperate to report it as it is, but the likes of Hannity and Carlson seem to have the upper hand with viewing figures (advertising revenue). I think once Fox starts to loose money, it could turn, but I won't hold my breath.
On another slightly concerning note:
What does BBC about it all mean?Scarborough has an ego issue. I'm getting sick of his songs being plugged in his show.
I agree about Todd. He's almost BBC about it all.
Nicole Wallace rips him apart and Maddow, albeit great researcher and tells a great story monologue reaches climax anytime there's a chance he could become undone.
I didnt mean which organisations print or say the most accurately or which may have the more clout. I just meant more broadly, and beyond this particular subject if there can be one, what constitutes 'msm' and what therefore constitutes 'non-msm' as I suppose it has to be called?