Congratulations! Your comment on Amy Goodman on CNN: Trump gets 23x the coverage of Sanders has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Well, that quite effectively negates the rule.
There should be no exception/exemption, because, as Drumpf has proven clearly and incontrovertibly, it's simple and easy to game those rules and get billions worth of free coverage just by consistently saying something insane daily.
Also, the exemptions on their face negate the spirit of the law, as it clearly favors the craziest, best connected, and/or most popular candidates to the exclusion of less popular, less connected, and/or less crazy candidates. Why bother enacting the law at all if the exemptions it contains negate it thoroughly?
That sucks.

Your video, Amy Goodman on CNN: Trump gets 23x the coverage of Sanders, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Holy crap! I just saw that the NY Times has studied TV coverage, and Trump has been given free coverage that would have cost almost $2 BILLION if he paid for the air time like other candidates have to. In fact, he's received almost exactly the same amount of free air time as ALL the airtime, both free coverage and paid air time, for ALL OTHER CANDIDATES COMBINED!
That's insane, both for the unequal treatment and the idea that this election will end up having $4 BILLION worth of TV coverage soon, with lots more to come.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html?_r=0

*promote the media's obvious absolute bias against Sanders and their continuing attempt to sabotage his campaign by not covering it at all.
On the 'second super Tuesday' when it looked like he might win 2 states, I watched every channel report that Clinton won 3 states, and that's it, never once mentioning the other two states, or even saying the name "Bernie Sanders". I'm not sure how they get away with that, there's a law requiring equal coverage that's being completely ignored by all parties.
This election has been so incredibly outrageous, I've never seen such criminal actions ignored or even lauded by those claiming to love the country. Stupid know nothing cheerleaders that exaggerate their opponents flaws and ignore their own shouldn't be allowed to participate.

It just took me 16 minutes of watching an inspirational video about the accidental discovery or re-growing skin and how it's helping children with huge amounts of burn coverage on their body to make me feel good about humanity.

It took 18 seconds of this video to make me forget that feeling.

Kudos.

@Jinx

hey thanks for keeping this conversation going and not just making assumptions and allowing us both to come to a better understanding.

though i am not really surprised,i am gladdened.

in my opinion,i think this situation may be a problem with indentifying with labels and maybe putting too much weight on them to convey complicated and complex human interactions.

i would call myself a social justice warrior,but i would never identify as those who behave is the extremists do.but to imply that the responsibility is on ME,or any other critic,to redefine these radical social justice warriors as somehow not being representative of the majority,is a false dynamic,because that is how they define themselves.

basically the "No true scotsman" fallacy.which is employed ad-nauseum by these extremists.that somehow if you do not adhere to their radical agenda you are somehow not qualified to label yourself:feminist,anarchist (this has been directed at me),socialist, etc etc.

this is just a silly and binary way of breaking down peoples complex human perceptions and understandings to fit a narrow,and restrictive narrative,in order to achieve an agenda.

so while we all viewed GW bush's "if you're not with us,you're against us",as an inane and utterly stupid statement.how come there is little push back when the EXACT same tactic is used to silence someone who may not be 100% on board with a certain agenda?

does me posting this video automatically translate to me being "anti-social justice warrior"?

of course not! that is just silly,but in todays climate that is exactly how some people view complex situations,and it HAS to stop!

you brought up police.
good.
lets use that as an example.
the fact the americas militarized and dysfunctional police force has accounted for more police shootings than soldiers have died in iraq.do we REALLY need to be told that it is not ALL cops.

of course not.again,that is silly but it DOES mean that maybe there is a problem within the institution that needs to be addressed.

here is a perfect case for social justice warriors to bring this corruption and rot to the surface,and here we have black lives matter.which is receiving mixed coverage in the media,but they have gotten people talking and even some incremental reforms in the woks AND,just recently..6 cops fired from a cleveland precinct for shooting civilians.this is where social justice warriors are not only necessary but vital!

but what if.....

those cops who were feeling threatened,or intimidated by the criticism and examination of their institution coming from black lives matters decided to use a tactic right out of these extremists playbook?

maybe some doxxing?
exposing personal information about the protesters?
how about a few false accusations of rape?
maybe personal harassing calls to friends and family members of the black lives matter movement?
how about some false charges of harassment and sexual discrimination?

that would effectively shut down the black lives matter movement within weeks,and how would we respond to that kind of underhanded tactics?

we would be outraged.
we would be furious at the absolute abuse of power.a power bestowed by the state.

and our outrage would be justified.

do you see where i am coming from here?

in the example i have given,which may or not be the best analogy.we can easily see the abuse of power as a form of bullying to get a group that is a dissenting ideology..to shut..the fuck..up.

freedom of speech is NOT just speech you or i agree with,or happen to support,but it also speech that we may dislike,disagree and even find offensive.

but by allowing those we dislike or disagree to say their piece,allows us and everybody else to examine,discern and ultimately discard as ridiculous.or,converesly,find some merit that was previously hidden from us,due to our lack of knowledge or understanding.

i realize i am reiterating my previous point,but i think it is so very important.

free speech allows the free flow of ideas and dialogue and allows good ideas to be absorbed into the body politic and the bad ones discarded into the trash bin.

but there MUST be the allowance of the free flow of thought!

so when i post a video such as this i am not ridiculing actual socially conscious people.i am exposing bad ideas,supported by narrow minded people who wish to impose THEIR sense of how a society should be and attempt to circumvent the very slow process of discussion,argument and debate by hijacking the conversation and shutting down all dissent and disagreement with the most fascist tactics possible.

up until a month ago i was fairly ignorant to things like gamergate and whatnot.i thought i had a pretty fair understanding of what a social justice warrior was,and even included myself as one.

but then,quite by accident,i fell upon a few stories that highly disturbed me.one ,in particular was the case of greg allen elliot who was being criminally prosecuted for harassment on twitter.

now the case was finally resolved,and elliot was found not guilty.
so hooray for justice right?
free speech won in the end right?
or did it...did elliot actually win?
i am not so sure.

you see.
he was a web designer.
and once he was charged 3 years ago,he was banned from any internet use.so effectively he was jobless.
on top of that his defense cost 100k.
sounds like a loss to me.

now let us examine stephanie guthrie.a prominent toronto feminist and tedtalk speaker:
1.she made the accusation of harassment and brought the charges.
2.even though this all started with a man who created a game where anita sarkesians faced was punched,and was the supposed imetus for all this fuss,guthrie never laid charges against the creator of the game.though she did,along with her followers harassed and bullied this man until he closed down his account.so chock one up for feminism? i guess?
4.what guthrie found so reprehensible about elliot was that he had the audacity to question guthries rage and called for a calm interaction.(mainly because there are literally 100's of face-punching games).
5.guthrie and her followers found this call for calm offensive and doxxed elliot and proceeded to harass his employer,his family and ffirends.
6.elliot lost his job.his employer could not handle the harassment.so feminist win again? i guess?
7.when guthrie blocked elliot on twitter she continued to publicly accuse him of misogyny,bigot and even a pedophile.
8.she then brought accusations against elliot for criminal harassment,and that she "felt" harassed.
9.guthrie has paid ZERO for her accusations.she has suffered no accountability nor responsibility.

now the court case is over,and elliot has been vindicated and free speech is still in place for today.

but lets look at the bigger picture.
and let us imagine how easily this situation could be abused.
can we really look at guthrie vs elliot as ANY form of justice? or is it MORE liekly that guthrie was abusing a court system to punish a man she happened to disagree with?with ZERO consequences.

now maybe you agree with guthrie.
maybe you are one of those people that believe in your heart that words are weapons and people should be held accountable for those words.they should be stripped of wealth,work and home..they should be punished.

ok.
thats fine.
maybe you agree because it is a matter you support?
a racist pig loses a job for saying racists things.
or a bigot gets kicked out of his apartment for being a bigoted asshole.

but how about this..
hypothetically:
a devout chritian woman is protesting an abortion clinic with her children in tow.

and lets say a pro-choice atheist comes over to her and starts to berate her i front of her children.ridiculing her for her beliefs and saying jesus was a zombie.that she is a horrible person for believing in such a tyrannical deity,that this so-called all-loving entity punishes all no-believers in a lake of fire for all eternity.that as a mother,teaching her children to worship such a god is tantamount to child abuse.berating her so badly that her children begin to cry?

now what if that interaction was filmed?
then posted to youtube?
what if a "social justice warrior" of the religious flavor decided that berating person needed to pay for his words?
what if that person got doxxed?
and the end result was he loses his job (because corporations are notoriously controversy allergic),and maybe his landlord is notified and he is kicked out of his apartment?

would you be ok with all that?
because that is the EXACT same metric that radical social justice warriors use!

and what about false accusations?
you dont even have to be actually offended and /or harassed,you just have to accuse and the rest takes care of itself.

are you ok with that kind of creative abuse?

so when i bring things like this to the forefront and attempt to expose the underlying idiocy.what i just wrote is where i am coming from.

and yes.these radicals and their underhanded tactics need to be exposed and all the attention brought to them the better.

why? because what and how they are behaving is anti-democracy anti-freedom and anti-liberty.

and i am all for debating specific issues,and will gladly do so..with glee,but i will not and cannot respect what the radical elements are doing to an otherwise worthy cause.

and YOU should be calling them out as well.

i know this is long and i probably lost the plot somewhere,but this is very important,becuase it threatens all of us and if we simply ignore these nimrods they will just become even more entrenched,self-righteous and arrogant in their own little bubble worlds.

that bubble needs to be popped,and soon.

anyways.thanks for hanging (if you made it this far)
there will be danishes and punch in the lobby!

Hu? You get shot at for running - in the back like whatever. Not any different.

(IIRC) Heck, didn't the black woman that made a wrong turn in dc (turned into a barricade that was just put up maybe the day before, or something like that), get shot at and ran for her life, driving circles around some roundabout while cops shot her up some more? At least that's all I remember from the tv coverage.

-scheherazade

Sanders crowds, 10000-20000
Clinton crowds 600+-
Sanders is ahead of Clinton in numerous states, not 'lagging far behind' as Sweet lied. He also does far BETTER than Clinton in polls VS Trump. It's true, he's getting plenty of attention in those states where he's polling ahead, but not media coverage. The attention is from his followers, which he has plenty of.

There is definitely an effort to marginalize his campaign from numerous sides...Republicans, Democrats, the DNC, the media, wall street, banks, the 1%, polluting industries, etc..
No one but the people support Sanders...so I guess we get to find out this election who actually owns this country's government, political and financial institutions, or the citizens.

It's the only way they can get more than 14 people to watch the coverage...

I'm confused - people are saying that Trump gets coverage so that the media group in question make more money (through bigger audiences). But what makes more money in the long run than a useful ally in a position of power?

A little bit naive to think that personal politics (of the owner, who chooses the editor, etc.) plays no part in media coverage. They don't call Rupert Murdoch a king maker for nothing, and it isn't like the Murdoch family has a list as long as my arm of shady dealings, bribery, corruption, etc.

The turkeys don't vote for christmas, and Murdoch isn't going to advertise for someone who believes in workers rights, equality and making sure huge multinationals pay their fair share of tax.

Exchange Murdoch for any billionaire media mogul you like - the Barclay brothers for example, also not very interested in equality and paying a fair share of tax. Yes it's sensationalism, but it's also powerful men using their influence to protect their interests. As the man in the video himself says.

Anyway, it worked for us over here - we got Jeremy Corbyn in despite the best efforts of every prominent news outlet. I'm not sure if America is ready for a bit socialism just yet, but the tide is changing in worldwide public opinion, i hope.

Criminal are shooting citizens every day. You only get bent when the criminal is as you say is a cop.

To use Chicago as an example:

In Chicago a person is shot every 3 hours and murdered every 17 hours. Where is the outrage? National news coverage? CNN, MSNBC, FOX? Where is Al Sharpton, Obama, Rahm Emanuel.

2015 Year To Date
Shot & Killed: 377
Shot & Wounded: 2136
Total Shot: 2513
Total Homicides: 426

If political leaders cared this would stop.

So I state again . No one cares unless it has a political spin.

http://heyjackass.com/category/2015-chicago-crime-murder-stats/

It is clearly hyperbole when he says everyone believes in it then makes humor at the end countering that very same claim in the video. It is also clearly hyperbole when comedy is used in a strictly fact-based format that messes up the facts, etc. (Ie., comedy is FINE. But do it factually )

For example, the Daily Show recently was under attack for their biased coverage of the Democratic debate. How many people got the "real" journalism from them in the past? That integrity was/is so important it isn't even funny.

It is why they were so disgusted/pissed when basically Trevor Noah was sucking Hilary's dick off into his mouth. It also didn't help when he later forced a skit (intended to be funny...but was really lame...) that painted Sanders as a Spic hater (Which it really didn't do...)

Point is Adam uses a fact/truth/real history model for his audience. We expect that.

There's a lot of words one could use for CNN's coverage, but hypocrisy is not one of them. Seriously people, words have actual meanings. Let's try to use them, rather than just toss words out there because we like the way they sound.

Also stop fucking giving these assholes coverage!

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Charlie-Brooker-s-Newswipe-on-school-shootings-25-03-09