|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 10 2016 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
Also on the fake news vs real news. "Real news" is out spreading that this Boeing deal is how tyranny starts, neglecting to mention Boeing committed the money before Trump's comments, and also donated the same to Obama in 2012.
The one thing I think Trump will do a great job at, intentionally or not, is exposing how absurd the workings of DC/Media are.
Morning Joe spent much of the morning talking about how the conflict between NBC having a vested interest in a show co-created by someone they are supposed to cover as "no big deal". This is the same network which claimed it was cutting ties with him because of the first bigoted thing he said. Somehow after only getting worse from there, they suddenly think promoting and profiting from his show is totally no big deal.
If I'm weighing the impacts of fake news vs bad "real news", I'm thinking bad "real news" is far more dangerous than fake news.
which source is saying that? do you have a link?
|
On December 10 2016 05:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 05:18 Nyxisto wrote:
I think putting more pressure on Facebook to flag fake news and bots as such would make a difference. If they want to make money of news they should at least uphold some level of responsibility. Then its just the MSM / Evil left / whatever trying to suppress the truth. Showing fake news is fake isn't working. You 'beat' it by educating people so they are not retarded enough to believe that in the back of some pizzaria there is a child chopping gang headed by the former SoS.
You have too much faith in education. A very good book was published earlier this year (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html) that looked at this kind of stuff and they actually came to the conclusion that education often makes things worse. Educated people who consume more political information tend to pick even more biased information to begin with. They were more frequently misjudging facts than people who did not care for politics at all. Education isn't helping.
|
On December 10 2016 08:59 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 05:51 Gorsameth wrote:On December 10 2016 05:18 Nyxisto wrote:
I think putting more pressure on Facebook to flag fake news and bots as such would make a difference. If they want to make money of news they should at least uphold some level of responsibility. Then its just the MSM / Evil left / whatever trying to suppress the truth. Showing fake news is fake isn't working. You 'beat' it by educating people so they are not retarded enough to believe that in the back of some pizzaria there is a child chopping gang headed by the former SoS. You have too much faith in education. A very good book was published earlier this year (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html) that looked at this kind of stuff and they actually came to the conclusion that education often makes things worse. Educated people who consume more political information tend to pick even more biased information to begin with. They were often misjudging facts than people who did not care for politics at all. Education isn't helping.
perhaps the problem is not the amount of education; but the kind of education? educating for wisdom is more needed.
As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
|
On December 10 2016 08:14 Mohdoo wrote:
Fake news isn't why Clinton lost. Getting her ass beat by Bernie in Wisconsin wasn't a wake up call to her campaign. She spent money in AZ (LOL) and Texas (What the fuck) instead of actually working to keep Wisconsin and similar states.
Trump plows through the GOP riding populism and manufacturing dream bullshit. Bernie beats Clinton's ass in Wisconsin for the same reason. But when it comes to the general election, she just assumed all these democrats that voted against the establishment already once, would vote for her suddenly.
Madness, madness, madness.
Fake news still sucks ass, but it can't be blamed for Trump.
Edit: To clarify, I don't think that's why Bernie beat Clinton in other states. He beat Clinton in OR/WA for progressive/distrust reasons, not manufacturing stuff.
The Dems had like 40 offices in Wisconsin, and I have a friend who was in the state for close to a year going town by town. The narrative that Clinton somehow completely ignored the state is ridiculous.
I'm getting tired of having to explain to you that no one "assumed things". There are these things called polls which have data. People make decisions off the data. Obviously, the data was wrong and that can be discussed in lieu of some simplified handwave about a campaign's incompetence or inattention.
|
On December 10 2016 09:01 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 08:59 Nyxisto wrote:On December 10 2016 05:51 Gorsameth wrote:On December 10 2016 05:18 Nyxisto wrote:
I think putting more pressure on Facebook to flag fake news and bots as such would make a difference. If they want to make money of news they should at least uphold some level of responsibility. Then its just the MSM / Evil left / whatever trying to suppress the truth. Showing fake news is fake isn't working. You 'beat' it by educating people so they are not retarded enough to believe that in the back of some pizzaria there is a child chopping gang headed by the former SoS. You have too much faith in education. A very good book was published earlier this year (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html) that looked at this kind of stuff and they actually came to the conclusion that education often makes things worse. Educated people who consume more political information tend to pick even more biased information to begin with. They were often misjudging facts than people who did not care for politics at all. Education isn't helping. perhaps the problem is not the amount of education; but the kind of education? educating for wisdom is more needed. As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
It's not even education, a simple awareness that there is blatant misinformation being spread through social media channels and even main stream news networks is enough.
|
On December 10 2016 09:01 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 08:59 Nyxisto wrote:On December 10 2016 05:51 Gorsameth wrote:On December 10 2016 05:18 Nyxisto wrote:
I think putting more pressure on Facebook to flag fake news and bots as such would make a difference. If they want to make money of news they should at least uphold some level of responsibility. Then its just the MSM / Evil left / whatever trying to suppress the truth. Showing fake news is fake isn't working. You 'beat' it by educating people so they are not retarded enough to believe that in the back of some pizzaria there is a child chopping gang headed by the former SoS. You have too much faith in education. A very good book was published earlier this year (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html) that looked at this kind of stuff and they actually came to the conclusion that education often makes things worse. Educated people who consume more political information tend to pick even more biased information to begin with. They were often misjudging facts than people who did not care for politics at all. Education isn't helping. perhaps the problem is not the amount of education; but the kind of education? educating for wisdom is more needed. As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
If you're arguing for civics education you're right back to Gorsameth's accusation of 'liberal indoctrination'. The underlying issue is simply that we are living in a very fast, digital age and that this poses real problems for democracy because people cannot even express their own preferences politically any more because they are constantly mislead and confused.
This needs to be managed in some fashion or we'll start to demolish democracy democratically. Flagging posts and putting more responsibility on companies was just one idea, maybe we really need to have digital education and civics classes or something. But ignoring this is going to produce really bad outcomes. I think the 'marketplace of ideas' democracy is pretty much over.
|
On December 10 2016 09:06 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 09:01 zlefin wrote:On December 10 2016 08:59 Nyxisto wrote:On December 10 2016 05:51 Gorsameth wrote:On December 10 2016 05:18 Nyxisto wrote:
I think putting more pressure on Facebook to flag fake news and bots as such would make a difference. If they want to make money of news they should at least uphold some level of responsibility. Then its just the MSM / Evil left / whatever trying to suppress the truth. Showing fake news is fake isn't working. You 'beat' it by educating people so they are not retarded enough to believe that in the back of some pizzaria there is a child chopping gang headed by the former SoS. You have too much faith in education. A very good book was published earlier this year (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html) that looked at this kind of stuff and they actually came to the conclusion that education often makes things worse. Educated people who consume more political information tend to pick even more biased information to begin with. They were often misjudging facts than people who did not care for politics at all. Education isn't helping. perhaps the problem is not the amount of education; but the kind of education? educating for wisdom is more needed. As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It's not even education, a simple awareness that there is blatant misinformation being spread through social media channels and even main stream news networks is enough.
I'm pretty sure most people have heard that misinformation happens; it's quite another thing to recognize when it's happening to you.
Much like the question: how does an insane mind recognize its own insanity? (hmm, that doesn't seem to be the right quote, but it's something like that iirc)
also, the big problem isn't blatant misinformation, so much as subtle misinformation.
and hard to tell which information is the misinformation, especially since many people disagree on which those are.
nyx -> what did you make of the shorenstein report?
I'd say the marketplace place of ideas works just as poorly as it always did. I'm not seeing much evidence it used to be any better.
|
On December 10 2016 09:13 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 09:06 biology]major wrote:On December 10 2016 09:01 zlefin wrote:On December 10 2016 08:59 Nyxisto wrote:On December 10 2016 05:51 Gorsameth wrote:On December 10 2016 05:18 Nyxisto wrote:
I think putting more pressure on Facebook to flag fake news and bots as such would make a difference. If they want to make money of news they should at least uphold some level of responsibility. Then its just the MSM / Evil left / whatever trying to suppress the truth. Showing fake news is fake isn't working. You 'beat' it by educating people so they are not retarded enough to believe that in the back of some pizzaria there is a child chopping gang headed by the former SoS. You have too much faith in education. A very good book was published earlier this year (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html) that looked at this kind of stuff and they actually came to the conclusion that education often makes things worse. Educated people who consume more political information tend to pick even more biased information to begin with. They were often misjudging facts than people who did not care for politics at all. Education isn't helping. perhaps the problem is not the amount of education; but the kind of education? educating for wisdom is more needed. As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It's not even education, a simple awareness that there is blatant misinformation being spread through social media channels and even main stream news networks is enough. I'm pretty sure most people have heard that misinformation happens; it's quite another thing to recognize when it's happening to you. Much like the question: how does an insane mind recognize its own insanity? (hmm, that doesn't seem to be the right quote, but it's something like that iirc) also, the big problem isn't blatant misinformation, so much as subtle misinformation. and hard to tell which information is the misinformation, especially since many people disagree on which those are.
subtle misinformation is life. Even professional journalists and news organizations aren't above that, and we just have to live with that because it comes with being human. The new fake news outrage is due to blatant lies, not subtle ones.
|
So which side is the best informed in your opinion, the side that trusts the media with the subtle misinformation, or the side that trusts the media with the blatant disregard for logic and facts?
|
On December 10 2016 09:06 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 09:01 zlefin wrote:On December 10 2016 08:59 Nyxisto wrote:On December 10 2016 05:51 Gorsameth wrote:On December 10 2016 05:18 Nyxisto wrote:
I think putting more pressure on Facebook to flag fake news and bots as such would make a difference. If they want to make money of news they should at least uphold some level of responsibility. Then its just the MSM / Evil left / whatever trying to suppress the truth. Showing fake news is fake isn't working. You 'beat' it by educating people so they are not retarded enough to believe that in the back of some pizzaria there is a child chopping gang headed by the former SoS. You have too much faith in education. A very good book was published earlier this year (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html) that looked at this kind of stuff and they actually came to the conclusion that education often makes things worse. Educated people who consume more political information tend to pick even more biased information to begin with. They were often misjudging facts than people who did not care for politics at all. Education isn't helping. perhaps the problem is not the amount of education; but the kind of education? educating for wisdom is more needed. As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It's not even education, a simple awareness that there is blatant misinformation being spread through social media channels and even main stream news networks is enough.
The problem is that knowing blatant misinformation exists actually gives you license to ignore the things that contradict the blatant misinformation you prefer because those contradicting sources must be the blatant misinformation you know exists.
To carry forward the insanity metaphor someone pushed: simply knowing insanity exist can in fact reinforce insanity, as all those other people telling you you're insane could be insane.
Edit: The nature of the medium shifting has also made this worse, as retractions and corrections accomplish nothing in the world of screengrabs and links to other news sites and so on.
|
On December 10 2016 09:18 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 09:13 zlefin wrote:On December 10 2016 09:06 biology]major wrote:On December 10 2016 09:01 zlefin wrote:On December 10 2016 08:59 Nyxisto wrote:On December 10 2016 05:51 Gorsameth wrote:On December 10 2016 05:18 Nyxisto wrote:
I think putting more pressure on Facebook to flag fake news and bots as such would make a difference. If they want to make money of news they should at least uphold some level of responsibility. Then its just the MSM / Evil left / whatever trying to suppress the truth. Showing fake news is fake isn't working. You 'beat' it by educating people so they are not retarded enough to believe that in the back of some pizzaria there is a child chopping gang headed by the former SoS. You have too much faith in education. A very good book was published earlier this year (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html) that looked at this kind of stuff and they actually came to the conclusion that education often makes things worse. Educated people who consume more political information tend to pick even more biased information to begin with. They were often misjudging facts than people who did not care for politics at all. Education isn't helping. perhaps the problem is not the amount of education; but the kind of education? educating for wisdom is more needed. As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It's not even education, a simple awareness that there is blatant misinformation being spread through social media channels and even main stream news networks is enough. I'm pretty sure most people have heard that misinformation happens; it's quite another thing to recognize when it's happening to you. Much like the question: how does an insane mind recognize its own insanity? (hmm, that doesn't seem to be the right quote, but it's something like that iirc) also, the big problem isn't blatant misinformation, so much as subtle misinformation. and hard to tell which information is the misinformation, especially since many people disagree on which those are. subtle misinformation is life. Even professional journalists and news organizations aren't above that, and we just have to live with that because it comes with being human. The new fake news outrage is due to blatant lies, not subtle ones.
I want someone to look at the fake news issue with a high level of rigor, and then read their report on the topic.
there does seem to be some sort of issue; but there's not nearly enough well-documented information on the topic.
another thought: I wonder how different monetization models affect the quality of the journalism.
|
On December 10 2016 09:30 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 09:18 biology]major wrote:On December 10 2016 09:13 zlefin wrote:On December 10 2016 09:06 biology]major wrote:On December 10 2016 09:01 zlefin wrote:On December 10 2016 08:59 Nyxisto wrote:On December 10 2016 05:51 Gorsameth wrote:On December 10 2016 05:18 Nyxisto wrote:
I think putting more pressure on Facebook to flag fake news and bots as such would make a difference. If they want to make money of news they should at least uphold some level of responsibility. Then its just the MSM / Evil left / whatever trying to suppress the truth. Showing fake news is fake isn't working. You 'beat' it by educating people so they are not retarded enough to believe that in the back of some pizzaria there is a child chopping gang headed by the former SoS. You have too much faith in education. A very good book was published earlier this year (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html) that looked at this kind of stuff and they actually came to the conclusion that education often makes things worse. Educated people who consume more political information tend to pick even more biased information to begin with. They were often misjudging facts than people who did not care for politics at all. Education isn't helping. perhaps the problem is not the amount of education; but the kind of education? educating for wisdom is more needed. As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It's not even education, a simple awareness that there is blatant misinformation being spread through social media channels and even main stream news networks is enough. I'm pretty sure most people have heard that misinformation happens; it's quite another thing to recognize when it's happening to you. Much like the question: how does an insane mind recognize its own insanity? (hmm, that doesn't seem to be the right quote, but it's something like that iirc) also, the big problem isn't blatant misinformation, so much as subtle misinformation. and hard to tell which information is the misinformation, especially since many people disagree on which those are. subtle misinformation is life. Even professional journalists and news organizations aren't above that, and we just have to live with that because it comes with being human. The new fake news outrage is due to blatant lies, not subtle ones. I want someone to look at the fake news issue with a high level of rigor, and then read their report on the topic. there does seem to be some sort of issue; but there's not nearly enough well-documented information on the topic.
The worst outcome would be if that rigorous report was deemed as "fake news" by one or more sides and then thrown out, which is something that I am worried about.
Also, someone else mentioned the "demonization of critical thinking" a while ago. That is relevant, since critical thinking might help people tell what is real and what is fake more than the current educational system.
|
On December 10 2016 09:13 zlefin wrote:
nyx -> what did you make of the shorenstein report?
I'd say the marketplace place of ideas works just as poorly as it always did. I'm not seeing much evidence it used to be any better.
I didn't see that report yet, can you link it?
I think what's changed in the marketplace of ideas additionally to speed is anonymity. It used to be the case that someone who spread wrong information actually had to live with that reputation, the 'establishment' still has to. But anybody who shares wrong information on Facebook will be forgotten five minutes later. There exist essentially two standards. This was true for Hillary and Trump as well. Hillary was judged by the standards of the historical office, Trump was qualified by definition because paradoxically not being qualified was what people elected him for.
|
On December 10 2016 09:45 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 09:13 zlefin wrote:
nyx -> what did you make of the shorenstein report?
I'd say the marketplace place of ideas works just as poorly as it always did. I'm not seeing much evidence it used to be any better. I didn't see that report yet, can you link it? I think what's changed in the marketplace of ideas additionally to speed is anonymity. It used to be the case that someone who spread wrong information actually had to live with that reputation, the 'establishment' still has to. But anybody who shares wrong information on Facebook will be forgotten five minutes later. There exist essentially two standards. This was true for Hillary and Trump as well. Hillary was judged by the standards of the historical office, Trump was essentially qualified by definition because paradoxically not being qualified was what people elected him for.
http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/
on marketplace of ideas; were there not always some lesser known/fringe publications always pushing such things? might they not change their own names frequently?
the value of disinformation was always there, so surely some took advantage of that.
was there not always word of mouth that was unreliable?
while the speed has certainly changed; and there have been some changes in the availability of certain media; it'd be reckless to think similar things didn't happen frequently before, and sometimes things haven't changed as much as we thought; we've merely observed them differently.
|
On December 10 2016 09:01 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 08:14 Mohdoo wrote:
Fake news isn't why Clinton lost. Getting her ass beat by Bernie in Wisconsin wasn't a wake up call to her campaign. She spent money in AZ (LOL) and Texas (What the fuck) instead of actually working to keep Wisconsin and similar states.
Trump plows through the GOP riding populism and manufacturing dream bullshit. Bernie beats Clinton's ass in Wisconsin for the same reason. But when it comes to the general election, she just assumed all these democrats that voted against the establishment already once, would vote for her suddenly.
Madness, madness, madness.
Fake news still sucks ass, but it can't be blamed for Trump.
Edit: To clarify, I don't think that's why Bernie beat Clinton in other states. He beat Clinton in OR/WA for progressive/distrust reasons, not manufacturing stuff. The Dems had like 40 offices in Wisconsin, and I have a friend who was in the state for close to a year going town by town. The narrative that Clinton somehow completely ignored the state is ridiculous. I'm getting tired of having to explain to you that no one "assumed things". There are these things called polls which have data. People make decisions off the data. Obviously, the data was wrong and that can be discussed in lieu of some simplified handwave about a campaign's incompetence or inattention.
The areas where Trump and Bernie overlap are the areas where Bernie beat Clinton during the entire primary. The commonality between Trump and Bernie's message is ultimately what beat Clinton. Clinton's inability, and I argue unwillingness, to fully commit to winning over this demographic is what lost her the election.
I am saying Clinton lost Wisconsin because of this. She was warned during the primary.
Here's my question: Why did she think the societal context clues leading to her getting her ass kicked in Wisconsin during the primary wouldn't put her in a bad spot during the general? If the component that let Bernie beat her was also present in the other guy, shouldn't she be more worried?
|
On December 10 2016 07:56 Thaniri wrote:
Why are people saying fake news is such a big deal?
The only reason it has an effect is because of poor education on the parts of consumers.
The problem isn't people saying stupid things, it's people listening to stupid things without thinking critically about them. One could also say that there is little understanding on both the side of the media and the people about what credible journalism is and what journalistic integrity is, and how to identify it.
But here you have a problem. Once you have enough people who are not capable of thinking critically and distinguishing real news from random shit, they will vote to keep education as bad as possible, otherwise they would have to confront their problem, which they do not.
Thus you have an education system that is incapable of acknowledging even a hundred year old science, and instead requires teaching "the controversy", where children are taught some random crap, because some people are not capable of accepting the fact that life was not literally created in 7 days about 6000 years ago. How is someone who is taught all their live that there is no such thing as fact, that the scientific method does not work, and that every opinion is equal supposed to critically consume media?
You have a whole party that works on "feelings over facts" now.
Of course, such a system can not work forever. At some point, it is going to crash into people on the outside who have not chosen to be willfully uneducated, and at that point it has to either adapt to reality very quickly, or it will be dispatched eventually. Even if it is hard to imagine, no empire lasts forever. And if you choose to cripple your nation intellectually, you will be replaced eventually.
|
On December 10 2016 08:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 07:56 Thaniri wrote:Why are people saying fake news is such a big deal? The only reason it has an effect is because of poor education on the parts of consumers. The problem isn't people saying stupid things, it's people listening to stupid things without thinking critically about them. One could also say that there is little understanding on both the side of the media and the people about what credible journalism is and what journalistic integrity is, and how to identify it. This same phenomena is present in clickbait articles. They exist solely to mine clicks but are not 'malicious' like fake news. I'm a young person and all of my peers hate clickbait and know how to avoid it. People will learn how to avoid fake news as well. Here's a funny video about Buzzfeed that I think applies entirely to the fake news problem: + Show Spoiler +. Plus he swears a lot so maybe you'll get a laugh out of it. Kwiz interpretation of the emails from the DNC and Podesta being that "just some people favored her" (as if the leadership favoring her isn't against the rules) indicates to me that many Hillary supporters still don't get it.
It's not an interpretation. It's a fact. If you've found an e-mail published by wikileaks in which DNC officials discuss collectively how they've undermined Sanders' campaign, feel free to share it.
The two things which did appear in the e-mails was one person mentioning a question that could be asked about someone's (presumably Sanders') faith, but there is no evidence this was ever acted upon or agreed to by anyone. There was also the case of Donna Brazile leaking a total of apparently two primary debate questions to the HRC campaign (one of which was about the fact they'd be asked about the water in Flint for the debate in... Flint), but the Sanders campaign responded that Brazile was also in touch with them and that she had been fair throughout the campaign. While the leak was unacceptable, the e-mails showed it was Brazile who took the initiative by herself without anyone asking for it, and it wasn't a DNC operation at all.
And no, having personal preferences for one candidate over the other is not in any way "against the rules". There's a difference between having a preference and actually acting upon it to undermine the other candidate(s).
|
Censoring fake news would have a disastrous effect. Can you imagine how happy Alex Jones would be if he got to replace some fake news article about government officials engaging in pedophilia with a blurb about how the government made him censor the article that used to be there? Would that blurb convince one person that government officials were not engaged in pedophilia? The main impact would be that people would read infowars more often so they could get information before it had been censored.
The solution to fake news is honest news. The problem right now is there is no trustworthy news
|
On December 10 2016 11:26 kwizach wrote:
If you've found an e-mail published by wikileaks in which DNC officials discuss collectively how they've undermined Sanders' campaign, feel free to share it.
How about Donna Brazile, the current chairperson of the DNC, feeding Podesta and Clinton debate questions in advance?
Beyond that you have the debate schedule. The DNC intentionally restricted the number of debates and put them at the worst times possible to get the fewest viewers. The DNC was heavily in the tank for Clinton which would be find if they just admitted it. Sanders self-identified as a Socialist rather than a Democrat so they had no more responsibility to be fair to him than to Trump. I just wish that if they were going to undermine him they would have been up front about it.
|
On December 10 2016 11:35 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 11:26 kwizach wrote:
If you've found an e-mail published by wikileaks in which DNC officials discuss collectively how they've undermined Sanders' campaign, feel free to share it.
How about Donna Brazile, the current chairperson of the DNC, feeding Podesta and Clinton debate questions in advance? Beyond that you have the debate schedule. The DNC intentionally restricted the number of debates and put them at the worst times possible to get the fewest viewers. The DNC was heavily in the tank for Clinton which would be find if they just admitted it. Sanders self-identified as a Socialist rather than a Democrat so they had no more responsibility to be fair to him than to Trump. I just wish that if they were going to undermine him they would have been up front about it.
About Brazile, did you even read the rest of my post?
With regards to the debate schedule, the announcement on the number of sanctioned debates was made on the 5th of May 2015, weeks before Sanders even announced his candidacy. The DNC did try to limit the number of debates in this election, just like the RNC did, because the main takeaway from the 2012 Republican primary was that too many debates could seriously hurt the eventual nominee. This would have been true regardless of who was running.
In any case, I don't see the point of re-hashing this endlessly. If anything, what was most interesting about the releases of the DNC and Podesta e-mails was the lack of understanding about the workings of political organizations usually displayed by the people who were outraged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
