And - who benefits from all of that lovely Citizens United money? CNN and other MSM. They know where the money is to be scooped up, and it ain't Bernie.

The good news is that groups like Reddit, people like me, etc. do not get their news from the MSM.

The fact that people like you (me and countless others), ignore the MSM is such a huge shift in culture and politics.

You're probably younger than I am (I'm 50), but I read Reddit and I also get most of my news online. I used to get most of my news from the MSM. I was addicted to CNN, and I had CNBC on all day, as I work from home.

No more. I can't remember the last time I saw anything on CNN or CNBC.

I think most people have realized that it is all corporate-run bullshit.

I think Millennials don't even consider the MSM a factor.

In effect, society has turned away from it.

I find that fact incredible satisfy. The corporate-political apparatus has lost their main means of propagandizing us and telling us how and what to think. They can no longer use their "injection model" of information--giving the public information and expecting that we will believe it and adopt the memes that they are disseminating.

Most people are not paying attention, and instead, rely on other sources.

Very heartwarming.

important stories, that I finally stopped watching.

Like you and like millions of others, I get news from multiple online sources and rarely bother with the Corporate Media.

They must be wondering why their propaganda isn't working the way it used to work.

Young people especially do not use the Corp Media for news which is why they are so much better informed than their elders.

is lost on WAAAAAAAY to many people.
way way too many people.

laundering it, it goes right to the media. It does not go to the volunteers. They are called volunteers for a good reason. No pay. It does not generally go to swanky hotels and restaurants, that might look bad. The more connected candidates likely fly around in donated private jets, so they are not sweating the extra baggage fees.

That huge money goes for advertising. The MSM gets that money. And yeah, that is not pointed out much. The MSM wants a horse race now, for clicks and views, as long as it does not get out of hand and jeopardize the spending of a candidate's huge war chest. The MSM will NOT be endorsing someone because they believe deeply in them, necessarily - the MSM believe deeply in campaign advertising dollars. And personally -fewer and fewer people, IMO, give a rat's ass about campaign ads. They are just fiddling with themselves, the MSM. and getting paid.

a dirty little secret. and of course, they have their eye out for anyone who might challenge their little game.

Unfortunately they are correct at times.

if you keep feeding people garbage, it kind of easy to predict the results.

If you saw a headline that said "Johnson draws 10K crowd" you might wonder who the hell Johnson was, and you might wonder why he was speaking to a crowd of 10K, but you might not care that much. There's lots of news, and someone speaking is just not necessarily that interesting.

"Candidate" brings the viewer closer to the idea of an election. It's a change that is actually of benefit to the candidate. Candidate? Candidate for what? The Presidency? Who is this person...?

For once, CNN picked a better word. If they could have squeezed both words in (Candidate Sanders) that might have been best, but don't ask for the moon with those guys.

That makes sense, maybe I'm just looking too deep into things. At least its something, the new york times has been completely silent so far.

It needs to be kept short and sweet on the phone--and lots of people use the phone, nowadays.

It doesn't require that much more air time. I know the networks are busy with the Kardashians, etc., but a few extra, clarifying words shouldn't affect that.

Some people don't read that much. You'd never see anything past "Demo..." on a phone.

If I were an unknown candidate, and I had a choice between my (unknown) name, and the word "candidate," I'd pick the latter. It might prompt a politically interested person to click.

No clickbait, no "education!" At least when trying to reach the lazy readers....

I think we're down to candidates as brands of soap. At this point it looks like Hillary "Gets You Cleaner" Clinton vs. Bernie, "Brighter Whites and Colors" Sanders. May the best brand win!

"Sanders" could be speaking about corn futures or the new iPhone.

"Candidate" is speaking about an election/platform.

We're still WAY away from primary elections. You might be focused on it--most people are not.

"Candidate" could mean Trump, or Clinton or Jeb or anyone.
It blurs it entirely.
Conveys the same ole, same ole. Not even interesting.

"Sanders" would make people say—who's that and click on the story.

Think what you'd like. I don't agree that there was anything nefarious in the word substitution.

Nothing in the headline said the audience was there for a political speech or rally. The Colonel could have been giving out free Five Dollah meals to the first 10,000 arrivals.

In fact, I think the word swap helped "the candidate."

"I don't care if the publicity is good or bad as long as they spell my name right."

If the news source doesn't think the headline is worthy of a person's name, why would I or anyone else bother to read it?

Obviously, it wasn't getting any clicks, probably because people thought it was about The Colonel, or some boring speech on something dull unrelated to politics.

The name was there, it was spelled right, but the headline wasn't telegraphing anything to do with elections.

They changed it to "Candidate" to increase the clicks, I would think.

I don't care who is running, or which candidate--any candidate who gets that kind of crowd is worth a click on the link just to see what's going on. I'd click on the link if it was Rubio, Cruz, or even if Trump paid ten thousand people to listen to him. Because, you know, Trump would have to pay ten thousand people to listen to him, or at least serve heavy hors d'ouvres and a couple of beers or wine spritzers.

Maybe somebody got overruled and was told to change it, who knows.

But they did not when they should have, since he has been a candidate for two months now.

So far huffington and msnbc seem to be doing it right. Although I think the article already dropped from the top spot on msnbc.

It must not have happened.

I'm a little battle-weary for now attempting to change young hearts and minds on their affiliates, but I'll heal and get back to it: to wit:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1022870

It has changed now and I knew it would.

When you click on the home page link it would bring up the second page that you've posted.

But what I don't understand is why Bernies polls are not better. Somethings wrong here.

Huff Post is always a challenge.

I think polling is all over the place because of cell phones and home phones with Caller I.D. blocks. I don't think its as reliable these days as in the past. There have been some articles about the difficulties these days. Like the polling in GB was all wrong in their last election and in Israel with their election polling all the way up to the day of the vote.

If you click on the link of the home page right now...the headline will change to something slightly different, it usually does.

"It had changed to another topic so I found this link with more pics and tweets..."

It suggests that Bernie shouldn't be taken seriously because it happened in his own political back yard!


rocktivity

iPad can't handle that site.

on yesterday's headlines. I was too busy getting ready for work to soak the crux of the story, maybe someone can fill me in.
I don't think all the MSM except the obviously sly Fox can keep down the story of someone who speaks truth for long. I suspect even the most casual observer is picking up on how MSM is attempting to prop and promote only their picks this early in the game.

If so, I think you're getting worked up over nothing.

to Bernie Sanders is about inspire Americas less informed electorate, that of engaging in a critical thinking based discussions about the direction society is or should be going. While the Faux news viewers will be hopelessly out of touch on the concept of critical thinking, many others who might find contemporary politics at best disturbing, will be drawn to the truths that Sanders brings to the discussions. He is making our political landscape healthier and more dynamic just by his presence. He is changing the conversation despite the efforts of the billionaire owned main stream medias best efforts to ignore or minimize him.

The media is owned by the 1%. They're freaking out.

"Bernie Sanders draws nearly 10,000 supporters in Wisconsin"

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/01/politics/bernie-sanders-crowds-wisconsin-2016/index.html

That reads like a PC or tablet headline. The Sanders/Candidate one reads like a phone one.

I would love to see Bernie Sanders and get my chance to vote in the Primary.

and see who they are talking about. CNN loves the horserace and if they want Bernie to go down, they will attack him later, once everyone is tuned in to the close race.

NT

Run both headlines, whichever one gets the most clicks, run that one.

They were successful with the Dean Scream. They changed the debate rules to stop Dennis Kucinich from participating. So tying Obama to a clergyman who made one out-of-context remark in twenty years should have been a cakewalk. But they were caught in the act of being unfair and unbalanced when the blogosphere revealed that the other leading Democratic candidate also had a tie to Wright, and that the leading GOP candidate had a tie to a controversial clergyman of his own.

Thanks to the blogosphere (and the continuation of Net neutrality), mainstream media marginalization ain't what it used to be.


rocktivity

Obama gave a brilliant speech, one for the ages, which spread like wildfire on social media, especially YouTube.

Dean had no control, YouTube didn't even exist, sharing video to debunk it was hard. Days later the media became even more pathetic, showing the bob hot Mic view, where he was clearly speaking to a super ecstatic crowd.

Amazing what four years can do, it's even crazier now.

nt