not even trying to be evenhanded anymore....

Their viewership increases if there is a race on our side. It is about bringing Clinton down and Sanders up. It is the point of the inclusion of Biden. Without Biden in the polls it isn't currently much of a race. They even go so far at to print articles they know to be false, placing retractions at a later date. This deception was proven when the NYT printed their cartoon after the retraction. It is truly nefarious.

I have heard many people talk about how the media wants a democrat in the white house. The librul media. lol. Don't see that argument very often on this board.

They are not the left wing media like Rush portrays them. Overall they support republicans across the board.

to describe Bernie and his supporters?

How does that work?

how does using unfavorable words to describe Bernie and his supporters hurt Hillary's campaign?

This isn't an interrogation of any kind and you are free to not answer it, but I honestly don't see any way to make that connection.

Some seem to be amazingly thin skinned.

"shuffled
gruff
line faced
loose, wrinkled clothing and unkempt hair
bragged"

Compare that to an article that flat out lied about legal activity, followed up by a retraction, followed up by a cartoon acting like they never had to retract it in the first place.

"unfavorable words" It's simply hilarious at this point.

We should all simply be in agreement on this one. The fucking media are right wing scum bags. They have never been honest about the Clintons or democrats as a whole. They push a conservative agenda.

the fact that you find me "hilarious" is neither here nor there. As is our common lack of regard for the MSM, I'll just have to toss this up to another of life's little mysteries that will never be solved. Have a great evening!

I have no idea what the OP is saying either. I've read the first several paragraphs several times now, and I still don't understand if the person's trying to be sarcastic or serious or changing stance from one sentence to the other or what. I'm done with it. I can't spend 30 minutes or more trying to figure out what someone's trying to say.

end of Bill's term in office. No surprise here. I quit reading them a couple of years ago.

Regardless of Sanders' popular appeal or the spot-on strength of his ideas, it was inevitable that he would be attacked in precisely this way.

for someone who has to be dragged to the left. I want someone who is there already.

To be clear----Bernie Sanders is trying to bring attention to and discussion of the issues that have been neglected for far too long and they have all reached a critical point. Calling him a radical or extremist just because all these issues now need more help than if they'd been addressed on time doesn't make sense. He's not the problem.

And his solutions are agreed on my large majorities. Come to think of it----he's pretty nearly a centrist.

... and I still don't know what you're trying to say or what point you're trying to make. Not trying to insult anyone, just being honest here.

The title is the clue.

That helps. I'm still confused by a lot that follows, but then I haven't had any coffee yet today.

I appreciate your non-judgmental helpfulness.

On edit: I read the article that this OP seems to be responding to, and I can't say that I find it biased--and I'm a Bernie supporter. I also used to be a newspaper reporter. And a clear sign of slanted coverage is usually revealed in the penultimate or concluding graf (i.e., paragraph). I see no bias there. In keeping with the general focus of the story, it's pro-Sanders and anti-Hillary:

But even for voters who have no personal feelings about the email scandal, like Jay Smith from the Manchester suburbs, they are worried the issue could hurt Democrats’ chance at winning the White House. “Besides the fact that I just don’t like her as much as I like the other candidates, I think she has the most chance of losing to an idiot [in the general election] — to another Bush, or god help us, a Cruz or Trump.”

And that is a way to appear to be objective but lead the reader to conclusions.

For instance one could write...Congressman introduces a bill to grab guns...Sense the word grab test negatively in most people the bias is there even if there is nothing wrong with the story factually.
Framing can be subtle.

But that is the point I have made before...She has the most chance of losing to the idiot.

...and a great illustration of same. That said, I reread the piece and still don't find it biased or slanted.

When people take sides on an issue, the littlest things can offend them. For example, I remember a reporter that was imbedded with the USAF was reporting on the air raids that were conducted on Iraq in the first 72 hours. His copy was highly complimentary regarding the efficiency and professionalism of the American pilots. But he seriously put the generals' noses out of joint because of two phrases in a lengthy story:

(1) In one sentence, he described pilots returning from their missions as "almost giddy with their success."

(2) He described F-117 bombers as "cockroach-shaped."

I'd often worry about my copy and if it was objective enough. A managing editor gave me a rule of thumb that was useful: "You know you've been objective," he said, "when you've offended both sides equally."

I'm reasonably sure that if you showed that same ThinkProgress story to DU's Hillary supporters, they would say it's a Hillary hit-piece and complain about it. (If they haven't already; I'm banned from the Hillary group, so I seldom visit it nowadays.)

at the same time I can understand Skwmom's point of view regarding negative word framing against him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251616601

I also agree with your point, when I posted the above OP I received a PM from a Hillary Supporter poster which apparently can't post here for the time being she was belittling the possibility of a "Positive Election Outlook for Bernie!"

This time I didn't bother responding although I have tried to engage her in the past in PM debates but it seems to no avail, whenever I post pro-Bernie OP's or OP's critical of Hillary, she PMs me, a few times with some severe cussing.

As a general rule, I try to look at the message more than the messenger to see if it fits with my perception of reality.

Things are so partisan on DU now. Potential landmines everywhere you step!

Thanks for your thoughts.

And that is why I avoid groups unless it is about something non political.
I am not banned from the Hillary group because I don't go there. I know what to expect.

Those two examples were funny to me...the first one was probably accurate because our modern day warriors dp get giddy with their success because we have come to love war and destruction.

The second one was just funny to me, but I can see how the generals would not like it. Cockroaches and rats have a cringe factor to them like grab.

Transpose that onto 'fighting against the big campaign money', and stir.