>>THE WASHINGTON POST APPEARS TO HAVE GIVEN UP ON THAT WHOLE
JOURNALISM THING.
NOW THEY ARE JUST MAKING STUFF UP.
THEY
PUBLISHED THIS ARTICLE EARLIER TODAY, WE WANT TO SHOW YOU THE
FRONT PAGE, SAYING THAT BERNIE BROS ARE OUT IN FULL FORCE
HARASSING FEMALE REPORTERS.
YOU MIGHT SAY WHAT IS WRONG WITH
THAT?
THAT IS A PICTURE OF BERNIE.
THAT IS NOT THE RIGHT
GRAPHIC, THAT IS MY FAULT.
WAS ORIGINALLY IN THE IMAGE WAS A
PICTURE OF THE WOMAN WHO HAD BEEN EGGED IN SAN JOSE BY BERNIE
SANDERS SUPPORTERS, SHE IS DUCKING HER HEAD AND SHE HAS EGG
IN HER HAIR AND SHE IS RUNNING AWAY.
BUT THE HEADLINE IS,
BERNIE BROS ARE HARASSING FEMALE REPORTERS.
SO SOME CRAZY PEOPLE
THOUGHT MAYBE THERE WAS A LINK BETWEEN THE PICTURE AND THE
HEADLINE.
SO THEY ADDED THIS ONCE THEY CHANGED THE PICTURE --
>>COME ON, MAN.
COME ON.
>>IT GETS WORSE.
FIRST OFF, ON JOHN'S POINT, YOU CLAIM TO BE A
REPORTER AND YOU DIDN'T CHECK TO SEE IF YOU HAD THE RIGHT
PICTURE?
>>I
DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT PICTURE IN THAT GRAPHIC, SO GLASS HOUSES.
>>IF YOU ARE REPORTER YOU CHECK TO SEE IF THAT WOMAN IS A
REPORTER IF YOU ARE GOING TO CLAIM SHE IS A REPORTER.
HOW DO
YOU WRITE A STORY AROUND THAT IDEA, AND THEN YOU ARE LIKE, I
DON'T KNOW, LET'S JUST PICK THIS PICTURE.
SHOULD ANYBODY CHECK IF
SHE IS A REPORTER?
NO.
>>THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHAT WAS IN THE PICTURE.
AT THE END OF THE
ARTICLE THEY SAY -- THEY START SMEARING CENTER SUPPORT FOR ALL
SORTS OF THINGS.
THEY SAY --
>>OF COURSE THEY PROVIDE NO EVIDENCE THAT THOSE WERE BERNIE
SANDERS SUPPORTERS WHO DID THOSE ATTACKS.
WE BELIEVE THEY WERE
LIBERALS, THEY WERE PROBABLY DEMOCRATS, WE HAVE NO REASON TO
BELIEVE THEY ARE BERNIE SANDERS FANS.
BUT BY PUTTING THAT AT THE
VERY END OF THE ARTICLE, THEN THEY CAN SAY THAT'S WHAT WE WERE
ILLUSTRATING WITH OUR THUMBNAIL FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE, THE
HEADLINE FOR WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PICTURE.
>>THAT WAS THE SECOND POINT I WAS GOING TO GET TO, JOHN, WHICH
IS EVERYBODY, ESPECIALLY THIS ARTICLE, ASSUMES THAT THE PEOPLE
WHO DID THE ATTACKS IN SAN JOSE WERE BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTERS.
BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE?
WE SHOWED YOU THE VIDEO, THEY LOOK
LIKE A COUPLE OF DUDES FROM SAN JOSE.
THEY HAVE NO BERNIE
PARAPHERNALIA, THEY NEVER SAID THEY WERE FOR BERNIE SANDERS,
AND I SAID IT WHEN WE COVERED THE STORY, I'M NOT EVEN SURE
THEY WERE VERY POLITICAL.
IT LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE MAINLY
PISSED AT TRUMP'S ATTACKS AGAINST LATINOS.
WHY DO I ASSUME
THAT?
BECAUSE THEY WERE CARRYING MEXICAN FLAGS.
I DENTAL PROBLEM
WITH THE FLAGS, I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE ATTACKS, AND I HAVE
TROUBLE WITH YOU CLAIMING THEY WERE BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTERS
WHEN YOU MADE THAT UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH.
THEY HAVE GIVEN UP
ALL PRETENSE.
NOW YOU DIVE INTO THE ARTICLE AND IT GETS WORSE.
HERE'S A QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE, IF THERE IS A TROPHY FOR BAD
BEHAVIOR, BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTERS APPEAR HELL-BENT ON
TAKING IT FROM DONALD TRUMP'S.
BASED ON WHAT?
>>THEY ARE THE SAME, BERNIE, TRUMP.
CHOCOLATE, P BUTTER.
SAME THING.
>>AT TRUMP RALLIES PEOPLE GET PUNCHED AND ATTACKED BY A MOB,
RACIST CHANTS GO UP.
AT BERNIE SANDERS RALLIES THEY CHANT BERNIE, BERNIE.
>>EARNING THINGS?
>>AND IN THE QUOTE THAT JOHN READ, AT THE NEVADA CONVENTION
ALL THESE TERRIBLE THINGS HAPPENED.
NO THEY DIDN'T, YOU
NEVER PROVE THAT ANYONE THREW A CHAIR, THERE WERE NO ARRESTS OR
EVIDENCE OF VIOLENCE, BUT YOU KEEP SAYING BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT
A JOURNALIST, YOU ARE HELL-BENT ON SMEARING BERNIE SANDERS AND
HIS SUPPORTERS AND YOU WILL DO IT NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE
IS.
DAMN THE FACTS.
AND YOU WONDER WHY PEOPLE DON'T TRUST
THE MEDIA ANYMORE.
IT IS NOT JUST BECAUSE CONSERVATIVES SAID
THEY HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS, IT IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN
ESTABLISHMENT BY US AND THEY CAN'T SEE STRAIGHT.
AND THIS
ARTICLE IS SO BAD I NORMALLY SAY THEY DON'T REALIZE HOW BIASED
THEY ARE, THIS GUY MIGHT KNOW.
THIS GUY SEEMED FAR MORE
MALICIOUS THAN OTHER ONES WE HAVE POINTED OUT.
BECAUSE THEN
WE GET TO THE THIRD EGREGIOUS PART OF THIS ARTICLE.
REMEMBER
THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER WHO ASKED TO SANDERS AT A RALLY, HER
NAME IS YAMICHA ALCINDOR, IS IT SEXIST TO REMAIN IN THE RACE
AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON?
AND BERNIE, I BELIEVE JUSTIFIABLY,
SAID IS THAT A SERIOUS QUESTION?
CAN I RUN AGAINST CARLY FIORINA?
CAN ANYONE RUN AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON?
I THINK IT IS THE MOST LOGICAL QUESTION EVER ASKED.
>>IT WAS SEXIST OF OBAMA TO BEAT HER.
>>AND THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER SAID SHE'S GOT THE
DELEGATE LEAD, SO --
OKAY, A QUESTION ABOUT THE DELEGATE LEAD IS FAIR.
BUT I
DON'T KNOW WHY YOU ARE CONNECTING IT TO THE SEXISM.
SO
THIS WRITER TURNS AROUND AND SAYS, SANDERS HIMSELF GOT INTO A
TESTY EXCHANGE WITH A FEMALE TIMES REPORTER, AND SANDERS
INITIALLY CUT ALCINDOR OFF BEFORE SHE COULD FINISH HER
QUESTION.
THEN THERE IS NO WINNING.
>>THAT IS THE TRAP.
>>I THINK THIS GUY IS SO MALICIOUS THAT HE KNOWS THE TRAP
HE IS LAYING.
BY THE WAY, ANYBODY CAN DO THIS.
THEY ARE
JUST CHOOSING TO DO IT TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO BERNIE SANDERS.
HERE, I WILL SET UP A TRAP THAT WE COULD DO IF WE WERE EQUALLY
MALICIOUS, BUT WE DON'T, AND THAT IS WHY THIS IS AN UNEVEN
PLAYING FIELD, BECAUSE BERNIE SANDERS OPPONENTS ARE MALICIOUS
AND HIS SUPPORTERS ARE LIBERALS.
HERE'S A TRAP YOU CAN SET, IT IS
ANTI-SEMITIC OF ALL THESE REPORTERS WHO ARE UNCOMFORTABLE
WITH A JEWISH CANDIDATE DOING SO WELL, I WONDER WHY THEY ARE SO
DEAD SET AGAINST A JEW BECOMING THIS POWERFUL.
AND THEN WE HAD
OUR REPORTER, JORDAN, ASK HILLARY IF SHE WAS ANTI-SEMITIC
FOR RUNNING AGAINST THE HISTORIC CAMPAIGN OF BERNIE SANDERS, AND
SHE GOT A LITTLE TESTY.
BUT JORDAN IS JEWISH.
>>SHE GOT INTO A TESTY EXCHANGE WITH A JEWISH REPORTER.
>>IT ONLY PROVES HOW ANTI-SEMITIC SHE IS.
>>IS THAT THE POLITICAL SYSTEM WE WANT TO HAVE QUEST WE
DON'T WANT THAT.
>>THAT SEEMS LIKE A PREPOSTEROUS EXAMPLE -- THAT IS LITERALLY
WHAT THEY'RE DOING TO BERNIE SANDERS BUT ON A FEMALE
QUESTION.
A FEMALE ASKS IF YOU ARE SEXIST, YOU THOUGHT THAT IS
WEIRD, BUT IT IS SEXIST FOR YOU TO DO IT AGAINST A FEMALE
REPORTER.
IF YOU DO THAT WITH ANTI-SEMITISM IS UGLY AND
HORRIBLE BUT IT IS ALSO BAD WHEN YOU DO IT WITH SEXISM IN
THIS CASE.
>>AND IT MINIMIZES THE REAL SEXISM THAT SHE WILL FACE AND
HAS ALREADY FACED, THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS, AND YOU ARE CLOUDING THE
ISSUE BY IMPLYING THAT EVERYTHING THAT EVER
HAPPENS TO HER IS SEXIST.
>>AND AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE HE COMES BACK TO THE STANDARD
LINES, WHICH IS, WHILE THIS HAS BEEN AN UNDENIABLY IMPRESSIVE
CAMPAIGN -- WHAT?
FIRST OF ALL, A PAT ON THE HEAD.
SECOND OF
ALL, THE WASHINGTON POST FAMOUSLY DENIED HOW IMPRESSIVE
THE CAMPAIGN WAS. 16 HEADLINES IN 16 HOURS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE
IMPRESSIVE CAMPAIGN.
WHEN HE HAD A GREAT CHANCE TO WIN, NOT NOW,
WHEN HE HAD A CHANCE TO WIN, THEY WERE LIKE, HE IS NOTHING, A
LOSER, WHY DOESN'T HE GET OUT OF THE RACE?
SOCIALIST.
WHAT IS
WRONG WITH THEM, ETC.
AND NOW THEY ARE LIKE, IT WAS UNDENIABLY
IMPRESSIVE.
PAT ON THE HEAD.
NOW THEY SAY HE HAS TO MAKE SURE
THERE IS NO MORE HOOLIGANISM LIKE THIS.
YOU GUYS ARE THE SAME
PEOPLE WHO ATTACKED HIM FOR BEING THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR
OF OUR LIFETIMES.
SO WHICH ONE IS IT?
HE DOESN'T KNOW WHEN TO
GO TO WAR, HE IS NOT PRAGMATIC AND PRACTICAL.
YOU HAVE TO DROP
BOMBS AND KILL PEOPLE IF YOU ARE PRESIDENT.
HOOLIGAN, HOW DARE
YOU OPPOSE THE ESTABLISHMENT?
MAKE UP YOUR MIND.
THIS WAS A
HATCHET JOB, AND OTHER STUFF IS UNCONSCIOUS BIAS, IT LOOKED
LIKE THIS WAS CONSCIOUS.