 People in mainstream media, just like Bernie Sanders, I think for a number of reasons. First of all, he poses a threat to the status quo and news pundits probably feel as if they need to protect the status quo because the status quo obviously has been great to them. A lot of people in news media, cable news, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, they're financially well off. They make hundreds of thousands per year, if not millions per year, doing their job. So why would they want to break up a status quo that serves them really well? Additionally, another reason why news media generally speaking wants to protect the status quo is because the status quo also includes special interests, large multinational corporations, all of which advertise on mainstream news networks. It's essentially one giant circle jerk. So they don't like Bernie Sanders and they all have been attacking Bernie relentlessly since he re-entered the race, since he is now back and poses a threat to them electorally. During 2017, 2018, they loved Bernie Sanders. They would bring him on all the time, do these town halls in West Virginia with him with Chris Hayes because back then Bernie Sanders didn't pose an electoral threat. They weren't necessarily sure that he would run again. So why not exploit Bernie Sanders for ratings? And now Bernie Sanders is so powerful that they feel as if they need to attack him at every chance that they have. And that's exactly what they're doing. So it almost seems as if there's this coordinated effort to take down Bernie Sanders. And the reason why I say it seems coordinated is because people in mainstream media, they say the same thing. So first, they were all attacking him in unison because he didn't release his tax returns. He then released his tax returns and then the argument was that, well, he's a hypocrite because his tax returns now prove he's a millionaire and he rails against millionaires and billionaires. So he must be a hypocrite. But the problem is that none of their attacks are landing. Bernie Sanders is not losing support. He still has that core base. So now what I'm realizing is happening is that they're getting a little bit more creative in their attacks of Bernie Sanders because if they all talk about the same thing, be it tax returns, his millionaire status or voting rights for felons using the Boston bomber as an example. The problem is that they probably realized that that's not very effective because they'll put forward an anti Bernie argument and then we'll just swat it down. But what they're realizing now is that if they want actually any attack on Bernie to stick, they're going to have to adapt and get a lot more creative. And that is exactly what they're doing because I've noticed the new pattern now where instead of just posing one argument for Bernie Sanders to respond to, they are overwhelming him with a number of attacks so he can't possibly respond to all of them. So some criticisms of him go unaddressed and the hope I'm assuming is that those unaddressed criticisms end up festering and growing so that way they ultimately consume Bernie Sanders. It's basically the mainstream media equivalent of Gish galloping where you just throw out so much bullshit. You overwhelm your opponent and you force him or her to avoid a lot of the things you said. That's kind of what we're seeing and I'm not suggesting that these TV pundits like meet once a month to coordinate the way in which they're going to take on Bernie Sanders. But I think that if you live in that elite bubble, then there's going to be certain patterns and bad wagons that emerge and you're just going to jump on board. I mean, the same thing happens in progressive media, right? We're all not meeting once per month to talk about the things we should talk about. But we often cover the same types of stories. You know, it's dictated by what's in the news. We talk about common themes within progressive circles, platforming, deplatforming and whatnot. So obviously the same will be true in mainstream media, but just what I notice is this pattern emerging where Bernie Sanders is now being overwhelmed with attacks. So where it is literally impossible for him to respond to them. And I've got a couple of examples that I want to show you that I think demonstrates this new trend. So the first is this New York Times article that was published and just by looking at the title, it's seemingly innocuous. It talks about Bernie Sanders opposition to U.S. imperialism, which I think is good. Obviously, I think that will make him more appealing. But what this piece is in actuality is a hit piece. It is an attempt to smear Bernie Sanders because even if it outlines his history of opposition to U.S. imperialism and his opposition to Reagan's foreign policy, the underlying implication is that Bernie Sanders was and possibly still is a communist sympathizer. And in actuality, what he did was foster dialogue with leaders in other countries that the United States was against, that the U.S. deemed enemies of the state. And the article talks about him going to Nicaragua, the Soviet Union, Cuba, and praising certain aspects of other countries. So while he doesn't necessarily agree with the oppressive and authoritarian nature of the Soviet Union, he'll say, well, look, parts of their health care system is admirable. And maybe we should try to replicate certain aspects of these other countries and try to learn from them rather than, you know, relentlessly demonizing them. The same thing, essentially, that they tried to do to Bernie in this article is what we see the mainstream media doing to Tulsi Gabbard when she went to Syria and they're still doing it. She went to Syria. She talked to Bashar al-Assad. And this was all an attempt to foster dialogue between the United States and another country that we deemed the enemy. It was an attempt at peace. And she was smeared as an Assad apologist, a New York Times writer called her an Assad toady, meaning that she's basically an Assad sycophant. So what they did was they took that Tulsi Gabbard argument, which I think has been very effective at smearing Tulsi Gabbard, because almost everyone in mainstream media associates her with Assad. And they're now trying to apply that to Bernie Sanders and make it seem as if he's the bad guy for being against war, for being against Reagan's foreign policy, which was atrocious. So, for example, look at this tweet from Meet the Press. So they talked to Bernie Sanders. They interviewed him. Chuck Todd asked him about this article and Bernie Sanders essentially said, look, I want to apologize for opposing these interventionist pro-war efforts. And look at the way that they framed his response here. Bernie Sanders said he won't apologize for supporting anti-Vietnam war efforts and voting against the war in Iraq. Quote, I will do everything I can to see problems solved diplomatically instead of through war. So the implication here with this tweet is that Bernie Sanders should apologize. That's the implication. Now, at the end, they were a little bit more charitable and they actually quoted him directly, but they're just kind of putting this idea out there that, well, look, Bernie Sanders, he won't apologize. So if you say that someone should or won't apologize, you're essentially implying that they should apologize. Now, in the actual interview where they quote Bernie Sanders, Chuck Todd is going to ask Bernie Sanders how he's going to be able to prevent Republicans from using the attack that mainstream news outlets lobbed against him in the first place. All right, I want to move to some foreign policy. There's New York Times. Spent a lot of time talking about your trips to Central America. I know you got pretty worked up about those things. I think the larger question, and let me just frame the question this way. The larger question is going to be if you're the nominee, whether you like it or not, the right's going to basically hammer and sickle you to death. How do you prevent it? Well, I don't mind the right wing doing it. But I I understand they will do it. I don't want the media to do it. Exactly. The Republican Party, they are just a bunch of one trick ponies. So no matter who becomes the Democratic Party nominee, they will be labeled a socialist almost certainly and possibly even a communist because that's all that they've got. They called Obama socialist. I'm sure that they called Bill Clinton a socialist. This is what they do. But one institution who should not be resorting to these types of smears is the media, because the media's one job is to educate people. So of all institutions in the United States, they should be the ones to be able to disaggregate anti imperialism from support for communism and support for dictatorial regimes and authoritarianism, but that's not what they're doing here. They're essentially trying to lump those things together and imply that, look, since Bernie Sanders spoke with Ortega since he went to the Soviet Union, maybe that was him tacitly endorsing their authoritarianism and in a follow up piece to the original smear, the New York Times published an interview that they did with Bernie and they made it very clear that Bernie Sanders only agreed to an interview once the article was published. So that was kind of another jab at him. But when you go through this, they were pressing him on the most benign things ever, such as whether or not he would have left a particular anti-war protest if he knew that there were people who were chanting anti-American things and whatnot. I don't care. So let's just take a moment to step back and overall look at what transpired as a result of this one New York Times article. They got so much mileage out of this one smear. So here's all of the things that Bernie Sanders was attacked with. He's a communist sympathizer. How will he prevent the right from exploiting stories like this? He only agreed to an interview once the story was published. And since he was arguably standoffish in response to this smear piece, well, one journalist on Twitter claimed that, you know, he was rude, even if she agrees with the substance and agrees that Bernie was right to speak out against Reagan's interventionist foreign policy. You know, you don't have to be rude. So do you understand why I'm telling you this is an example of mainstream media gish-galloping, because they're not just saying Bernie is a communist sympathizer. They're taking this one smear against Bernie and they're dividing it and they're throwing a bunch at him and hopes that he won't be able to stop all of it. Because if you just say he's a communist sympathizer, he could just, you know, combat that by saying, no, I'm not. Here's my support for democracy and my stance against authoritarianism and my disagreements with communism. But if you throw all of these things at him, he dodged an interview. He was rude. He was a communist sympathizer. He's going to have to deal with Republican attacks. That's a lot more difficult than him just responding to one smear. So they took something that was a singular argument against Bernie Sanders, arguably, if you want to interpret that article in a more nefarious way, which I do. But if you want to interpret it that way, they're taking something and they're complicating it, they're dividing it up into numerous arguments against Bernie Sanders. And they're trying to get him to respond to all of it. And of course, he can't. Now, it's not just this one issue that they are essentially gish-galloping because take the issue of Medicare for All. Bernie Sanders has been arguing in favor of it. And we all know that he supports Medicare for All. He's been explaining what we can expect in the event we actually adopt a Medicare for All type system. Now, rather than just saying how do you pay for it, which was one of the older attacks, watch this segment. We're going to go back to that same interview that Chuck Todd did where he was asked about this smear from the New York Times. And he's going to be asked about another criticism. Watch all of the claims that were made and see how Chuck Todd frames the question and why it's impossible for Bernie to respond to all of this. Michael Bennett, another candidate for president, believed that the lesson of 2018 was not Medicare for All, but Fix Obamacare, I would like you to take a listen to what he said to me earlier this year about that. Now, what Democrats are saying is, if you like your insurance, we're going to take it away from you. From 180 million people that get their insurance from their employer and like it. We're 20 million Americans who are on Medicare Advantage and love it. That seems like a bad opening offer for me. And Senator, I'm well aware that you believe that, look, you were in favor of Obamacare, but it was not your first choice. And I know that. But as you know, there's a lot of voters who voted for Democrats in 2018 to fix Obamacare first, then look at see, okay, should it be something different? Are you obligated to fix Obamacare first? Well, we're obligated to make sure that Trump and the Republicans do not throw tens of millions of people off the health care that they currently are enjoying. But here's the point. The point is the current health care system is absolutely dysfunctional. You have 34 million without any health insurance, even more who are underinsured elderly people can't afford dental care, hearing aids, eyeglasses. And for all of that, Chuck, we managed to spend twice as much money per capita on health care as do the people of any other country. And we pay the highest prices of the world for prescription drugs. Now, I know that the health care industry, the drug companies, the insurance companies will spend hundreds of millions of dollars, including ads on NBC, attacking Bernie Sanders, attacking Medicare for all. But you know what? You look at the polling. The people support Medicare very, very strongly. And all we are saying is you've got a good program in Medicare, expand it to everybody else, improve Medicare for senior citizens. And when we do that, we're going to provide comprehensive care to all people, and we're going to do it by saving substantial sums of money. I think that Bernie Sanders did a pretty good job responding there. But the thing is that there were so many claims, I think easily disputable claims made against Medicare for all, that even if we have answers to all of those criticisms and objections raised by Michael Bennett, you can't possibly respond to all of them. Think of all the claims that were made just in that one clip. Bennett says, you know, if you like your insurance, we're going to take it away from you. That's what Democrats are saying. That's one claim. Another claim is that 180 million people who get their insurance from their employer will lose it. That's a second claim. He says 20 million Americans who are on Medicare Advantage and love it will lose that. That's a third claim. And then Chuck Todd goes on to say, well, you know, are you obligated to fix Medicare for all first? That's four claims that Bernie needed to respond to. But he was only asked a singular question. So all of this misinformation about Medicare for all and disingenuous arguments about Medicare for all are being lobbed at Bernie Sanders. And obviously, how can you possibly respond to all of these numerous objections? And you see, this is why I kind of see this as a strategy in mainstream media emerging. They're not just going to gish gallop to attack Bernie Sanders. They're also going to attack the policy proposals that ultimately legitimize Bernie Sanders. We love Bernie because of the policies that he's proposing. So if you can attack his strength, the policies and not allow him to respond and still give him a chance to respond, but know that he can't possibly respond to all of those points, you are effectively hurting Bernie Sanders. You're doing what their one goal is to do, which is take down Bernie Sanders, throw all of these attacks at him, see what sticks, hope that one of them will go unaddressed to ultimately, you know, get big enough to where Bernie Sanders will be consumed by it. Now, again, these are all not very strong objections to Medicare for all. Well, if you like your insurance, we're going to take it away from you. No, people like their doctors, 180 million people get their insurance from their employer, right? But you lose that insurance on a whim. If your employer decides that they're going to switch providers, 20 million Americans who are on Medicare Advantage and love it will lose that. What is Medicare Advantage? All Medicare Advantage is is supplemental care that fills in the gaps that exist in our current Medicare system, which is why Bernie Sanders always says, we're going to expand Medicare, but we're also going to improve Medicare because there are currently gaps in it. It's not sufficient currently. So if you tell somebody, hey, guess what? We're going to close those gaps so you no longer have to pay for Medicare Advantage each month. What idiot would say? No, I don't want you to do that because I love my Medicare Advantage plan. Who would say that? It's nonsensical, right? So I mean, Bernie Sanders needs to be able to respond to all of these objections being raised to Medicare for all, but he can't possibly do that because it's very difficult to do that when you have 100 different things being thrown at you at one time. And they know that Bernie Sanders does have responses to all of these questions, these disingenuous objections to Medicare for all. But again, the goal is to overwhelm him. Now, the question is, why am I just being conspiratorial? Am I being hypersensitive to any and all criticisms that the mainstream media will lob against Bernie? Well, no, because Bernie Sanders truly does pose a threat to the establishment and mainstream news pundits, they are all included in that establishment. Anyone who benefits economically from the current economic order is obviously part of the establishment. And they have a personal invested interest in maintaining the status quo. So the reason why they want to take down Bernie Sanders is because he represents something so fundamentally different, someone who is anti-establishment in the true sense and not in the false sense that Donald Trump is. Donald Trump is someone who instinctively is anti-establishment because he always was an outsider and was never accepted into those elite circles that he desperately wanted to be in. But still, he's a puppet. He's malleable enough to where the establishment can at least use him to their advantage and get tax cuts and still keep the military industrial complex happy, keep feeding that beast. But with Bernie Sanders, he's someone who actually poses a real threat. So this is more than just about getting Trump out of office to Bernie Sanders. It's about remaking America. It's about thinking not just for the next four to eight years, but the next 15 to 20 years, getting us on a new trajectory, a trajectory where large multinational corporations, including these media conglomerates, pay their fair share. They don't like that. They know that Bernie Sanders poses a real threat and not just a temporary interruption to the status quo like Donald Trump. And this is why they're trying so hard to defeat him. So it may not necessarily be that all these media people are meeting in rooms every single month to say, what's the next thing we're going to harp away at, you know, when it comes to Bernie Sanders? But what they do do is they replicate tactics that they see are effective. And this is clearly an effective tactic. If you see that you have someone that you need to defeat and he's been able to kind of swat away all the criticisms and attacks thus far from mainstream media because people just don't really care what's going to happen. You need to adapt. So what they're doing to adapt is they're throwing everything they can at Bernie Sanders. This is the mainstream media equivalent of Gish galloping. Hit them with as much as you can so we can't possibly respond to all of the idiotic criticisms, because it's not like these are criticisms that are so profound, so powerful that will, you know, any one of them will unilaterally tank Bernie Sanders. But the goal is that some of these will go unaddressed and ultimately come back to bite him in the ass later. They're playing the long game, and that's what's happening here. Because again, if they just say, well, he's a hypocritical hypocritical millionaire, you know, he has tax returns show that he made more than a million dollars and he rails against millionaires and billionaires. Bernie Sanders can easily respond to that. Everyone in progressive media can come out like myself and respond to that and shoot it down. But if they throw all of this out there, you can't possibly respond to all of it. And that's what they're trying to do here. So it's not that they're all meeting behind closed doors to agree on the right strategy. It's just that they replicate what works. It is probably subconscious, but they know they don't like Bernie and they know that they need to take him down. So what we kind of see happen simultaneously is one effective attack that kind of grows and it's just basically its own phenomenon that works in and of itself. It's a strategy that comes up organically, right? That isn't cooked up, you know, by executives or maybe it is. I mean, sure, there was a case back in 2016 when Ed Schultz, who was on MSNBC, tried to cover Bernie Sanders and the president of MSNBC called him and said, you're not allowed to do that. You are not going to cover his presidential campaign launch. So sure, there are some more explicit things. But I think what we're seeing here is people just trying different things to see what works and if they can get Bernie Sanders to respond to some attacks while lobbying like 10 at him, they realize that what they're doing is going to be more effective just by definition because they're making him incapable of responding. So that's what they are doing. And I'm just letting you know this is the strategy. This is a pattern that I see emerging. And I think we need to look out for it because this could potentially be problematic.