The Mainstream Media has not only failed Bernie Sanders, it has failed the American people
Written by Torben Trapp and Nora Wheelehan
In a little known town hall from 1988, then-Mayor, Bernie Sanders put forth his main criticism of the for-profit media in stunningly simple terms: “If you think that the function of Channel 3 or the Burlington Free Press is to educate you about the world in which you live in, it’s not, it really is not… The function of private media is to make money for the people who own the media. It is a business.” This fundamental critique still holds to this day and is the key source for major forms of criticism the media is receiving from the right (“fake news”) and the left (“part of the elite establishment”). Our job is to explore the validity of those claims and aim for a better understanding of the role the Mainstream Media plays in the creation of narratives and the outcome of this democratic primary.
First, we will examine the creation of the electability narrative around former Vice President Joe Biden, and highlight the double standard of the coverage of Mr. Biden’s and Mr. Sanders’ wins. Second, we will analyze the Mainstream Media’s hesitancy in addressing the newly surfaced sexual assault claims against Mr. Biden. Finally, we will review how the media attempts to turn the American public against their interests by convincing them to vote for a candidate that does not align with their policy interests.
In an election where the primary concern of Democrat voters is whether their selected nominee can beat Donald Trump, it appears reasonable for the Mainstream Media, like MSNBC and CNN, to double down on the analysis of a candidate’s electability. The definition of electability seems intuitive, and refers to the selection of a candidate that appeals to the broadest range of voters, and thus is most likely to win the next presidential election. However, when using this narrative, the Mainstream Media falls victim to a false equivalence argument, asserting that middle-ground politics are best for the middle class and that these politics appeal to the majority of American citizens.
Over the past 40 years, the gap between the middle class and the rich has exploded. The ratio of the average income of the 1% to the median national income has changed from 10:1 in 1978 to roughly 22:1 in 2014. The level of income inequality has increased significantly in the last 40 years, and is now at the highest level since the Census Bureau started measuring it in 1967. Additionally, since 1978 average CEO compensation in the U.S. has grown by 940%, while average workers have received only a 12% increase in their wages over the same period. This has left the U.S. with an average CEO-to-Worker pay ratio of 278 to 1.
During these times, middle-ground politicians like Joe Biden, who has publicly assured wealthy donors that nothing will fundamentally change for them, which maintains current inequality, would not be appealing to the lower and middle class people struggling to make ends meet. The lower and middle class do not need a return to the status quo, but rather radical reforms, such as Medicare for All to erase the high cost of medical care, a wealth tax to expand government spending for average Americans, and a massive shift in the workplace to empower workers.
Joe Biden does not support any of those measures. Although this does not turn away some within the Democratic Party, he fails to offer viable solutions for the members of the working class facing the aforementioned problems. Mr. Biden risks not turning out the same voters who stayed at home in 2016 and “cost” Hillary Clinton the presidency.
The Democrats need to increase voter turnout to defeat President Trump, but Joe Biden’s middle ground politics have created very low levels of excitement even among supporters; thus it is unlikely he will drive citizens to the voting booths. These crucial nonvoters who can shape the election are “disproportionately lower-income, nonwhite, and dissatisfied with the two parties,” with 66% of them being below the age of 49, according to a study by the Pew Research Center.
Those are the people an electable candidate must turn out to win the election against the incumbent President Trump, but Joe Biden is not popular enough among most of these groups to make that happen. In the Democratic Primary, it became obvious that Biden is not the favorite candidate of the young generation, nor is he offering anything to excite people who are currently dissatisfied with both parties. Therefore, Joe Biden fails the electability test. But why has the Mainstream Media nevertheless pushed him as the electable candidate, and what else have they gotten wrong about electability?
We address the latter question first by diving into recent presidential elections and analyzing the success of so-called electable candidates. Most recently, the electable Hillary Clinton lost to the radical Donald Trump in 2016. Electable Republicans like John McCain or Mitt Romney have not performed better against the perceived radical Barack Obama. The same is true for electable Democratic Candidates in 1988, 2000, and 2004 (Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry, respectively) who lost against their deemed radical opponents. In fact, the only three Democratic party candidates that were successful in their bid for the presidency in recent history, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, were described by the media as non-establishment, unelectable candidates at some point.
When digging into polling, we see that Bernie Sanders was beating Donald Trump in the general election in 56 out of 60 national polls. Even in critical swing states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders were both beating President Trump. Why was one of the candidates described as the obvious electable candidate and the other one as a too far left radical? Those are the kinds of questions only the pundits on MSNBC and CNN can and should respond to. On electability, the Mainstream Media seems to get everything wrong, which raises the question of why is that so?
It’s crucial to understand who we are talking about when discussing the Mainstream Media. Guests on MSNBC or CNN are not primarily voters, but pundits, who worry that “they’ll lose their privilege and influence” if Bernie Sanders wins the nomination. A Sanders presidency would be proof of just how out of touch with reality these pundits are. As Mayor Bill de Blasio points out, “most of these people don’t understand how politics work anymore.”
Anand Giridharadas, an MSNBC commentator and editor-at-large for Time magazine, described the establishment, which is continuously represented by those pundits on air, as behaving like “out of touch aristocrats in a dying aristocracy.” Furthermore, Giridharadas accuses the “power establishment,” in the media, to not only be out of touch, but actively trying to stop this Bernie Sanders movement that they do not understand and does not fit into their worldview. One would expect journalists in this situation to be driven by curiosity and trying to understand what drives the members of the Sanders movement. But as Giridharadas correctly describes, we see the opposite.
When we talk about the Mainstream Media, we are talking about pundits like Chris Matthews, who compared the Nevada victory of Bernie Sanders, who has lost kin at the hands of the Nazis in the Second World War, to the Nazis successfully invading France. The same Chris Matthews, who live on air, insinuated that we cannot be sure whether under a President Sanders there wouldn’t be executions in Central Park. We are talking about James Carville saying that nominating Sanders would ensure the Democrats losing in the general election, while right before the New Hampshire primary still thinking that Michael Bennett was the guy to beat Donald Trump. We are talking about Michael Smerconish, who live on CNN had no issue with raising the question of: “Can either coronavirus or Bernie Sanders be stopped,” equating a candidate who runs on the platform of healthcare for all with the devastating pandemic that is Covid-19.
We are talking about pundits that have no problem with ignoring facts and creating the false narrative of Bernie Bros because it is convenient for their political agenda and allows them to badmouth a candidate and a movement they are incapable and unwilling to understand. Ben Smith, a former BuzzFeed News and now New York Times journalist, agreed with Sanders’ critique of the media, when admitting that “the affluent New Yorkers who run and appear on television networks are not inclined to like him.” No wonder a recent analysis by InTheseTimes found that the CNN coverage of Sanders was three times more negative after his Nevada win than the coverage of Joe Biden after he won South Carolina.
Let us make two things very clear: this is not journalism, and these pundits are immensely influential.
First, this is not journalism. Walter Cronkite, a revered journalist, said “journalism is what we need to make democracy work.” What Cronkite is referring to is the worrisome trend of the loss of media competition because it cripples the availability of knowledge necessary for a well informed citizenry. Journalism should provide a vast array of well researched, balanced, and informative perspectives and reports that can be used by the public to make judgments about the world around them. And yet, what we see everyday on those panels at MSNBC and CNN are ratings-driven, highly opinionated, semi-factual entertainment shows, designed to generate as much attention as possible, and create maximal profits for the few big corporations that own those media outlets today. The president of CNN, Jeff Zucker, practically admitted that when saying, “The idea that politics is sport is undeniable, and we understood it and approached it that way.”
Second, even though those pundits, as we have shown before, are devastatingly detached from reality, they are still incredibly influential. Liberals, for instance, are the primary viewers of MSNBC, “watching this network three times the rate of [moderates] and ten times that of [conservatives].” MSNBC is the second most-watched cable news network (behind Fox News, but ahead of CNN), and its median audience age is 65. Thus, it represents an audience that not only turns out in high numbers, but also disproportionately voted for Joe Biden over Bernie Sanders. Another InTheseTimes report, analyzing MSNBC coverage of the Democratic Primary from August and September, concluded that: “MSNBC is the most influential network among Liberals — And it’s ignoring Bernie Sanders.”
The media has decisively influenced the outcome of the presidential primary, but not just by creating and pushing false narratives like the electability of Biden and the myth of Bernie Bros. They have done much more than that.
Critics may argue that perhaps, Joe Biden really is the more electable candidate, that he is represented accurately in the media, and our bias creates the idea of the media bias. However, we would advise that people consider the treatment of Dr. Blasey Ford and Alexandra Tara Reade.
The way that Justice Brett Kavanaugh supporters treated Dr. Christine Blasey Ford in 2018 was nothing short of despicable. How can we trust her? Her emotions are simply a prop in lieu of credibility. This is a great man who supports women, and she is ruining his career because “this is not a man who deserves this.” Dr. Blasey Ford was slapped in the face for her bravery.
However, her defenders quickly ran forward with cries of I Believe Christine Blasey Ford and Believe All Women. #WhyIDidntReport started trending on social media as women recounted their harrowing sexual assaults and prominent celebrities and activists such as Alyssa Milano tweeted, “I see you. I hear you. I believe you. I AM you. #MeToo #WhyIDidntReport.” Kamala Harris praised Dr. Blasey Ford’s courage during the Senate hearings and afterward condemned how she was treated like a criminal by so many in the media and on the Hill. News outlets such as MSNBC, CNN, and the Washington Post fought against the unfair treatment and portrayal of Dr. Blasey Ford and all sexual assault victims. They would always stand with women and defend their claims because every woman deserves to be heard, right?
Well, where are they now? Alexandra Tara Reade is the latest in a total of eight women who have come forward about Biden’s inappropriate touching or boundaries violations, but this time it’s different. This time it goes even further, even darker. This time Reade recounts when Joe Biden sexually assaulted her. This time it is also in the midst of the 2020 presidential campaign, with rising tensions and a flurry of twitter activity whenever anybody does anything. And yet for Tara Reade, there is silence.
After her interview on March 25th, 2020, with Katie Halper, the same arguments used by Kavanaugh supporters were used by the Democrats on Twitter. How can we trust her? This is a Russian political prop. This is just for political gain, and this is just a smear campaign. Joe’s a good guy who has fought for women’s rights since the beginning. Those same advocates and faces for Dr. Blasey Ford are silent now, many of them who have also endorsed Joe Biden’s presidential campaign. Kamala Harris has said nothing about the allegations. Alyssa Milano has defended her support of Biden and instead turned to attack the imaginary Bernie Bros. Joe Biden himself was a major supporter of Dr. Blasey Ford, and has advocated for women to come forward, but this time is silent on the matter. The same media that vowed to protect sexual assault victims was devastatingly silent.
On April 12th, the New York Times was the first of the Mainstream Media to publish Ms. Reade’s story, claiming that the Times has been working since March 25th on this case. The report investigates Ms. Reade’s account and, although later deleted, wrote, “The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.” (The most recent version only says “The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden”). Not only does this strange blurring of the definition of a pattern of sexual misconduct raise red flags, but it also is concerning that this was published four days after Bernie Sanders suspended his presidential campaign. Comparing the media’s treatment of Dr. Blasey Ford with Ms. Reade reveals a severe discrepancy and prompts the question of why they were less forthcoming in the latter’s case.
In conclusion, the Mainstream Media is particularly adept at convincing their viewers to rally behind a candidate that does not support them nor their desired policies. For example, CNN Democratic Primary exit polls show that healthcare was the most important issue to voters, compared to climate change, income inequality, and race relations. In every single state, voters preferred a government plan for all instead of private insurance, even in states in which Biden won by more than 50% of the vote. The strongest and only advocate for Medicare for All is Sanders, as Biden has consistently denied support for Medicare for All, even suggesting that he would veto its legislation if he were in office. Biden also supports much smaller tax raises on the wealthy than Sanders, despite a new Reuters poll showing that the majority of Americans want an aggressive wealth tax implemented.
The Mainstream Media rarely highlights Joe Biden’s history of voting for bills that work against the average, middle class American’s interests. For instance, Biden’s support of the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act which made it extremely difficult for middle class families to access bankruptcy while providing loopholes for the wealthy. Or his sustained support since 1984 for reducing Social Security benefits.
Yet, despite his public record on voting against the American people, the media continues to assure the public that Biden will fight for them. This is simply incorrect and prompts the question of why the media would even do this?
George Orwell’s proposed preface to Animal Farm noticed that the aristocratic elite’s ownership of the British press of the 1930s meant that certain topics would not be reported, thus “unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban.” The suppression of public opinion is possible in a free democratic society if the wealthy control the media.
Today billionaires are buying major media companies, so we should be vigilant and ensure that such a phenomenon does not happen again by holding the media accountable for its reporting. The media delivers the Joe Biden electability narrative fueled by disparate reporting in attempts to turn the American public away from their own best interests and the candidate that’s best for them.
The Mainstream Media’s bias determines what stories are covered or cast aside. Ronan Farrow’s journalism brought this into the spotlight by demonstrating the reluctance of the Mainstream Media to address the Weinstein and Epstein scandals. These are only a few of the well-known cases; however, we aim to show the broader systemic flaws that are silent but deadly, such as the construction of news for entertainment and the consolidation of the media, perpetuating the cycle that produces these media failures. By informing the public of these issues, we can work towards systemic change in the media institutions to generate sustainable changes to disrupt the media bias cycle.
