[blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Bias: The Mainstream Media Undermines Sanders at Every Turn

From: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 15:09:03 -0400

I never trusted Mara Lyason, not ever, not way back when she did her
political analyses on NPR. She always sounded like the voice of the
conservative political establishment to me.

Miriam

-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 2:59 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Bias: The Mainstream Media Undermines
Sanders at Every Turn

The problem is, we grumble when the media ignores Bernie Sanders, but at the
same time we complain over a media that is biased and heavily underwritten
by Billionaires.
Do we really want the media to embrace Bernie? A Grass Roots Movement is
exactly that. A movement that works its way along the bottom, springing out
once it has a firm footing.
And if you think there is a major neutral news service, I would also point
out that NPR is no longer even close to neutral in its news reporting. Mara
Liasson did a piece on presidential candidates and went the entire time
without mentioning Bernie Sanders one time.
Yes, good old fair minded Mara Liasson, the Sweetheart of Fox News. I
missed her piece on NPR, since I seldom listen to that broadcast that no
longer calls itself, National Public Radio. Just, NPR.
But last evening Thom Hartman played a clip from Mara's non mention of
Bernie.
Anyway, we need to remind ourselves to not get excited when the
Establishment's Media trashes those candidates they oppose. And I don't
listen to the Poles, either. I'm voting for a person who has something to
say, not voting for the most popular candidate. Or the prettiest, like
Donald Trump.
The Media has just begun. They will run out of cute little stories to
report on, so they will turn to trashing the physical appearance of those
candidates they oppose.
And all the while we will become just a little bit dumber.

Carl Jarvis
On 9/3/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org) Home > Bernie Bias:
The Mainstream Media Undermines Sanders at Every Turn
________________________________________
Bernie Bias: The Mainstream Media Undermines Sanders at Every Turn By
Rima Regas [1] / AlterNet [2] September 2, 2015 Who knew, when Bernie
Sanders announced a run in the Democratic primary, that not only would
he meet with hostility from his main opponent's chief surrogates, but
that the media would acquiesce and even collude to such a great
degree?
When analyzing the quantity and content of the vast majority of what
is said and written about Sanders, his campaign platform, and
appearances, one finds a running theme across the so-called liberal
media. The New York Times has been called out by more than one
analyst, myself included, for its complete lack of serious coverage of
Bernie Sanders.
Since joining the staff at the New York Times, Maggie Haberman has
written about Sanders on fewer than a handful of occasions, while she
has written about the other candidates in the race more often. While
it is understandable that Hillary Clinton would be the subject of more
numerous articles, it makes no sense for Martin O'Malley to have more
articles written about him than Sanders, given the pecking order that
emerged right from the start, yet that is what has transpired so far.
In articles that address various aspects of the Democratic side of the
primary, Senator Sanders' ability to succeed is always described in
doubtful terms, even as Hillary Clinton's troubles in the polls are
being described.
The New York Times has published fewer than a dozen pieces that are
Sanders campaign-specific and each is problematic in the way he is
portrayed. Most often, Sanders' age and hair are highlighted, and the
incorrect moniker "socialist" is applied. (Socialist and Democratic
socialist are not interchangeable terms.) While the age of a candidate
might matter to some when thinking about a candidate's experience or
mental capacity, Bernie Sanders is 73, only six years older than
Hillary Clinton. His mental capacity has never been a subject of
contention. One can only conclude from the repetition of negative
references, that writers are attempting to condition readers into
thinking of Sanders as the "unkempt" elderly stereotype.
Most presidential candidates have been older than 60. Think of Ronald
Reagan. The distance between 67 to 73, in human years, isn't that
significant from either the experiential or health standpoints. If
anything, Sanders' breakneck schedule, accounting for work in the
Senate, crisscrossing the nation to hold rallies, and appearing on
cable news shows demonstrates a high level of mental and physical
energy.
The most harmful way anti-Sanders media bias has been manifested is by
omission. In this respect, the New York Times is joined by the vast
majority of the mainstream media in not typically reporting on
Sanders, especially on policy. Overall there is a version of a "wall
of silence" built by the media when it comes to serious reporting and
analysis of his policies; or when analyzing or reporting on the
policies of his opponents, a failure to mention Sanders' in contrast,
especially when his is the more progressive position. This behavior
hasn't gone unnoticed by readers. You can see numerous complaints from
readers about the Times organization's bias toward Sanders. You see it
in the New York Times comments section, on the Facebook pages and
comments sections of all the major publications, and just about
everywhere else. Readers complain about the lack of substantive
coverage as well as the bias in what little is published. The Times' Jason

Horowitz'

piece, [3] "Bernie Sanders Draws Big Crowds to His 'Political Revolution"
drew over 1600 comments, double what the most popular columns usually
fetch, with most in protest over the obvious bias of the piece and the
Times'
egregious lack of coverage of Bernie Sanders news.
Bernie Sanders' campaign has centered around economic justice and his
plans to reform banking, taxation, trade, stimulate the economy,
promote manufacturing at home, and institute jobs programs. I've yet
to see side-by side comparisons of the top two Democratic candidates'
prescriptions for the US economy. Most economists and economic writers
chose to publish pieces on the Clinton economic plan before she gave
her speech. Few wrote about it after, and with reason: The speech
didn't deliver much in the way of specifics, and was vague about
policies that the voting public expects.
Sanders' version of an economic plan has yet to garner serious
analysis and discussion. Both Clinton and Sanders base their economic
prescriptions on economist Joseph Stiglitz' most recent work, Rewrite
The Rules [4]. Paul Krugman has, on three occasions, talked up Hillary
Clinton's economic platform, specifically on wages, without so much as

mentioning Sanders.

Clinton favors a minimum wage of $15 per hour in New York City, and
$12 an hour nationally. Sanders has called for the minimum wage to be
raised to
$15
an hour for everyone. The Times had reported, in May, that Stiglitz'
work would likely greatly influence Clinton's platform. If it has, one
wouldn't know it, judging by subsequent writings.
Plan for Racial Justice
While news outlets were reporting on the disruptions of Sanders by the
Black Lives Matter movement, few followed up on the story as Sanders
began to respond positively. Sanders gave a major speech [5] to the
Southern Christian Leadership Conference on July 27. It received very
little attention from the press. And within a week, Sanders delivered
his answer to Black Lives Matter, by way of a plan. The New York Times
has yet to make mention of Sanders' plan for racial justice [6], link
to the senator's website, or publish it outright in an article. And
the media has ignored the fact that the racial justice plan has
received praise among a number of Black Lives Matter leaders,
including activist Deray McKesson.
Clarence Page recently wrote [7] about Sanders in an op-ed for the
Chicago Tribune. He took a tack that many in the press now use:
comparing and contrasting Sanders to Donald Trump. Given the kinds of
controversy Trump has kicked up with his racial statements, and the
treatment Sanders has received over his racial justice bona fides, it
is no surprise that many of Sanders' supporters are angry. Page begins
his op-ed with: "The farther the left and right wings in politics move
toward extremes, an old saying goes, the more they resemble each other."
In any other context, that kind of contrast might have been fair, but
not in a piece about Trump and Sanders. In his third paragraph, Page
writes: "In recent days we have seen how both Trump, now a seasoned
reality TV star, and Sanders, a self-described Democratic socialist,
have faced sharp criticism within their separate political tribes for
omitting or offending key constituencies."
While it is true enough that Trump has been making racially offensive
statements about all constituencies that aren't key to his campaign,
that same accusation does not apply to Bernie Sanders, who in stark
contrast to his main opponent, has never, in 50 years of documented
political activism and public office, uttered a racially offensive
statement, or favored policies that are detrimental to minorities.
Page praises Sanders' plan for racial justice, without any discussion
of its points and then goes on to characterize the diversity of
Sanders'
supporters: "But his impressively huge crowds have been even less
diverse than his 95-percent-white home state of Vermont." There's not
been a study or poll of the crowds at Sanders events. From what I could

see of Sanders'

Los Angeles and New Orleans rallies, the crowds seemed to match the
diversity of the locale. Of note is the fact that there hasn't yet
been a large-scale poll of the black community on its support of
Sanders following the publication of his plan for racial justice.
Over a month after the publication of Sanders' plan for racial
justice, the media continues to portray him as someone who is racially
wounded, when to begin with, that "problem" came into existence the
day of the Netroots Nation disruption under the guise of eliciting
needed policy from all candidates, even those who are considered
friends. As the top Democratic candidate continues to owe such "needed
policy," Hillary Clinton continues to enjoy relative insulation [8]
from the perception of having any racial wounds, in spite of a record
of promoting policies that have led to the very reasons for the birth
of Black Lives Matter.
Over at Vox, coverage of Sanders by everyone but Ezra Klein has mostly
been overtly negative. Dara Lind address a portion of the race issues
in her interview [9] of comedian Roderick Greer, who came up with the
Twitter hashtag BernieSoBlack. But that piece [10] contained much more
than an explanation of some funny hashtag, and all of it was slanted
in the direction of stripping Sanders of his civil rights
achievements, even as the piece was titled to indicate Greer's
frustration at Sanders' supporters.
Attacking Sanders' supporters and portraying them as racist or
borderline racist has been a running theme in the press. Since his
record on civil rights cannot be impeached and he has never committed
a racial faux-pas, the only way to attack him on race is through his
supporters, and that is how in piece after piece, Sanders' record is
being sullied.
The attacks on Sanders began with a curious refusal to give him any
credit for taking part in the civil rights movement, and have been
followed up by pieces designed to paint him as dispassionate about
human rights and racial justice. Few are those who cite Sanders'
longstanding near-perfect rating by the NAACP and ACLU, or mention
those, like Senator Cory Booker, who have spoken up in defense of
Sanders' lifelong record with the African-American community.
Since when don't records matter?
Up until Bernie Sanders, a politician's record has always been the
measure by which evaluations are made. This is of particular import
here because Sanders' main opponent, Hillary Clinton, also has a very
long record and it isn't being scrutinized. When Clinton met with
protesters in New Hampshire and she was confronted with policies of
hers and Bill Clinton's that have harmed the black community, little
was made of it in the press. All chatter about Clinton's behavior at
that meeting has practically come to an end, and she has yet to
publish her own policy proposals for racial justice.
Sanders has focused his tenure as a public official on economic justice.
That doesn't mean he paid no attention to racial justice. His stump
speeches, with few exceptions, make mention of the racial disparities
in our society. One example that comes to mind is Sanders' appearance
in front of the Council of La Raza [11], where he spent several
minutes addressing racial disparities harming African Americans.
The characterization that Sanders' position on solving the problems of
racial injustice is through addressing economic inequality is patently
false. Sanders has long been on record as saying that racial
inequality is a separate problem that needs to be addressed in
parallel. Almost to a voice, the U.S. mainstream press corps avoids
any mention of that in order to cement the perception that Bernie
Sanders isn't serious about redressing America's original sin.
At a time when economic and racial inequality are at their deepest, we
are again at a similar moment in time as when the Reverend Martin
Luther King Jr. was speaking out in favor of racial unity to fight
poverty and inequality. In one of his last speeches, [12] "The Three Evils

of Society,"

King described the conditions we find ourselves in today. His
prescription came in the form of his Poor People's Campaign, uniting
the nation's whites and blacks to fight for economic justice. It is
painful to hear and read those who are intimately familiar with King's
speeches joining in the same behaviors as the rest of their colleagues
in the media in praising Bernie Sanders and putting him down all at
once, at times even using the very same Martin Luther King quotes included

in Sanders' plan for racial justice.

To Martin Luther King Jr., racial, educational and economic justice
were always inexorably tied. To James Baldwin, racial, educational and
economic justice were indivisible from each other. It takes a rare
cynic who is well versed in the writings of Baldwin and King to use
them as bludgeons against Sanders, all the while withholding salient
facts from the public, so it can do its job as described in Baldwin's The

Fire Next Time:

"And here we are at the center of the arc, trapped in the gaudiest,
most valuable, and most improbable water wheel the world has ever seen.
Everything now, we must assume, is in our hands; we have no right to
assume otherwise. If we-and now I mean the relatively conscious whites
and the relatively conscious blacks, who must, like lovers, insist on
or create, the consciousness of the others-do not falter in our duty
now, we may be able, handful that we are, to end the racial nightmare,
and achieve our country, and change the history of the world. If we do
not now dare everything, the fulfillment of that prophecy, recreated
from the Bible in song by a slave, is upon us: "God gave Noah the
rainbow sign, No more water, the fire next time!"
In the absence of fair media coverage, how do we create the
consciousness of the others? How do we achieve our country? How do we
avoid repeating history?
Rima Regas is a Southern California-based writer and commentator with
a passion for progressive politics, and social and economic justice.
Her career has included stints as a congressional staffer, graphic
designer, technical writer and editor. Follow her on Twitter
@Rima_Regas and Blog#42 atwww.rimaregas.com [13]
Share on Facebook Share
Share on Twitter Tweet
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [14]
[15]
________________________________________
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-bias-mainstream-media-und
ermine
s-sanders-every-turn
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/rima-regas
[2] http://alternet.org
[3]
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-evokes-ob
ama-of
-08-but-with-less-hope.html
[4] http://www.rewritetherules.org/
[5]
http://www.rimaregas.com/2015/07/berniesanders-speech-to-sclc-blog42/
[6] https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/
[7]
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/page/ct-bernie-sanders-dona
ld-tru mp-megyn-kelly-perspec-0812-20150811-column.html
[8]
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/19/9174077/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matte
r [9]
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/9005855/black-twitter-bernie-sanders
[10]
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/9001639/bernie-sanders-black-lives-matter
[11]
http://www.rimaregas.com/2015/07/msm-tries-to-drive-a-wedge-between-bl
ackliv esmatter-progressives-berniesoblack-happens-blog42/
[12]
http://www.rimaregas.com/2015/08/a-quote-from-mlks-three-evils-of-soci
ety/
[13] http://www.rimaregas.com/
[14] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on Bernie Bias: The
Mainstream Media Undermines Sanders at Every Turn [15]
http://www.alternet.org/ [16] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org) Home > Bernie Bias:
The Mainstream Media Undermines Sanders at Every Turn

Bernie Bias: The Mainstream Media Undermines Sanders at Every Turn By
Rima Regas [1] / AlterNet [2] September 2, 2015 Who knew, when Bernie
Sanders announced a run in the Democratic primary, that not only would
he meet with hostility from his main opponent's chief surrogates, but
that the media would acquiesce and even collude to such a great
degree?
When analyzing the quantity and content of the vast majority of what
is said and written about Sanders, his campaign platform, and
appearances, one finds a running theme across the so-called liberal
media. The New York Times has been called out by more than one
analyst, myself included, for its complete lack of serious coverage of
Bernie Sanders.
Since joining the staff at the New York Times, Maggie Haberman has
written about Sanders on fewer than a handful of occasions, while she
has written about the other candidates in the race more often. While
it is understandable that Hillary Clinton would be the subject of more
numerous articles, it makes no sense for Martin O'Malley to have more
articles written about him than Sanders, given the pecking order that
emerged right from the start, yet that is what has transpired so far.
In articles that address various aspects of the Democratic side of the
primary, Senator Sanders' ability to succeed is always described in
doubtful terms, even as Hillary Clinton's troubles in the polls are
being described.
The New York Times has published fewer than a dozen pieces that are
Sanders campaign-specific and each is problematic in the way he is
portrayed. Most often, Sanders' age and hair are highlighted, and the
incorrect moniker "socialist" is applied. (Socialist and Democratic
socialist are not interchangeable terms.) While the age of a candidate
might matter to some when thinking about a candidate's experience or
mental capacity, Bernie Sanders is 73, only six years older than
Hillary Clinton. His mental capacity has never been a subject of
contention. One can only conclude from the repetition of negative
references, that writers are attempting to condition readers into
thinking of Sanders as the "unkempt" elderly stereotype.
Most presidential candidates have been older than 60. Think of Ronald
Reagan. The distance between 67 to 73, in human years, isn't that
significant from either the experiential or health standpoints. If
anything, Sanders' breakneck schedule, accounting for work in the
Senate, crisscrossing the nation to hold rallies, and appearing on
cable news shows demonstrates a high level of mental and physical
energy.
The most harmful way anti-Sanders media bias has been manifested is by
omission. In this respect, the New York Times is joined by the vast
majority of the mainstream media in not typically reporting on
Sanders, especially on policy. Overall there is a version of a "wall
of silence" built by the media when it comes to serious reporting and
analysis of his policies; or when analyzing or reporting on the
policies of his opponents, a failure to mention Sanders' in contrast,
especially when his is the more progressive position. This behavior
hasn't gone unnoticed by readers. You can see numerous complaints from
readers about the Times organization's bias toward Sanders. You see it
in the New York Times comments section, on the Facebook pages and
comments sections of all the major publications, and just about
everywhere else. Readers complain about the lack of substantive
coverage as well as the bias in what little is published. The Times' Jason