Bernie Sanders Mounts an Independent Democratic Challenge to Media as Usual

[Uncle Joe]

It should not have been news to anyone that Bernie Sanders decided to run for president as a Democrat because he did not believe an independent candidacy would have been treated seriously—let alone fairly—by major media outlets in the United States.

(snip)

“We concluded—and I think it was absolutely the right decision, that, A, in terms of media coverage—you have to run within the Democratic Party,” Sanders continued. “Number two, that to run as an independent, you need—you could be a billionaire. If you’re a billionaire, you can do that. I’m not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic party.”

This was not much of a revelation. Sanders spoke frequently in interviews with The Nation during the period when he was considering whether to seek the presidency, and he explained in great detail his concerns about the challenges that face independent and third-party candidates. The Vermont senator recalled the presidential candidacies of consumer activist Ralph Nader and others (going back to Wisconsin Senator Robert M. La Follette in 1924) who had tried to open up the political process by running against the two major parties. He explained that he did not believe he would get a fair shake from the major media outlets that—among other things—acquiesced to Commission on Presidential Debates rules that were designed to marginalize independent and third-party candidates who do not happen to be as wealthy as 1992 contender Ross Perot.

(snip)

At the MSNBC town hall Monday, the senator from Vermont was repeating what he began saying almost two years ago. But his statements were greeted as news, with headlines declaring: “Sanders says he ran as a Democrat for ‘media coverage’” and “Sanders ran as a Democrat for more media coverage.”

(snip)

At this still relatively early stage in the process, he has won millions of votes and almost 600 delegates to this summer’s Democratic National Convention. His supporters have energized the party in states across the country. And there is broad recognition that his focus on economic-justice issues has influenced the rhetoric and policy stances of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. So the decision to run as a Democrat seems to be working—except in one sense.

Sanders still does not get anything akin to fair media coverage for a candidacy that has packed rally halls, won primaries and caucuses and upset the calculus of political and media elites.

Reviews of network news coverage of the various campaigns reveal that Sanders has gotten only a fraction of the coverage afforded Republican Donald Trump. “The network newscasts are wildly overplaying Trump, who regularly attracts between 20-30 percent of primary voter support, while at the same time wildly underplaying Sanders, who regularly attracts between 20-30 percent of primary voter support,” observed Media Matters analyst Eric Boehlert in a December review of data collected by media analyst Andrew Tyndall. “Obviously, Trump is the GOP front runner and it’s reasonable that he would get more attention than Sanders, who’s running second for the Democrats. But 234 total network minutes for Trump compared to just 10 network minutes for Sanders, as the Tyndall Report found?”

http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sander-mounts-an-independent-democratic-challenge-to-media-as-usual/

The corporate media conglomerates and the establishment Democrats know that Bernie speaks the truth, it's too bad they don't have the integrity to admit it.

Can you imagine the hell Bernie would be catching from the establishment Democrats if he had ran as an Independent, pulling votes from the Democratic Party and all but insuring a Republican win? What a bunch of stupid shits!

[djean111]

1. They welcomed Bernie and his supporters, and are now demonizing him.

Guess things did not go as planned.

[Uncle Joe]

2. It's consistent with welcoming voters during elections in the past only to abandon them

once in office.

One would think establishment Democrats would appreciate a candidate invigorating the electorate; bringing fresh blood and Independents into the party, growing it?

What this tells me is they don't want a more powerful Democratic Party preferring an easily divided nation of 1/3 Republican, 1/3 Democrat and 1/3 Independent, I suppose it's easier to manipulate the American People that way in deference to the mega-corporations and oligarchs.

[CalvinballPro]

3. But it could be argued that he deserves to be, at this point.

Sanders has made his case and has had a big impact on the party already. His issues are prominent and he's pushed Clinton to the left on many topics. And maybe he genuinely believes that he should stay in the race until the convention or whatever his excuse is. But the fact remains, the math for Sanders when it comes to delegates is not encouraging, and his campaign knows this. Not to mention, Bernie's attacks against Clinton will be used against her, by Republicans, in the general election. At a time when Donald Trump needs to be addressed by a unified Democratic Party, Clinton is stuck watching her back for Bernie's knife.

I mean, if Sanders is actually concerned about the plight of average Americans, why is he taking their money and redistributing it to the billionaire owners of the media companies from whom he buys television ads and the companies through which he charters his private jets? His campaign has morphed into something that resembles a vanity project lately.

It's not as if Sanders just "goes away" after this election. He's still a sitting US Senator. He's got a yuge national profile now, regardless of the presidential race. I'd much rather see him out stumping for 2016 Congressional candidates at this point (preferably somewhere outside of New England, though, as preaching to the choir is unnecessary). The real movement always should have been about flipping control of Congress somehow, gerrymandering be damned. Presidents can't write laws, not even President Sanders.

[Uncle Joe]

4. Bernie isn't running to "pull Hillary to the left" which considering her history has

little real value.

Bernie is in this race to win and he can certainly do it.

[arcane1]

5. He isn't "taking" our money, we are giving it to him willingly.

Seriously, this is the lamest smear I've heard all day!

[Ferd Berfel]

10. exactly !

I would have never donated to either Hillary OR the DNC - Fuck 'em

I've donated to Bernie dunno 3 or 4 times at $25 each (first time I've donated since Carter)
I collected about 110 signatures over several days to get him on the ballot here
I joined a BErnie group and helped with Debate Watch parties and Arts & crafts fairs to get money for lawn signs buttons etc
I've spent my own money printing up fliers and getting them distributed
I became a Registrar and signed up about 50 new voters over several days
And I voted FOR someone this time rather than against the greater of two evils

I would have never gotten off the couch for Hillary or the DNC or the Local Dem PArty

Bernie has Motivated me. We need his vision of the Future. Not the Status Quo Business as usual crap of the Corporatist cabal

[djean111]

7. I am happily giving money to Bernie. I would not have given a penny to Hillary.

And why is it okay for Hillary to enrich the same people?
Anyway, we all know fucking right well that Hillary has not moved to the left by even one millimeter. And if she gets the nomination or the presidency, she will march happily to the right.

THAT is why we are supporting Bernie.

Oh, and all those new young voters for Bernie? They would not pivot to Hillary. They don't see Trump OR Hillary making things any better for them. And, of course, Hillary is saying no change. There ya go.

[Luminous Animal]

6. KICK

[Ferd Berfel]

8. Exactly the point UJ

He HAD to run from inside.

[Snotcicles]

9. It's the big Corporate Media payback to Bill Clinton for the Telecommunications act of 1996. nt

edited