Bernie Sanders can’t win: Why the press loves to hate underdogs

[think]

Bernie Sanders can’t win: Why the press loves to hate underdogs

By Steve Hendricks

MAY 21, 2015

ON THE EVE OF THE 1948 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, Newsweek asked the 50 reporters on President Truman’s campaign train to forecast the winner. To a man they went the way the Chicago Tribune infamously would on election night: “Dewey defeats Truman.” Lay historians will recall that not only did Truman defeat Dewey; he clobbered him. Sorting out how the media got it so wrong, The New York Times’ James Reston concluded that he and his brethren had been a lot like the aloof Governor Dewey himself, who was said to be the only man who could strut sitting down. Dewey played well with plutocrats and publishers. “[J]ust as he was too isolated with other politicians,” Reston wrote, “so we were too isolated with other reporters; and we, too, were far too impressed by the tidy statistics of the polls.”

This was true, but it fell to A. J. Liebling, the nonpareil of The New Yorker, to pick out the crucial vice that Reston and similarly minded colleagues overlooked. “A great wave of contrition hit the Washington newspaper world in the days immediately following the joyous catastrophe,” Liebling wrote, “and men swore that they would go out and dig for the real truths of politics as they never had dug before. But few publishers encouraged them in their good resolutions, and most of them are back again running errands designed to bolster their bosses’ new illusions.” Bad as insiderism, arrogance, and poll-worship were, Liebling knew the real peril was that those sins usually furthered the bosses’ agenda. It is one reason Liebling’s most memorable bon mot is also his most eternal: “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”

Those of a Lieblingian turn of mind could not have been surprised by the reception Bernie Sanders got last month when he entered the race for the Democratic nomination for the presidency. Sanders, of course, is Vermont’s junior senator, barber’s worst nightmare, and IKEA socialist (he favors the term “democratic socialist,” as in the Scandinavian variant), who quaintly maintains that people and the planet are more important than profit. Not long ago such beliefs fell well within the waters of the main stream where politicians swam, but the current has since been rerouted, and Sanders now paddles hard against the left bank. For not going with the flow, and for challenging Hillary Clinton, the big fish many elites have tagged as their own, Sanders’s entry into the race was greeted with story after story whose message—stated or understated, depending on the decorum of the messenger—was “This crank can’t win.”

The trouble with this consensus is the paucity of evidence to support it. “This crank actually could win” is nearer the mark. But having settled on a prophecy, the media went about covering Sanders so as to fulfill it. The Times, for example, buried his announcement on page A21, even though every other candidate who had declared before then had been put on the front page above the fold. Sanders’s straight-news story didn’t even crack 700 words, compared to the 1,100 to 1,500 that Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Hillary Clinton got. As for the content, the Times’ reporters declared high in Sanders’s piece that he was a long shot for the Democratic nomination and that Clinton was all but a lock. None of the Republican entrants got the long-shot treatment, even though Paul, Rubio, and Cruz were generally polling fifth, seventh, and eighth among Republicans before they announced.

Full editorial:

http://www.cjr.org/analysis/bernie_sanders_underdog.php

Much more at the link.

[merrily]

1. IMO, corporate media simply does not want Bernie to win.

Republicans are no threat to big business. Big business doesn't see Hillary as a threat. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clintons-wall-street-backers-we-get-it-117017.html

Biig business probably sees Bernie as a threat/

So, they write heavily slanted articles.

Occam's razor.

Corporate media seemed to love an underdog when it Obama v. Hillary.

[daleanime]

3. +1

[merrily]

5. Self delete wrong spot.

[Maedhros]

8. "Corporate media seemed to love an underdog when it Obama v. Hillary."

That says a lot about Obama...

[merrily]

14. If you get the opportunity, watch the aftermath of his

2004 DNC speech. I saw a video within the last year. Maybe it was PBS? MSNBC? Anyway, right after that speech, everyone covering the convention remarked on what a great speech it was--which it was--and said something about his being President. It was an interesting montage.

It occurs to me that it took some Democrats until recently to figure out what the 1985 formation of the DLC actually meant to the Democratic Party and the nation. So, some of the rank and file was almost 30 years behind. Meanwhile, the rich and powerful have been for years figuring 30 and 40 years ahead. The Bohemian Grove is, at this point, maybe the equivalent of summer camp. The Bilderburg Group and others like it, ALEC, etc., however, are a whole different ballgame.

[Maedhros]

15. I remember, I saw it and had the same thoughts.

They'd been grooming him since at least 2004 for the big chair.

[merrily]

16. I once posted in GD that I thought he had been the anointee in 2008 and

got called everything but a child of God.

I stil believe it, though--and I had watched the 2008 primary as a huge fan of Obama's, as well as a donor and volunteer.

For one thing, recall that speech from Harry Reid about Obama being articulate and not having an accent unless he chose to have one. At the time, Reid got a lot of flack about the stereotypes. Then Obama came out and said Reid was only trying to help him (Obama).

Fine, but .... what was that speech all about then? If nothing but the popular vote was going to determine who the nominee was, what was that speech all about? Made before or during a primary, to whom was Reid making that speech and why? Super delegates? Large Party donors? Remember, at the start of the primary, the super delegates were endorsing Hillary. By the end, even before the primary ended, they were switching.

Pelosi, then speaker of the house, predicted that no one who said that the Republican nominee was ready for the 3 am phone call, but a Democratic contender was not was going to get the Democratic nomination for POTUS. Pelosi said that very soon after Hillary made the comment. Why would someone so high up in the party made a comment like that to reporters?

MSNBC hosts were obviously in for Obama, not Hillary, too. Matthews' leg tingling after Obama spoke? Really? That was quite the jawdropper for me One of the hosts getting suspended for saying the Clinton campaign had been pimping Chelsea out, then not allowing anyone to question her. But, only after the Clinton campaign complained publicly about the sexist nature of some of the coverage. To me, the fact that he had said it at all was a signal as to what MSNBC 's general policy was on that point.

I am not saying any corporate media is Democratic. As best I can tell, they all lean right, including NBC News, which guides MSNBC. However, I am saying that corporate media does have its preferences among Democratic candidates. And, that go round, it seemed to be Obama, not Hillary. This time, it's obviously Hillary.

[Jackpine Radical]

13. Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum can make for an interesting race.

Who made the latest gaffe, who got a $500 haircut, etc. But when you get someone trying to run who threatens to rock the boat, you sink them as quickly as possible. The Dean Scream was a flat-out media concoction, but it did its job. Now they want to nip Bernie before he even gets to the bud stage, so they got him on the Big Ignore™.

[merrily]

17. Yes, political coverage has turned into only a very slightly more

intellectual version of Inside Edition. A lot of gossip and a lot of he said, she said. Or, as is more often the case in politics, he said, he said.

And a vast echo chamber. Same stories get pushed at us all day long on MSNBC. And we can also hear them on the Today Show and other talk shows on other networks. Sometimes, I switch stations, just as an experiment. Often, NBC, CBS and ABC morning shows are not only covering the same exact story, but they are all covering it during the same minute.

[corkhead]

2. Shelby Steele: Why Obama Can't Win

Though Obama is now the front-runner in Iowa's Democratic presidential caucuses, Steele — a research fellow at the Hoover Institution — says he can't win.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16879342

[MissDeeds]

4. Bernie is corporate America's worst nightmare

and corporate America owns the media. They will do anything they can to marginalize him. I think he's been in DC long enough to know what's coming and to plan for it. Once people hear Bernie and hear his message, they (the public) will love him and realize he is a man of the people, not a corporate hack.

[merrily]

6. Week 4's action item is to contact the NYT

Mary's Week Four OP gives contact info.

Here's a link to Mary's OP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12807121

[NYC_SKP]

7. Thanks for the link, merrily!

[JDPriestly]

9. I plan to do everything I can to make the press eat its words about Bernie Sanders'

lack of electability.

He is electable. He will make a great candidate.

Voters want authenticity and a message they can understand. Bernie's got both.

The odd thing is that Hillary isn't really talking to the press much. She is just issuing press releases that she can control. It's as if she doesn't trust herself to speak spontaneously. I'm sure that will change. But it does not look good at this point.

[Dont call me Shirley]

10. Bernie can win!

[Enthusiast]

11. Corporations have had free rein for too long. Of course they are opposed to Bernie.

[BeanMusical]

12. Kick and R.