Itâ€™s routine for right-wing outlets like Fox to smear progressive activists under the guise of â€œnewsâ€� coverage. But why the New York Times? And why the special venom for Bernie Sanders?
After the horrific June 14 shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise and three other participants in a Republican baseball practice, the media floodgates opened for slimy innuendos. Before the day was done, a major supplier of the political sewage was the New York Times, which prominently published a left-blamingÂ articleÂ that masqueraded as news reporting.
The media watch group FAIRÂ pointed outÂ that the Times pieceÂ â€œstarted with a false premise and patched together a dodgy piece of innuendo and guilt-by-association in order to place the blame for a shooting in Virginia on â€˜the most ardent supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders.â€™â€�
It would be a mistake to think that the Times story was only the result of bias inflamed by the grisly shooting spree. A few days earlier, the newspaper had front-paged another â€œnewsâ€�Â storyÂ hostile to grassroots political forces aligned with Bernie — a de facto editorial masquerading as news coverage, headlined: â€œDemocrats in Split-Screen: The Base Wants It All. The Party Wants to Win.â€�
In a bizarre disconnect from electoral reality, the article portrayed a party establishment that had lost election after election, including a cataclysmic loss to Trump, as being about winning. And the article portrayed the partyâ€™s activist base as interfering with the establishmentâ€™s winning ways.
Such Times stories are now operating under a heightened sense of journalistic impunity since the newspaperÂ abolishedÂ its 14-year-old ombudsperson position of â€œpublic editorâ€� more than two weeks ago — further insulating its reporters and editors from accountability. More than ever, calling the shots at the Times — the most influential news outlet in the United States — means never having to say youâ€™re sorry, or even justify what youâ€™ve done.
Corporate-owned media hostility toward Sanders and the progressive base has been conspicuous and well-documented. That hostilityÂ started earlyÂ in hisÂ campaignÂ and never let up, sometimes manifested as giving himÂ scant coverage. When the momentum of the Bernie campaign gained powerful traction as a threat to the corporate order, big media efforts to trash him went over the top.
At a key political moment last year, as FAIR analyst Adam JohnsonÂ wrote,Â â€œthe Washington Post ran 16 negative stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours, between roughly 10:20 PM EST Sunday, March 6, to 3:54 PM EST Monday, March 7 — a window that includes the crucial Democratic debate in Flint, Michigan, and the next morningâ€™s spin.â€� The day after this onslaught, Sanders stunned the elite pundit class by winning the Michigan primary.
Now, in mid-2017, with no presidential election in sight, why is the corporate media hostility toward Sanders so prone to surface?
Consider, as an example, this structural reality: Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post, has just unveiled plans for his company Amazon to buy Whole Foods. And Bernie Sanders, theÂ most popularÂ politician in the United States according to polls, is strongly opposed to allowing such huge consolidations of corporate power.
For good reasons, media powerhouses like the New York Times and Washington Post are averse to Donald Trump. At the same time, they remain quite cozy with Hillary Clintonâ€™s political orientation and especially with the sectors of the corporate-military establishment that she represents. Like so much of the mass media, those outlets see Sanders as dangerously anti-corporate and way too willing to challenge Wall Street, big insurance companies, the fossil fuel industry and the like.
On a political level, the Clinton wing of the party has been running on the equivalent of dumpster-fire fumes since the disastrous loss in November. The partyâ€™s establishment, entwined with Wall Street and an agenda of continuous military intervention overseas, was just barely able to shoehorn its handpicked choice, Tom Perez, into becoming the new chair of the Democratic National Committee.
In a classicÂ joint interviewÂ with MSNBC two months ago, Perez and Sanders showcased just how different their politics are. Perez mumbled platitudes, Sanders was forthright. Perez spoke about victims of an unfair economy, but he refused to denounce or even name their corporate victimizers — while Sanders was glad to do so.
The U.S. media establishment often conflates â€œpopulismâ€� of the right and the left, as though Trump and Sanders are somehow symmetrical as anti-establishment figures. And, as in the case of the New York Times article that appeared hours after the GOP baseball tragedy, the Times has sometimes jumped at the chance to draw far-fetched parallels between Trumpâ€™s violence-tinged, pseudo-populist messaging from the right and Bernieâ€™s humane, inclusive messaging from the left.
Like it or not, the battle over the future of the Democratic Party — including what kind of presidential nominee the party should have in 2020 — is already underway. Overall, the top echelons of corporate media are oriented toward promoting the Clinton wing while denigrating the Bernie wing. The forces that brought us the disastrous 2016 Clinton campaign are not about to give up.
Wake up to the day’s most important news.
Source: Google Alerts