Shining the light on Bernie Blindness.
- Nicholas Ward
- Mar 10, 2020
- 6 min read
Since 2016 supporters of Bernie Sanders have decried what they see as a campaign by powerful elements of the democratic party to try and remove their candidate from contention.
In 2016 this debate centred around super delegates. Today Sanders supporters are decrying something new they’ve termed ‘Bernie Blindness’.
Sanders supporters believe that there is a pervasive campaign of disinterest in the democratic frontrunner. That mainstream media coverage is purposefully excluding him from their coverage or covering him in the least favourable light possible.
A reddit group called Bernie Blindness has attracted 18.5 thousand members. It has been set up to document evidence of what they call:
“The mainstream media's intentional ignoring, down-playing and/or misrepresentation of Bernie Sanders and his campaign.” – r/BernieBlindness
But how accurate is this claim?
It is difficult to make an assessment about how objectively fair a news company is to a candidate however some startling analytics have recently come to light.
Sanders is currently leading the Democratic primaries by a significant margin. This came as no surprise to his supporters as numerous polls over the last few months have ranked him first or second as preferred nominee. Despite this popularity until recently the Sanders campaign has been getting little mention by major news networks.
Analysis by the Global Database of Events, Language and Tone (GDELT) has found that Joe Biden received more coverage from MSNBC and CNN than Elisabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Sanders, and Michael Bloomberg combined.
Biden received 16.2% of candidate mentions on CNN and 20.24% on MSBC to Sanders 3.9% and 5.5% respectively. Out of the five candidates listed Sanders received the least amount of coverage.
Biden was the favourite to win before the primaries. However, national polls repeatedly tied him with Sanders.
Less coverage does not equal a campaign of discrimination. However, the ‘Bernie Blindness’ brigade have uncovered some startling statistics out of MSNBC.
MSNBC has not only covered Sanders less than other candidates but a majority of mentions of him across the network in the lead up to the primaries were negative according to analysis done by In These Times.
Senior MSNBC presenters have implied Sanders would have supported mass executions, a communist takeover of America, and the Apocalypse, and compared him to the Nazis.
And it seems that voters are taking notice of this.
“The reason I went for Bernie is because of MSNBC… The stop Bernie cynicism… has made me angry enough that Bernie’s got my vote.” Said one New Hampshire Primary voter interviewed by MSNBC https://twitter.com/i/status/1227340369433649157
Since the Democratic Primaries began Sanders proportion of coverage has improved dramatically. He is now receiving a majority of mentions across MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News.
However, despite Biden’s poor performance both in the polls and primaries (Prior to South Carolina he was coming a dismal third by delegate count and fifth by vote) his coverage is still far outstripping his Democratic rivals falling just short of Sander’s coverage.
Amy Klobuchar, Buttigieg and Warren who all lead Biden by vote percentage, fall well behind Biden’s coverage. Not only do they fall behind Biden’s coverage, but they also fall behind Billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s coverage who has zero votes and zero delegates because he has not contested these early primaries.
Even Fox News has commented on the seemingly hostile current level of coverage of Sanders.
While other networks have not been as negative in their coverage Bernie Blindness has compiled dozens of examples of coverage which either misrepresents, undercovers, or completely excludes Sanders from coverage.
Some examples include
This poll
Where Sanders, is listed as ‘other’.
This confusing poll, that combines the top three candidates’ numbers.
Or this trend of leaving Sanders out of headlines
No comprehensive analytics have been done on this trend however it is safe to call it a trend considering the dozens of examples that are easily found.
The Washington Post recently published a news article on the Sanders campaigns concerns titled ‘Bernie Sanders criticizes MSNBC over coverage of his campaign’.
This is not an editorial. Yet it spends seven paragraphs comparing Sanders to Trump and dismissing his complaints. Before in paragraph eight conceding that he has not called the media enemies of the people or expelled them from rallies. And in paragraph nine actually reporting on what the Sanders complaint is.
It is not until the eleventh paragraph that the Post mentions that the Sanders campaigns latest criticism was over a comment by an MSNBC host comparing Sanders to the Nazis.
“Never thought part of my job would be pleading with a national news network to stop likening the campaign of a Jewish presidential candidate whose family was wiped out by the Nazis to the Third Reich but here we are,” Sanders communications director Mike Casca tweeted.
This may not come as a surprise to long time Bernie Sanders considering the Washington Post previously published 16 negative stories on Sanders in 16 hours an unprecedented level of attack against a primary candidate.
While it is unsurprising that more partisan news companies such as the Economist, who described a Sanders Candidate as ‘America’s Nightmare’ might cover the candidate unfavourably.
More surprising to voters has been this pervasive negative coverage from liberal or supposedly non-partisan news sites like the Washington Post and MSNBC.
But if Sanders is being under-covered or unjustly covered why is this happening?
Bernie Blindness believe that it is an attempt by large corporations to discredit a candidate who would target large corporations.
While commentators have pointed out that Biden has close ties to Comcast the parent company of MSNBC.
Early last year Politico reported that the Biden campaign held its first campaign fundraiser at the house of Comcast Executive David Cohen.
David Cohen is not a registered lobbyist however did run Comcasts powerful lobbying arm until December last year. Cohen is now a leading Biden fundraiser.
Meanwhile the Washington Post’s owner Jeff Bezos has been ramping up lobbying efforts in Washington pumping a record USD 16 million in 2019 into lobbying.
Bezos bought the Washington Post in 2013 coincidentally analysts consider 2013 the year that Amazon began its current lobbying campaign which has grown more than 500% since then into the second largest lobbying group in Washington.
Bezos has never been shy about throwing his money around to influence government. And Amazon’s lobbying group has hired numerous former political staffers.
Sanders is an outspoken critic of Amazon.
In October 2019 Joe Biden reversed his pledge not to take corporate money and formed the Super Pac Unite the Country. His campaign has since employed former lobbyists and executives from AT&T (CNN), Comcast (MSNBC), and Walt Disney (ABC).
These companies possess powerful lobbying arms and are major contributors to the Republican and Democratic parties.
CNN’s parent company AT&T has been donating to numerous campaigns. However according to a report by the Washington Post a large lobbying firm contracted by AT&T has had a partner at the firm donating large amounts to the Buttigieg campaign.
In 2016 AT&T was a major donor to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Despite pledges from all but one Democratic candidate not to take corporate money. Candidates have had lavish fundraisers hosted by lobbyists acting as private citizens who then personally donate large sums to these campaigns. Thus avoiding the need to register cooperate donors.
Only two Democratic front runners have avoided these roundabout corporate donations. Warren and Sanders.
Incidentally despite receiving by far the most individual donors and regular high polling by both Sanders and Warren. Neither were covered heavily prior to the primary. And Warrens coverage still falls amongst the least covered candidates in the race.
The average cable news viewer is white and in their 60’s.
This is a concern for the embattled Sanders as this is also the age demographic who are most likely to vote. While his most loyal supporters 18 -24 are the least.
It is possible that news media is simply playing to their audience.
It is also possible that editorial independence is a myth and corporate control is pressuring these companies to attack a candidate they see as a threat.
Fox News and the Newscorp empire have long shown that editorial independence is no guarantee of unbiased reporting.
So, is Sanders the victim of a sustained attack on him by a corporate elite?
When I started researching this story, I did not put much stock in the idea of a sustained attack of disinterest in the lovable Grandfather of Vermont. However, after much research I have an entirely different outlook on this story. But I leave it to the reader to decide.
Is Sanders under attack? I couldn’t say. But it certainly wouldn’t be a historical first.
Commentaires