Home | About | Donate

Corporate Media Bias on 2020 Democratic Race Already in High Gear


#1

Corporate Media Bias on 2020 Democratic Race Already in High Gear

Jeff Cohen

After having been a mainstream TV news pundit, I’m unfortunately addicted to cable news (mostly MSNBC and CNN) and all the blather and repetition—laughably overhyped as "breaking news." Even when it's the same news that’s been breaking... and breaking... for hours or days.

But I'm more bothered by the repetition of pundits and the narrowness of discussion, resulting in a number of unexamined clichés. Although the Democratic race for president has barely launched, mainstream media bias is already in orbit.


#2

The Corporate media actions are not “bias” per se, they are corruption by and for wealth, and the various “media’s” owners self-interest. A pre-meditated effort to silence or enhance the standing of one or the other candidate that distorts the reality and subverts our electoral processes for one manipulator or another and silence another…a criminal, not un-intentional or ordinary “bias” - that is a word that itself masks the intent and crime! That MO has made a mockery of “democracy” and sabotaged our nation and people! The airwaves were sold-off and should be - ans would be, in any really progressive and fair system - taken back to be independent and serve all the people!


#3

Let’s be clear, Bernie would have wiped the floor with Trump. It would have been (genuine) populist versus (faux) populist. With that “equivalency”, the people would have focused on whose message resonated better with them. The pragmatic inclusiveness of Bernie’s message would have ruled the day. Instead, the Democratic machine, as run by Debbie Wasserman Schulz, conspired to enthrone a most unlikeable candidate. It is time to elect People’s advocates. Damn the corporations, full speed ahead.


#4

Two things: Markos Moulitsas actually banned registered members who remained Bernie loyalists and Hillary critics from Daily Kos in 2016. That’s bridging the divide in the d-party?

Also, I recommend you read this:


#5

Kind of hilarious how out of touch most of the media is though. They still don’t get how loathed they are across the ideological spectrum, and how loathed most of their politicians of choice are. At this point, if they like Beto, they would do him a huge favor by not letting their preferences be so obvious, cause it does him, or Booker, or Harris no favors.

The people also that last time around took a lot of time to turn as many people off as possible (dismissing people as Berniebros, calling everyone sexist if they pointed out how shitty of a candidate Clinton was, lying about things like chair throwing in Vegas, refusing to get into policy-centered discussions, dismissing people as “purist” if their critiques hit too close to home and the people defending a candidate had no logical response, saying things that were not impossible were impossible because their candidates had no intention of fighting for those things), and it is already happening. The people in the establishment, they have no societal worth. Their entire worth comes down to their connections to some crappy think tank, or one of the two parties, or their friends in the media who hook them up with a gig on TV saying tone deaf group think talking points. Remove their access to power, and what do they bring society? What are their skills, what have they fought for on policy, which groups have they worked to empower in society? Let’s say Bernie, or in a few years, AOC wins, and they radically changed things. Who the hell is going to care about Neera Tanden, David Brock, or Jake Tapper for that matter? They never really fought for policies as much as they did themselves, most of what they do is attacking people in horribly dishonest ways, they never lead on policy or show courage, they are almost all corrupt. I guess, since they can rig things once again, that they don’t really care. After all, if Trump wins, things are still in place enough where they can maintain access to power. The left poses an existential threat to them, and they know it, and that makes them angry and makes them externalize their inner anger onto the people they view as threats.

Cohen’s documentary looks interesting too.


#6

Yes, it seems to of come to the point (and in fact should have) , that when the media gets behind a certain candidate it a message to the voter as to exactly who they should NOT vote for.

I am up in Canada and not as familiar with Neera Tanden as that David Brock , but brock is about as sleazy as they come. I remember Brock from his days of slagging Anita Hill .Watch who that guy gets behind and then ensure you do not vote for that candidate :slight_smile: Brock is just another Right Winger who wants that type of Politics to fill the entire Political spectrum.


#7

“If genuinely progressive pundits were present in mainstream media…” That’s funny.

The ‘mainstream media’ is just the other side of the corporate coin that we call the ‘military industrial complex’.


#8

“The mainstream media is just the other side of the corporate coin” morphed “the military industrial complex” into the military industrial media infotainment complex (MIMIC) during the 1990s when “reporters” became “imbedded” in combat units to sanitize war with happy language like “collateral damage”.

The most egregious MIMIC display was Michelle Obama showing up at the Academy Awards with a bunch of marines.


#9

I’m afraid that I have a bit of a problem with the phrase… “Kind of hilarious how out of touch most of the media is though.” The author also writes that…“Let’s be clear: One reason mainstream journalists were so wrong about the 2016 election is because they are largely divorced from poor and working-class voters of all races. They seem especially clueless about “non-college-educated whites.” Which may explain their obsession with a group of swing voters they can better relate to: “moderate Republicans in the suburbs.””
It is counterproductive to believe that the journalists or the editors are “out of touch” or that they are “largely divorced from poor and working class voters” because even the most enlightened journalist have no choice but to follow the MSM narrative or else they will find themselves unemployed. Perhaps a few journalists actually believe the rubbish they peddle, but for the most part journalists know exactly what is expected from them and realize that they have no room to maneuver.
Editors are chosen from an elite group of sociopaths to make sure that all reporters follow the ‘Great Western Narrative’ or else they are quickly dismissed from their jobs. Because many of the journalists find themselves among the “poor and working class”, they know that any deviation from the corporate script, will result in their immediate dismissal.
How often in the past have I come across reporters/journalists and asked them to point out the actual truth about some societal problem and was quickly set straight with a reply like… “Oh, that would never fly!” or “That would cost me my job.” (Full disclosure:I worked for a major media outlet in my early years) Even in schools of journalism I found that students were expected to follow a rigid set of writing rules to ensure that they would be “employable” after graduation. Students are instructed to tone down their language, avoid issues that can upset corporate sponsors and to stick to the old ways of reporting the news.
Some naive journalists are waiting for an editor to be replaced by another editor with a human side or someone “who gets it!”, but the reality is that even if some editor like that came along, that editor would quickly find themselves unemployed and vilified by the corporate sector. The alternative is to work for independent media such as “Democracy Now” or “TruthDig”, but the audience is small, the reach is limited and the pay is sub-par.
What is needed is a network that does not rely on corporate sponsorship to stay in business such as a publicly funded network. Naturally the 1% would label such a network as “communist” and neither of the two corporate party’s would ever endorse such a democratic idea. However if the 99% are ever lucky enough to seize power in the future, it will be imperative for our new nation to launch an honest, publicly owned network to counter the networks of oppression right off the bat. Our forefathers could have never imagined how far private interests would completely subvert our press to serve a handful of special interests at the expense of everyone else.


#10

Yes anyone that the MSM networks claim is the most electable democrat in 2020 is really the one that is the most select able!


#11

fuck the mainstream media


#12

Not to worry, Mr. Cohen.  With her condescending attitude and fingernails-on-a-blackboard voice – reminiscent of but even worse than Hilliary in both respects – anything Neera Tanden says on Beto’s behalf is very likely to backfire.  She may not cure your addiction to MSNBC, but she’s definitely weakening mine.  Whenever Tanden appears on a show – even Rachel’s entertainment hour – I immediately change the channel.

The ONLY positive thing I can think of to say about Tweetle-Dumb is that at least he has significantly reduced the number of minutes that the arrogant Red Queen is forced on us by the MSM.


#13

Hopefully, future generations will get their news from the Internet instead of the corporate media. It may seem naive, but I think that if given the chance, people will usually seek out the truth. This may be why as compared to the money media, Wikipedia has been a success.


#14

Its already happening. Most of the people who watch mainstream media these days are people 70 and older. That is why there was such a big push to kill Net Neutrality by the FCC, to strangle the independent news sources.


#15

The MSM ( ABC, NBC, CBS, NPB?, MSNBC, CNN & Fox News? ) marketing is aimed at the top 30% earners of the income scale. ( The info from the former Firedoglake didn’t include the 2 with ? marks. ) The 70% are already off their radar and I keep seeing this in the advertising makeup.
So, why should they be in touch with or understand the working class and poor voters?


#16

HI allen1-----LOL, well Maybe the Hillary will, as I got an email the other day about Hillary 2020— and if she has to individually F the news guys, I’m sure she will. : )


#17

There is the “money internet”. Our future offers us something to bitch about for a long while after the boob tube.


#18

What do you think about this essay? Do you believe that the democrats are the lesser evil? As many have said, they are the more effective evil because people who vote democratic think that they are doing things for them when the reality is that they are doing the same things that the republicans are doing.

This is why Obama’s ratings are so high. People refuse to see that he was worse than Bush on economic policies and he was definitely worse than him on foreign policy. Entered office with two wars going on and left with 7 or more plus drones and bases in who knows how many countries?

Nope. I did not agree with that essay.


#19

Have you heard about NewsGuard and what it’s purpose is? It will read websites and decide whether it is truthful or not and will put up a rating button on the site so people can see if it true or fake news. Fox gets a good rating while Russia today gets a false one.

Then there’s that integrity Initiative from Britain. You will have to look them up and see what their purpose is. This is another reason why net neutrality was killed.


#20

its really disgusting … i wont watch msnbc or cnn or fox or even my local tv news ,
first of all any “journalist” getting paid over 1 million dollars a year isn’t reporting news they are spouting propaganda on behalf of the oligarchs

then never discuss “CLASS” issues in the US … the whole system is rigged in favor of the ruling class and has been for a long time

im glad im old and out of here in the not too distant future b/c it wont get any better until people in the US take to the streets