Home | About | Donate

Did the Press Take Down Bernie Sanders?


Did the Press Take Down Bernie Sanders?

Neal Gabler

Earlier this week, even before Hillary Clinton’s primary victory in California assured her the Democratic presidential nomination, the Associated Press had already declared her the presumptive nominee. Bernie Sanders and his supporters were sore, and they had a right to be.


Great article and I totally agree. I am also disgusted with the New York Times, the only newspaper other than our local ones that I still read. However, I'm just curious where the 3.7 million extra votes for Hillary came from. Since my state, Maine, Is a caucus state, we will never know how many Mainers would have voted for Bernie since only the relatively few caucus goers were counted. Bernie signs and bumper stickers abound in this state. The same is true for other caucus states.


No, Neal, the press did not take down Bernie Sanders. The DNC took down Bernie Sanders through a fraudulent election process. The press only colluded in this crime.

If the Democratic nomination 'contest' had been held in a third-world kleptocracy, the UN would not have certified the results.


No corporate agenda at play here, by corporate media and the corporate DNC / Clinton campaign against the populist Sanders campaign. The obvious collusion is explained simply by understanding the "picking the loser" media narrative. Right.

Gabler serves up a load of pabulum.


The corporate press and wire services have been inseparable from the CIA for years. Between the embedded media and the voter disenfranchisement and stacked delegate system of the shallow mask of phony puppet-show politics, Sanders had as little a realistic chance as Democracy.

What has been achieved is an education and strengthening of a movement for massive resistance. Our struggle is existential. If there is to be a future we will have to shut the juggernaut down and replace it with sustainable civilization. We have nothing left to lose and a world to defend.


The DNC, like the press, is inseparable from the CIA/corporate oligarchy.


I am sure the press, after the Obama meeting, already had their headlines ready........Bernie comes out hand in hand with Obama to endorse Hillary....or some variation to that effect. The fact that his talk at the presser simply reiterated his desire to change the narrative of government by the people, had to give them all a hissy fit. Bernie, they want to say, just do as you are told and fall in line. The longer he resists such pressure the more I admire him.


The question that is totally missing in this article is why did racial and and ethnic minorities and registered Democrats over 50 largely vote or caucus for Hillary, not Bernie. This is the key reason that Sanders fell short, often by only a small margin in so many primaries.



There's a reason why specific writers get major contracts and lots of press columns and Gabler seems to fit right in with THIS establishment.

I've dissected 4 key focal points of this rationale-for-Clinton's victory paean:

The following doesn’t ask why, as if the mechanics driving these 4 message frames have no reason or motive:

"Harvard political scientist Thomas Patterson said there are only four press narratives in an election campaign: “a candidate is leading, or trailing, or gaining ground or losing ground.”


“The press dumps on losers and those who are losing support, criticizes front-runners and praises those who catch fire — at least as long as the bandwagon lasts.”

This is more accurate:

"Putting aside whether there really is too little time (on cable where the same stories are repeated endlessly?), the decision over whom to cover and whom not to cover is determinative."

Who decreed “the math” in this equation? The People or the 1%?

“The problem was, to use the buzzword of this election, the math. No matter how much money Sanders raised, how many caucuses and primaries he won or how much enthusiasm he stirred, he couldn’t beat the delegate math — which is to say, he was a loser. To the media, his rise was a plot twist before the narrative wound its way to the inevitable conclusion.”

Again—the question is WHY this tautological narrative is so vehemently utilized:

“You might note how short a step it is from losing to deserving to lose. The media always seem willing to take that step, not only when it comes to Sanders but to any presumed loser. It may also explain why the media were so hard on Sanders’ policies, ridiculing them as pie-in-the-sky.”

The above quote is quite dishonest. No mentions are made of the obstructions to voters in Arizona, New York, and California; or the FACT that the disparate policies allowing Independents to vote in some state primaries or not others DEPRIVED Sanders of likely millions of votes.

Instead this pro-establishment rationale is tossed out:

“By the same token, the press’s presumption that Sanders was a loser wasn’t wrong either. Sanders’ claim that the system was somehow rigged against him because of superdelegates proved not to be true. Sanders received far fewer votes than Clinton, 3.7 million less, and he would have lost the nomination even if there had been no superdelegates, not to mention that he lost the basic Democratic constituencies to her. What we will never know is if the race might have been different had the coverage been different — that is, if Sanders hadn’t been considered some outlier and preordained loser from the very beginning.”

These types of "essays" are used to justify the unjustifiable. They make light of all of the fraudulent machinations that bring about the pre-established outcome, and then use logic (like an inverted magic trick) to justify them!

In sum, this is a very sad piece of writing and possibly qualifies as tragic... given its applause for Democracy's death knell.


The article--and the FACTS explain the answer to your question, although it's very difficult for a white man to understand just how much a THREAT any Republican is to what's left of the freedom, personal security, or work status of members of the Black and Latino communities.

When the press HAMMERS in the construed "fact" that Sanders CANNOT win and insists--well advance of the established outcome--that Hillary has "the math," then for many of these vulnerable people, it's either Trump or Hillary.

With good reason, Trump scares the shit out of Blacks, Latinos, Muslims, and many women.

Also, it's been explained (and far more powerfully by F.A.I.R.) that Sanders has been shut out of media. Trump got enormous press & air time and Hillary a little less.

Since many Black Americans don't have Internet, they rely on the MSM for news. There, the race has been set almost entirely between Hillary and Trump. To people in the South, a Republican win is like bringing back lynching.

Your comment is just a "blame voters" item dressed up in a slightly less conventional form.

The real issues involve:

  1. Shutting Independents out
  2. Providing ballots without any choice for President (California)
  3. Voter I.D. laws
  4. Gerrymandering of districts
  5. Media's lopsided coverage intended to handicap any alternative front runners
  6. The super-delegates

But the Paid Tag Team MUST keep the focus off of items 1-6 since these show the farce that voting and Democracy have become.

In order to keep THE ILLUSION in place, they have to keep the spotlight on all those voters who voted "wrongly" or "poorly."

This is equivalent to blaming workers for corporations deciding to offshore their locations and profits; or blaming Blacks for the racist nature of domestic police forces; or blaming drivers for decisions made by Big Oil, etc.


He was also framed as attacking Hillary and being clueless on the matter of reforming so-called health "care." He was insulted in so many ways, his positions misrepresented, and his foes given ample airtime to attempt to discredit him without anyone present to defend him against the Lies Told Often.


I don't agree with everything in this article, but one point I definitely agree with is that "the media are in the drama business." That is one of the reasons behind the media's bias for Clinton: A lot more advertising can be sold covering the presidency of Our Lady of Perpetual Scandal than the presidency of an honest, honorable Bernie Sanders.


Drama is what sells the product. The product is a continuation of the Corporate State. It's abundantly clear that this corporate state:

  1. Is aggregating all assets to itself (See Picketty Study for proof of this inverted distribution pattern)
  2. Downgrading education to produce obedient clone workers who don't have the intellectual capacity to question their status
  3. Destroying the global food supply to put it fully under the control of corporate overlords who literally are POISONING the natural world
  4. Make war at their pleasure, because war is a real profit-maker to the big banks and those who build the jets, weapons, and equipment for soldiers
  5. Require threats in order to keep the masses quiescent. So they generally produce those threats for dramatic purposes.

Those who focus on the drama element watch the plot without understanding the motives that drive it!

Note how Gabler mentions "the script" without probing further to who writes it... and WHY.



Obviously it was the voters who took down Bernie. Particularly the voters in South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Florida. Also playing a big role were the voters New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland. This years election was similar to 2008. In that year the press assumed that Hillary Clinton would be the nominee. The press thought a black candidate with only two years of experience in the US Senate had almost no chance of winning. Of course it turned out that the voters had different ideas and Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination. One can blame the press, fraud, what have you for Bernie's failure to win but in the end examination of the facts will show it is that the voters (particularly African American voters) preferred Hillary Clinton and that determined the outcome.


Could there be a crowd-sourced fund that gets this into USA today or some large circulation newspaper? It's short and to the point.


your points re all true about the media, but that still does not explain why a certain young, white, college educated sector of the population was immune to the negative media coverage, but other groups weren't. And no, internet access can only explain a little of it. Most older poeple use the internet too.


The article makes great points but it failed to observe a significant flaw in the media coverage of Sanders in this nomination. America's media proved unable to deviate from the script but it wasn't just the rising or falling winner or loser characterizations. The real script - a prewritten script at that - in fact, the very traditional prewritten script that the press never had any precedent for going off script at least before this election.

The press was unable to cover any candidate that defined himself as a democratic socialist! It wasn't that they disliked democratic socialists since they might see a European one in reasonably typical American press terms. It was that they were unable to discuss or cover an American democratic socialist or heaven help us a classic socialist or any variation of socialist either! Winner means not socialist in the American press! Heck if they proposed Social Security now for the first time they'd have to change the name and drop the word social. America doesn't have social programs or social anything. Nothing using the word social except for that one program which despite its being successful, conservatives keep wanting to privatize it to make more capitalistic. I think it's the name that bugs them the most. Social Security just sounds ...well ...it jut sounds too socialistic!

Would Bernie have been able to win if he had called himself an anti-oligarchist? Absolutely fine! Heck it took months for half the population to learn what an oligarch was anyway! How about an Independent? Perfectly fine even if it hinted at being an underdog from the get go. How about making up a new name entirely (which is what he should have done) - Sanders would have done far better than defining himself as a socialist. It wasn't so much that the public had a problem with the term as has often been mentioned by the press in hopeful wishful thinking terms! It was that the American press could not discuss nor even think of any socialist in positive terms much less be able to say that a socialist looks like maybe he could win. Every time Sanders mentioned that he was a socialist, the media translated that foreign language word as instant loser. Socialism is a word never spoken of in polite society it seems! Socialism or in this case the capitalistic socialism ( couldn't someone have suggested to Bernie that he refer to himself as a capitalist socialist? So what if it is a contradiction in terms? This is America where everything is a contradiction anyway)? For Sanders or anybody ...the word socialist is a negative at least it is in America's media.

So the media didn't see nor hear nor speak (yeah you know those three monkeys sitting in a row thing) socialism. That they couldn't do. It wasn't about Bernie's ideas or programs. It was mainly that the media couldn't accept the idea that a socialist - any kind of socialist- could win. A socialist had to be a loser. Even when Bernie kept rising in the polls the media saw that only as ever greater numbers of voters who would be disappointed when Bernie lost. The media simply could not see Bernie in any other way except him losing. Socialists always had to lose. Everybody knows that!

The What If of this election in history is what would have happened if Bernie had used a different name to describe himself? Vote for the Social Capitalist! Vote for Bernie!

What's in a name? That is a famous question. The answer is >>> Press coverage. That's what is in a name.


The press certainly contributed, but Bernie supporters will always remember the collusion by the DNC and corruption in the primary system that cost him millions of votes. Hillary didn't win this election -- she stole it.