Home | About | Donate

Sanders Takes Michigan, But Mainstream Media Keeps Discounting His Campaign


Sanders Takes Michigan, But Mainstream Media Keeps Discounting His Campaign

John Atcheson

For weeks now, the Mainstream Media (MSM) has all but ignored the Sanders campaign and talked about Hillary’s capture of Democratic nomination as a done deal.

But, once again, Sanders proved them wrong with a dramatic win in Michigan on Tuesday.


Excellent article John---thank you.
“The presence of money in politics—and the interlocking network of those who depend upon it—is the root cause of most of our national ills.”-----YES!

Now this from five thirty ate (who is eating “humble pie”):

“this result will send a shock wave through the press. Heck, I’m a member of the press, and you might be able to tell how surprised I am. This will likely lead to increased news coverage of the Democratic race, which Sanders desperately needs in order to be competitive next Tuesday and beyond.”


If you want Sanders to win------ volunteer for the Sander’s campaign! The next week is critical.


Great piece by John Atcheson on corruption of our Fourth Estate!
The Clinton campaign has corrupted so many media "news" outlets we don't have accurate viewpoints so critical to a democratic republic, especially to make informed political choices based on truth!.
Hillary serves great wealth, and the MICC war machine, corporate power influence and tax evasions, banker/wall st greed and usury, and foments or supports wars and destabilization especially in the ME and NA.
The mythology of the "inevitability" of the Red Queen is crumbling, and her "fire-wall" is and has been irrelevant in a general election, given the electoral college system!



Such needed - excellent article. Finally, finally, a synthesis of the reasons why the press has been playing so dirty on Bernie so pervasively and consistently. Even the so called left press.

But its main point is how remarkable Berni's success is (whether win or loose), in the face of so many powerful obstacles.


There is nothing mainstream about economists or propagandists owned by corporatistas.


Bernie has a very important group of African American supporters (what Malcolm X, in a different time and context called field Negroes). The famous speech in which this comparison was made, given at Michigan State 23 January 1963, is worth considering in today's election context of African American support or non-support for Sanders:

"So whenever that house Negro identified himself, he always identified himself in the same sense that his master identified himself. When his master said, "We have good food," the house Negro would say, "Yes, we have plenty of good food." "We" have plenty of good food. When the master said that "we have a fine home here," the house Negro said, "Yes, we have a fine home here." When the master would be sick, the house Negro identified himself so much with his master he'd say, "What's the matter boss, we sick?" His master's pain was his pain. And it hurt him more for his master to be sick than for him to be sick himself. When the house started burning down, that type of Negro would fight harder to put the master's house out than the master himself would . . .

. . . But there's another kind of Black man on the scene. If you say you're in trouble, he says, "Yes, you're in trouble." He doesn't identify himself with your plight whatsoever."

There's no doubt that Malcolm X would have more affinity with Sanders' African American supporters and surrogates, including Cornel West, Spike Lee, Danny Glover, Nina Turner, Ben Jealous, Harry Belafonte, Killer Mike, Benjamin Dixon, and many many more.


In one of the debates Hillary criticized Bernie for running a single-issue campaign...corporate money corruption. Earlier this week a black lives matter (BLM) spokeswomen complained that Bernie views racism through a corporate money corruption prism.

You don't need a degree in finance to understand that corporate money corruption IS the common denominator driving nearly all economic issues affecting all colors of the 99%. BLM may want to rethink their stance if they want to avoid the perils of President Trump and his KKK endorsers. Hillary will never beat Trump if she is nominated.


Worth reading twice or thrice, folks. Slowly. Thoughtfully.

Acheson has a rare critical gift, seeing and reporting matters in context and against possibility while rising above mere partisanship. Others who come to mind for me are Frank Rich and Gwynne Dyer.

Keep it coming, John Acheson!


Mr. Atcheson's analysis is genteel to the point of naïve.

In his next-to-closing paragraph, he says:

"The presence of money in politics—and the interlocking network of those who depend upon it—is the root cause of most of our national ills. Whether it’s failing to get effective gun control; feeding a massive military industrial complex; shipping trillions overseas to tax havens; exporting jobs through trade agreements; killing ourselves with fossil fuels; incarcerating more people than any nation on Earth; or enduring the lies of a corporate media complex—the cure is in getting money out of politics."

That same "presence of money" dictates the hegemonic controls of the big banks, disgusting (and lethal!) corporations like Monsanto, and the M.I.C.

Since Big Media answers to Big Money, and Big Money is directly tied to the 3 entities mentioned above, Sanders is a threat to the existing system. Thus, the mass media--beholden to some of its most entrenched advocates--is using its muscle to push the "Hillary Inevitable" meme.

My point is that it's not just getting money out of politics. The entire system has been tainted by Big Money. However, it's an important start and the "revolution" that Mr. Sanders could certainly lead.

So it's not about the media not learning, or questioning why certain questions aren't asked... the media's job is to protect the 1%--the ownership class that owns it and profits by it. That's why right wing corporate elites pushed so hard to eviscerate the Fairness Doctrine and deregulate media. Now this powerful organ capable of directing collective perception is in the hands of just a handful of massive broadcast consortiums.


Atcheson's doing well lately on this subject. It's good to see.
But one thing needs to be addressed because it's gaining too much traction among Sanders supporters (actually two things, but the other is controversial and not really on topic):


It's true that superdelegates don't technically count until the convention--they are not formally bound. I agree that they shouldn't be counted, for the record.

But the argument proceeds to the observation that they can, and will, "flip" depending on which way the wind is blowing. Why? Because they've often done that before.

It's a reasonable argument, too, until one looks at the uniqueness of this race. For the reasons it's so compelling in the first place, the comparison with the past is largely invalid. Delegates could switch to Obama, for example, because his politics were nearly identical to Clintons. It was just a matter of which face was going to win and which candidate might be in a position to reward that superdelegate.

But these superdelegates are supporting Clinton for a reason: she preserves the system that's rewarding them. Sanders, however, threatens that, so there's no incentive for a mass defection of superdelegates just to back a winner. At this point, it's clear the DNC would prefer losing to the GOP than supporting a Sanders campaign. Trump is only a minor nuisance to them. Sanders could cut off a lot of gravy from the train. And that's the biggest offense of all.

I say all this as a way of not trying to rain on anyone's parade. On the contrary, I think this knowledge should be used to motivate the heck out of Sandernistas to not take even a single vote for granted. because the reality is, tht beating Clinton isn't enough. Sanders needs to smash her. Badly. But it can still be done. But it'll require every eligible Democratic voter to get out there and turn up in mass numbers in every single primary.

And I hope it happens. Because I've never wanted a political family gone so much from American life as I want the Clintons gone. Okay, maybe the Bushes, too, but I think they're done now.


Thank you for sharing this because it's a useful example of how the ubiquitous WE meme operates.

A few with power STILL call the shots and run the economic engines yet attribute THEIR choices to the great masses as if "we" are all in on this, together.

IF Democracy were functioning; and IF the press accurately did its job in reporting true events and the causes behind them; and IF corporations were held to account for their trespasses; and IF courts ruled in accord with genuine justice; and IF The People had recourse... then this WE meme would be accurate and operational.

It is not.

To a large extent, "WE" are still those house slaves that Mastah makes decisions for!


I agree there's excellent analysis in this article, but I take exception to this:

The presence of money in politics—and the interlocking network of those who depend upon it—is the root cause of most of our national ills.

There's no doubt that money in campaigns has become a major problem in the course of We the People exercising our rights in the electoral process. But the 'root cause' of it is corporate constitutional rights. Under the law, corporations speak just like We the People; they get to participate in elections, just like We the People. Their dollars are their voice. As long as corporations have the same rights as people do, We the People are f#*ked.

The only way to address this mess is to undo various SCOTUS decisions through constitutional amendment. If corporate constitutional rights and money as a form of protected political speech were abolished, a much more level playing field for democratic governance becomes possible.


That's a great observation. I'll add that it's a subtle type of slavery, like being tied to work we don't morally agree with because the job provides health insurance for us and our family. The larger the corporation, the less control a worker has to make decisions and we end up living a life of compromises. If health insurance were a right of 'being human" as Bernie says, then we would have more freedom to do work less compromising.


Been saying this for many years. Have also suggested that they be the target of direct actions.


Just wanted to than the author, since I've been having a difficult time getting the delegate counts mentioned anywhere.


Phone banked Monday and will tomorrow. Donated. Feel the Bern and thank you Caroline and everyone who is doing their best to help this country and the world.

Feel the Bern.


Yes. We need to volunteer and vote in YUUUUUUGE numbers to make it so overwhelming that even hacks and lost ballots cannot change the outcome.


Because of all those lopsided losses in the South it is true that Sanders is in a deep hole with regard to pledged delegates. Even with his win in Michigan yesterday he lost more ground in pledged delegates and there are fewer to be allotted. He could still win if he wins some of the bigger states by very margins. close wins such as in Michigan won't do it and even make matters worse in a way because it means there are let delegates left. So win big has to be the goal. Probably a lot of super delegates will switch and if he can win big many may back Sanders. The way it stands now he could win but it is highly unlikely.


" The media's job is to protect the 1%."

True, and all the proof you need is that a xenophobic, buffoon like Trump ( who is definitely a one percenter ) gets a plethora of MSM coverage 24/7. Imagine if the MSM gave Jill Stein the same coverage!


You are as transparent as a squeaky clean pane of glass with zero reflections.