Media’s pro-Clinton Bias in Democratic Primary Fails the Public

Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned linguist, intellectual, and political activist, wrote in his seminal book “Manufacturing  Consent,” that the mass media “are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function,

by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion.”

“Manufacturing Consent” was published in 1988, but its message remains as relevant today as it was 28 years ago. In the Democratic primary race, the mainstream, corporate-owned media has displayed an extreme overt bias for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. This bias applies to both the reporting and editorial side, and spans all platforms, from print (digital) to radio to television.

Anyone who has been following the 2016 Democratic race is likely already aware of this bias. A few major media outlets, notably CNN, have even run stories exploring how the media “missed” Bernie Sanders.

Perhaps one of the most egregious examples of the pro-Clinton bias has been the coverage of the campaign by the esteemed New York Times. The Times, it must be remembered, employed now-disgraced reporter Judith Miller, who relied on discredited sources to assert falsely that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Miller’s reportage, and the Times’ general support for the WMD argument, and editorializing by many columnists in favor of war, provided critical cover to the Bush administration as it sought to marshal public opinion for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. For many readers, including myself, who knew the WMD construct was simply an excuse for the Bush administration to invade, we have never looked at the Times the same again.

Unfortunately, the Times has doubled-down on its biased Iraq reporting by now essentially becoming an organ of the Hillary Clinton campaign. The paper endorsed Clinton two days before the Iowa caucus. Readers objected, and the endorsement editorial received over 5,600 comments on the Times website, the vast majority slamming the paper for its biased coverage. The Gray Lady ultimately felt compelled to issue an explanation from its Public Editor about its Sanders coverage.

Other major media outlets have been equally biased. After dominating the sixth Democratic debate and sweeping virtually every online poll that asked viewers to decide who “won” the debate, MSNBC’s headline on its website after the debate was “Hillary Clinton cools the Bern in Democratic debate.” I’m not sure what debate MSNBC was watching, honestly, but at least online, most viewers seemed to disagree.

In other big news this week, on Thursday the Congressional Black Caucus Political Action Committee (CBC PAC) endorsed Hillary Clinton. Virtually all mainstream media gave fawning coverage to this endorsement, including CNN, and much of the reportage highlighted the fact that Sanders trails Clinton among African-Americans.

While this may be true, Sanders continues to increase his support among minorities, and it is not a foregone conclusion that Clinton will win this demographic. More importantly, however, in highlighting the CBC PAC endorsement the media failed to mention that the CBC PAC does not represent the entire 46-member CBC. The endorsement actually came from the PAC’s 20-member Board, which is comprised of 11 lobbyists, 7 elected officials and two officials who work for the PAC.

I had the unfortunate experience of watching MSNBC cable news shortly after the CBC PAC endorsement of Clinton on Thursday afternoon. In a revealing interview on MSNBC Live with Thomas Roberts, Roberts spoke with Democratic Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, a member of  the CBC and the third-ranking Democrat in the House. Clyburn has notably remained neutral and declined to endorse Clinton or Sanders in 2016.

First some background. Clyburn wrote in his 2014 memoir that during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, he remained neutral until June, then finally endorsed Obama, which caused a rift between he and the Clintons.

Bill Clinton actually called Clyburn at 2 AM on the night of the South Carolina Democratic primary, blaming him for Hillary’s loss and going on a profanity-laced tirade.

Clyburn has said more recently that he considers the episode with the Clintons “water under the bridge.”

But during the Thursday MSNBC interview, Roberts seized on Clyburn’s description of his 2008 run-in with the Clintons to harangue him for not supporting Hillary, at one point saying (and this is a paraphrase) “don’t you owe to Hillary to  be there for her now?” Clyburn demurred, but the spectacle of a cable news host lecturing an established leader of South Carolina politics such as Clyburn on who to support was deeply unsettling. This, unfortunately, seems to be the state of TV journalism vis a vis the 2016 Democratic race, even on the purportedly “liberal” MSNBC network.

Returning to Thursday’s Democratic debate, a key point  occurred when Clinton criticized Sanders for not having enough foreign policy knowledge, and specifically for not having enough foreign policy advisers counseling him. Sanders countered that Clinton counted Henry Kissinger, the former US Secretary of State who has been accused by many of war crimes, among her top advisers, and declared that “Henry Kissinger ain’t no friend of mine.”

It is fair to say that most folks under 40 likely have very little idea who Henry Kissinger is, or what his record as Secretary of State was. The Times ran a handy little “First Draft” explanatory note about Kissinger after the debate, but failed to mention the widespread accusations of war crimes against him. Instead, the paper of record noted that: “The squabbling over Mr. Kissinger echoes the deep divisions over the Vietnam War during the early 1970s, when Mr. Kissinger was a main target of the left for the Nixon administration’s conduct of the war.”

The brutal truth is that Kissinger is accused of directing US policies in Southeast Asia that led to war crimes in Vietnam and the deaths of countless civilians, as well as massacres in Bangladesh and East Timor, and assassinations in Chile and elsewhere. The esteemed late writer, scholar and intellectual Christopher Hitchens wrote an entire book and produced a subsequent documentary film accusing Kissinger of war crimes.  Given this history, one would think the Times would take a little more time to explain Kissinger’s extremely checkered background and why his counsel to Clinton matters, instead of reducing it to “squabbling.” Alas, one would be wrong.

But let’s not pile on the Times only. The truth is that virtually all major, corporate media have been complicit in the Sanders bashing. Another example comes from Nate Silver, the esteemed “data king” who won widespread acclaim for his 2012 data-driven polling analysis for the Times that accurately predicted the electoral college winner for every state in the general election. Silver may be a brilliant statistician, but he is not immune from the biases that infect other media.

Silver’s “FiveThirtyEight” blog has repeatedly failed to accurately predict outcomes in the 2016 race, relying too heavily on notions of “legitimate” candidates. Worse, however, is his condescending, offensive, dismissive — and frankly ageist — descriptions of Bernie Sanders in his opinion pieces. In a recent story explaining how the superdelegate phenomenon will affect the Democratic race, Silver casts doubt on Sanders’ chances, writing that:

“Unlike Obama, who was perhaps roughly as “electable” as Clinton, Sanders is a 74-year-old self-described socialist. Unlike Obama, who had the chance to become the first black president, Sanders is another old white guy…”

One can disagree on whether Obama was as “electable” as Clinton given America’s 400 year history of slavery and disenfranchisement against African-Americans, and I certainly do. But to point out — for the 5 millionth time! — that Sanders is 74 and a self-described socialist is just a cheap attempt to throw shade. At this point most of America knows Sanders’ age and that he identifies as a socialist. And people seem to be fine with that, given his strong performances in Iowa and New Hampshire, and his virtual tie with Clinton in national polls.

Polls also increasingly show that Americans are willing to vote for a socialist candidate, and in fact a poll taken of likely Iowa caucus voters prior to the caucus revealed that 43% identify as socialists. (I will not engage in a semantic debate about whether Sanders is truly a “socialist,” other than to say that he clearly believes government should do more to improve the lives of all Americans, and not just the wealthy; certainly he is not advocating Soviet-style nationalization of the means of production).

But what absolutely infuriates me is Silver’s — and the media in general’s — repeated reference to Sanders’ age, and particularly his description of Sanders as “just another old white guy.” Honestly, I know millennials often speak this way — particularly in discussions of power and privilege — but this type of language insults and dismisses Sanders’ 50 year history of advocacy for progressive causes. I also often read Sanders described as “crusty,” “grumpy,” “grandfather” and the like. These terms would be unacceptable in describing Clinton — who herself is 68 years old — and they should be banished from the coverage of Sanders as well.

As for Nate Silver, I say stick to the data Nate, stop editorializing, and don’t let your biases and preconceived notions of electability influence your analysis. Don’t cherry-pick data based on your politics!

There are many more instances of the “establishment,” “corporate,” or “mainstream” media displaying their biases. Indeed, the phenomenon is so widespread that to attempt to chronicle it all would be futile. My point in this article is to assert that the media has failed its readers and the country in the 2016 Democratic race. There is still time for a change, and in fact some media are slowly, grudgingly, beginning to devote more, and slightly more balanced, coverage to Sanders. It is my hope that this continues.

In the meantime, thank God for social media. That is where people — particularly young people — can turn to get information about the 2016 Democratic race that they won’t find in the major media. As Hillary Clinton has painfully discovered, we now live in an age of transparency, largely because of the Internet and social media. A politician’s record is one click, tweet, or “share” away these days, which is likely why Clinton is having such a hard time claiming the progressive mantle. I only hope that the mainstream media catches up with its social media counterparts and starts reporting ALL the facts, with less bias and more objectivity. If it doesn’t, then it will have failed its readers, the voters, and the country at large.

Liked it? Take a second to support Charles Tanzer on Patreon!