The collective coverage of Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and the election race in 2019 reflected biased assumptions on candidates’ perceived electability. It was typical of mainstream outlets like the Washington Post to slam candidates for not being centrist enough. This perpetuated the narrative that the American people should shy away from candidates who are determined to make sweeping change to the fabric of the country’s capitalist system. The mainstream continuously labeled progressive ideas as dramatic and unrealistic.
Time and time again, the scientific community provides evidence supporting the urgency of the global climate crisis. Yet mainstream media fail to keep the issue of climate change front and center. These “climate minimizers”—which is what FAIR’s Esha Krishnaswamy calls them—devalue the issue of global warming by slamming progressive candidates for their approaches in tackling the matter.
Mainstream outlets like CNN and the Washington Post attacked the Green New Deal, Bernie Sanders’ plan, writing that it would cost roughly “10 times” more than Joe Biden’s. The same news media went out of their way to “avoid discussing the actual effects of climate change as laid out in the 2018 IPCC UN report,” according to FAIR. This UN report establishes that in order to prevent an “unprecedented climate catastrophe,” governments must make “rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure … and industrial systems.” Transitions in these areas are clearly necessary. As a result of the mainstream’s tendency to suppress the situation’s severity, FAIR professed that people are less likely to “consider the best scientific data, and measure the actions proposed against the requirements to avoid climate disaster.”
Mother Jones extended ridicule of the Green New Deal when political blogger Kevin Drum gave Sanders’ plan a “D-” and called it “a box-checking exercise designed to appeal to every possible lefty constituency rather than something that has even the remotest chance of building the public support needed to get it passed through Congress.” Although Greenpeace gave Sanders’ Green New Deal an “A+,” its scoring system did not reflect considerations of feasibility. Drum’s rating seemed to derive from an analysis and critique of Sanders’ plan that deemed it unrealistic. The same Mother Jones blogger gave Joe Biden’s environmental sustainability plan a “C+,” which reflects mainstream media’s tendency to become “part of the problem.”
Corporate media has consistently swept the issue of climate change under the rug, establishing the narrative that America needs a centrist candidate. FAIR wrote that Sanders “is one of the few candidates treating the climate crisis as an urgent matter.” But evidently, corporate media wants to deny Sanders and other progressive candidates the chance to make change.
Consider this New York Times headline: “Sanders’ Ambitions Thrill Supporters. Experts Aren’t Impressed.” Although it may appear the Times underwent a thorough gathering of so-called “experts,” FAIR calls its coverage “a disservice to readers.” The Times compared Sanders’ plan to make the fossil fuel industry pay for the Green New Deal to “Trump’s demand that the government of Mexico foot the bill for his wall.” These two executive propositions are in no way comparable for several reasons, but the most apparent is that Mexico is a sovereign country. The New York Times also used its seemingly wide selection of experts as a weak validation of the false narrative that asserts all climate experts believe Sanders’ plan is hardly feasible—this, as FAIR asserts, isn’t true.
Progressive "Likeability" and Electability
As the news media increasingly covers Elizabeth Warren, discussions of likeability often follow. Matt Taibbi describes in his book, Hate Inc., the mainstream’s tendency to underscore the likeability of candidates, whom the American people might like to “have a beer with.” It’s one thing if public attention is diverted without the consideration of what that candidate is actually doing, but could it be another when the same tactic is used to promote progressive change? This tactic of diverting public attention away from a candidate’s policy might adversely affect coverage when promoting progressive change.
In his piece for Mother Jones, “4 Years Ago They Were Feeling the Bern. Now They’re Backing Elizabeth Warren,” Tim Murphy describes the shift among voters within the Democratic party’s progressive flank, finding that “ex-Berniecrats” were increasingly fond of Warren. He attributes this fondness to Warren being a woman and to voters’ reluctance to have another old white man in office. Murphy’s analysis makes one wonder if voters are really considering the differences between the two candidates, or do they merely find comfort in hoping a female president can deliver the sweeping change America needs. Voters should critically examine this narrative. But “ex-Berniecrats” may have identified with what Common Dreams describes as Warren’s “message of optimism”: “if our leaders had approached the moment thinking small, we would not have made it through.”
And unlike most independent outlets, Mother Jones runs political ads. Not even halfway through Murphy’s piece, readers can find a behemoth of an ad promoting a voter survey “paid for by Warren for President.” Perhaps Warren is the exception. Contrasting this piece in scope, Ryan Grim’s “The Warren Wing” for The Intercept details an exhaustive 6,500-word narrative of Warren’s ascent into office as a senator. From politically inactive student to law professor, senator to progressive candidate, Grim peppers in his insights and observations from first-hand accounts over the years.
Corporate media routinely dismisses Bernie Sanders’ criticisms of the elite, as the Amazon-owned Washington Post demonstrated. The Post targeted Sanders because he “complained that Amazon paid no federal income tax.” Martin Baron was quick to label Sanders’ accusation as nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
Rather than relying on corporate support, Sanders builds from his base of a grassroots support movement. He wanted his presidency to rely on the support of millions of people to pressure Congress and the corporate establishment to make change, as Sanders describes in an interview with Ryam Grim for The Intercept. Columbia Journalism Review wrote that Sanders’ “media criticism still stands out from that of his rivals because it is structural,” because “media ownership is too concentrated in the hands of a small group of corporations whose interests shape coverage.” In this case, Baron’s response to Sanders’ accusation exemplifies the corporate-funded assault on progressive campaigns—especially the Vermonter’s.
Warren’s perceived electability also suffered in the mainstream. FAIR’s Julie Hollar points out that The Washington Post downplayed her viability when it argued “a ‘middle-road candidate’ is ‘safer’ and ‘more palatable to a wide range of voters’” than a progressive like Warren. But Hollar says “establishment Democrats are really worried about … their own power in the party.” Progressive democrats do pose a viable threat to other candidates of the same party.
The Post argues that progressive candidates aren’t centrist enough to be elected. Does “centrist” mean more easily controlled by an elite whose interests don’t align with those of the public at large?
The American people may want to consider the influences of both the puppeteers and the puppet.
This article was written for the Park Center for Independent Media (PCIM) at Ithaca College.
Edited by Jeremy Lovelett
Comments