One upside of the Bernie Blackout: Sanders is not facing a frontrunner's backlash

Originally published at:


Cold comfort indeed.

I remember that in 2016, an empty podium where Trump was about to speak got more airtime than anything about Sanders. It really was (and is) a blackout of Sanders by the corporate media.

And Trump knew that pretty much any attention was good attention. I often think that’s why he Tweets out all sorts of shit like a madman, and also says outrageous stuff about flushing toilets or buying Greenland. It simply keeps him front and center, day after day after day.


Politico and the other Beltway inside-baseball outlets are just saving up the “backlash” for the point in time when Bernie is one of the final four.

I’m not sure what tack they’re going to take this time around, though. Those hacks used up a lot of their “fresh” material when he started being seen as a threat in 2016, and recycling it will only get them so far.


That’s a very thin silver lining. If he wins the nomination, it will just mean the media has a blank canvas on which to portray him as worse than three separate Hitlers.

I’m basing that on the waking nightmare that is the UK media’s portrayal of Jeremy Corbyn, of course. In fact, since he’s been Labour leader, the Guardian has managed to both demonize him and pretend he doesn’t exist, in a performance Cirque du Soleil calls “breathtaking… a spectacular fusion of fantasy and contortionism ★★★★”


…and you wouldn’t know the Liberal Democrats even exist if you just read the papers or watch the BBC.


Looks like there’s a Tulsi blackout also.


Warren has already (accidentally) hinted that she might reverse her position on some of her progressive promises if she’s elected, @doctorow. Maybe you should channel that money over to Bernie or elsewhere? :man_shrugging:


The Bernie Blackout is a well-documented phenomenon: the press cover Bernie (far) less than other frontrunners, and when they do, they’re (far) more negative than they are with other frontrunners.

We have to decide if we are a Nation run by its citizens, or a slave country run by corporate masters.


you are speaking of the great challenge of our time and it faces all nations, all peoples.


Five Thirty Eight tracks media mentions through the Primary.

Sander’s coverage has been nearly exact in line with his standing in the polls. When he’s polling better than Warren he’s covered more than Warren, when he’s behind her he’s covered less. He’s mentioned 3x as often as Buttigieg, and people complain Buttigieg is mentioned too often.

If there’s a story here its not a blackout of Sanders. Is too big a focus on Biden to the disadvantage off all candidates. But Biden is still leading the polls so that’s going to tend to happen, and the biggest disparity kicked up with the Ukraine Scandal, with the big spike in mostly non-campaign Biden coverage.



I don’t believe you. And your link doesn’t go to anything that backs up your claim (while many other sources document well how little serious coverage Sanders gets from the – duh – “corporate” media).


If propaganda outlets like FOX, CNN, or MSNBC have anything positive to say about a candidate, it’s a solid bet that, if they aren’t a war criminal already, they will be as soon as they take power and all their advisers start telling them that killing a whole bunch of people is critical for national security.


Not the charts of cable TV coverage in the regular updates listed at that page?

Here’s the most recent one.

Or the data sets those posts link to?

Which sources? Cause I’ve only ever seen this claim from those who are explicitly in support of Sanders. Every survey of media mentions I’ve seen from independent pollsters, even those that break things into positive and negative coverage. Sander’s situation looks no different than any of the other candidates. He has consistently been the 2nd or 3rd most covered candidate, and he has consistently been the 2nd or 3rd highest polling candidate.

You can complain about the “seriousness” of that coverage. But that is not unique to Sanders. There is very little in the way of serious coverage of any of the candidates. “Corporate” media or not. There’s no attempt here to specifically disadvantage Sanders. Just the same shitty horse race approach to election coverage we always get.


One of the things I like most about Sanders is that, unlike Uncle Joe and most of the others, he refuses to play along with whatever narratives the corporate media comes up for him and often foils them. That he’s still popular and talked about as a top contender even when they ignore him is part of that jiu-jitsu.


Well, he’ll syphon off a lot of GOP voters.

1 Like

You got a problem with say, the fairness of FAIR?

Here’s a good summary of their reporting on corporate-media antipathy for Sanders.

I’m not going to spend time arguing with you about something that strikes me and many others as flatout obvious.


An article about one news outlet. And specifically about negative coverage.

Published at a venue where Sanders seems to be the only candidate covered.

That’s not exactly an objective look at the total media landscape.


Do you mean to tell me that corporate-owned media outlets might bear a special animosity toward an openly socialist candidate who’s calling for higher taxes on corporations and their ultra-wealthy shareholders? Come on…


Thank you for this opportunity to deploy an oldie but a goodie.


A blackout implies Ms. Gabbard is not being covered due to some conspiracy; Ms. Gabbard is not being covered because she’s a weird creep with bad ideas and poll numbers more low and dead than her stare.