Article on Sanders’ Complaints About Journalism Demonstrates Why Sanders Complains About Journalism

[Jefferson23]

Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting

2/24/2016

If the New York Times really were what the New York Times pretends to be, when it or its industry was criticized, it would bend over backwards to make sure it was being fair to the critics. That’s the true test of “objectivity,” isn’t it—how you act when it’s your own ox being gored?

Instead, the Times typically reacts to criticism the way a cat typically reacts to being given a bath.

Take, for example, a piece in the New York Times (2/23/16) that addresses presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ criticism of corporate media—or “the ‘corporate media,’ as he refers to it,” as the Times’ Jason Horowitz refers to it.

The first thing the Times wants you to know about Sanders’ media criticism is that it’s wrong: “As News Media Changes, Bernie Sanders’ Critique Remains Constant,” is the headline. Horowitz’s piece elaborates on this theme of Sanders’ failure to appreciate the brave new media world:

Despite the advent of the Internet, the diminishing of traditional news media companies and the emergence of new media Goliaths like Facebook that have helped fuel his rise, Mr. Sanders remains orthodox in his mass media doctrine….

As Mr. Sanders sees it, the profit-hungry billionaire owners of news media companies serve up lowest-common-denominator coverage, purposefully avoid the income-inequality issues he prioritizes and mute alternative voices as they take over more and more outlets.

Is that wrong? For example, aren’t news media owners mostly billionaires with a keen interest in profit? The largest stockholder of the New York Times is Mexican telecom mogul Carlos Slim, who’s a billionaire 77 times over; he didn’t get to be the second-richest person in the world without a healthy appetite for return on investment.


Pew: Top News Websites

Source: Pew

Horowitz attempts to set Sanders straight by asserting that

"there has been a proliferation of new media offering alternative voices, and traditional news sources have shrunk in an Internet age of diminishing advertising revenue."

Here’s a chart of the top 10 online news sources, courtesy of Pew Research Center. One thing you should notice is that most of them are traditional news sources, now dominating online news. Of the ones that aren’t, Yahoo is partnered with ABC News (which is why they share a slot on the chart); Huffington Post is owned by AOL, which in turn is owned by Verizon; and Buzzfeed sold a $200 million equity stake to NBCUniversal, which is to say Comcast. When people think of “alternative voices,” they’re not generally thinking of giant cable and telecom companies. (Where’s Facebook? Facebook and other social media are not content producers; they direct content generated elsewhere, and if those were largely “alternative voices,” they’d be showing up on this chart.)

Far from shrinking the reach of traditional media, the internet has allowed them to reach vast new audiences. The Times is getting 57 million unique visitors a month—compare that to its peak daily print circulation of 1.2 million. So maybe warnings about the power of corporate media aren’t so out of date after all?

in full: http://fair.org/home/article-on-sanders-complaints-about-journalism-demonstrates-why-sanders-complains-about-journalism/

[blm]

1. It is truly amazing the depths today's media will go to.

I was volunteering with FAIR in the 90s in LA. George Carlin gave us an office space. It is why I still focus on the media and how it gets used, and, especially, the legitimization of RW propaganda media, even here at DU.

My other focus (thanks to demographics in NC) is GOTV. When you live in a purple state it is crucial.

FAIR is a great organization, and not to be confused with the anti-immigrant usurpers of the name.

They deserve our attention and our gratitude.

[Jefferson23]

2. This is one of the aspects of DU I appreciate the most. Hearing back stories such as yours

I would not otherwise learn about.

They are an essential team of dedicated people, our media is in the hands of so few
and very powerful interests. There is their slant and what they leave out and keep
conversations of complex issues to a narrow surface overview.

Thanks for your reply.

[blm]

3. Thankyou. I know I get accused of being obsessed with calling out RW propaganda media, but,

by my observations, that vast network IS the roots the fascists are relying on to grow and spread and choke what remains of this nation's democracy.

And I don't think I'm being overdramatic by saying so. Sanders has it right and he is to be cheered and SUPPORTED for speaking out.

[Jefferson23]

4. Totally, and why so many don't want to see him succeed. They know his predecessors

will likely keep on going in the same direction. That's part of the revolt they want to squash.

I like your obsession.

[blm]

5. HAHAH!! That's a FIRST for me.

I usually get the eye rolls or the silent treatment.

May more of our fellow Sanders supporters open their eyes to what we know to be true.

; )

[Uncle Joe]

6. Statistics like this belie the fiction that Trump is an "anti-establishment" candidate,

the corporate media conglomerates have incessantly covered him from day one of his announcement; which was posted on page 1 of the New York Times while Bernie's announcement was buried deep in that publication.

Sanders was referring to the study by the Tyndall Report (cited in Washington Post, 12/7/15), the standard resource on how much time the networks spend covering what. Tyndall found that in the first 11 months of 2015, Sanders had gotten roughly one-twentieth the coverage of Donald Trump, one-tenth the coverage of Hillary Clinton and one-fifth the campaign coverage of Joe Biden, who wasn’t even running. (FAIR noted this phenomenon as well—and documented it in print publications like the Times as well as on TV.)

CNN has done nothing but promote an ongoing Trump orgy, for thirty and forty five minutes at a segment while stating with a straight face "he can't be judged like other candidates" when he makes ridiculous, racist or asinine statements.

The corporate media conglomerates have kept his name front and center in the American Peoples' consciousness 24/7, Trump is their creation and they damn sure wouldn't be promoting an actual anti-establishment candidate.

Trump isn't going to damage the less than 1% nor shake up a dysfunctional system of which he has so generously benefited from.

Trump is total establishment speaking its true vulgar mind and the corporate media conglomerates either praise this or at the very least make an exception for.

Thanks for the thread, Jefferson.

[blm]

7. Same thing with TeaParty. For years many of us on the left raised the Gadsden flag

and especially here at DU. And then there was Occupy. The corporate media ignored our 5 year use of Gadsden flag to protest King George Bush and his Iraq decision. Occupy was relegated to mere nuisance status. Then TeaParty was given INSTANT elevation as a political force against Obama and Dems. Corpmedia GAVE the TeaParty the Gadsden Flag when 99.9% haven't a clue what the flag actually symbolizes.

Yep - Trump/TeaParty and Sanders/Occupy is BLATANT to anyone paying attention to corpmedia's role in our lives.

[Uncle Joe]

8. Take military spending for example.

The U.S. outpaces all other nations in military expenditures. World military spending totaled more than $1.7 trillion in 2013. The U.S. accounted for 37 percent of the total.

U.S. military expenditures are roughly the size of the next nine largest military budgets around the world, combined.



https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-military-spending-vs-world/

In fiscal year 2015, military spending is projected to account for 54 percent of all federal discretionary spending, a total of $598.5 billion. Military spending includes: all regular activities of the Department of Defense; war spending; nuclear weapons spending; international military assistance; and other Pentagon-related spending.

And here's Trump's solution to military spending.

Speaking of spending even more money on the military industrial complex when it already takes up a majority of our national budget, when our long neglected infrastructure is crumbling, when we have the highest level of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, when we're falling behind in education and health care etc. etc. is in no way, shape or form "anti-establishment."

Do the corporate media conglomerates call Trump on this contradiction?

Hell no, they just want to keep perpetuating the myth because they believe Trump would take votes from a true "anti-establishment" candidate, that being Bernie.

[Fast Walker 52]

10. the corporate media are criminals, and I do not use that term lightly

They are at their worst in matters of war and the military. It's sickening.

[Jefferson23]

9. I agree, his supporters are in need of a voice of reason but they have no one..so Trump

fills that void. It is disturbing to watch, he talks about the GREAT deals, they
should be worried but they also believe as you know, the "other" is the threat.

If you read the transcripts, Trump was asked about his bankruptcies during a debate
and he unwittingly admits that he can take advantage of the laws before us
through his skilled lawyers WHILE admitting he is so wealthy he could have
afforded to pay up. He hurt so many people, not just a few executives.
His supporters worry me, they are at a loss to get behind a good guy
and promote him/her. After all, we do have a two party system and need
to have a functioning government.

[Fast Walker 52]

11. Trump is scaring the shit out of me right now-- the enthusiasm for this monster is insane

[Octafish]

12. Ben Bagdikian warned us of the Media Monopoly.

Back then he saw thousands of family newspapers and hundreds of family owned radio and tee vee stations getting gobbled up by a couple hundred corporations, which, in turn, got gobbled up by a few dozen bigger corporations. Now most Americans get their news -- what democracy CRAVES -- from six remaining corporations.

Thank you for the heads-up, Jefferson23. Excellent OP. That is a must-read article from FAIR.

[Jefferson23]

13. You're most welcome and from what I have read that was the case, people could

communicate more effectively and I suppose that was why there was
more hope...more a belief you could see change for the better.