Bernie Sanders has taken to calling out corporate media for their anti-progressive bias, and their feathers have gotten quite ruffled.
In a campaign event Monday in New Hampshire, Sanders told the crowd:
We have pointed out over and over again that Amazon made $10 billion in profits last year. You know how much they paid in taxes? You got it, zero! Any wonder why the Washington Post is not one of my great supporters, I wonder why? New York Times not much better.
The next day, he returned to the same point:
And then I wonder why the Washington Post, which is owned by Jeff Bezos, who owns Amazon, doesn’t write particularly good articles about me. I don’t know why.
The Post‘s executive editor, Martin Baron, immediately retorted (CNN, 8/12/19) that Sanders was spouting a “conspiracy theory,” insisting that “Jeff Bezos allows our newsroom to operate with full independence, as our reporters and editors can attest.”
Many others in corporate media were incensed as well. NPR‘s All Things Considered (8/13/19) accused Sanders of “echoing the president’s language,” and CNN (8/13/19) ran a segment that likewise accused him of using Trump’s “playbook”; CNN‘s Poppy Harlow warned ominously, “This seems like a really dangerous line, continued accusations against the media with no basis in fact or evidence provided.”
FAIR has been following this issue for quite some time, so we’re happy to offer the evidence CNN and the Post protest is lacking.
Fifteen of the 16 negative stories on the Bernie Sanders campaign that the Washington Post ran over a 16-hour period (FAIR.org, 3/8/16).
We could start with the 16 negative stories the Post ran in 16 hours (FAIR.org, 3/8/16), and follow that up with the four different Sanders-bashing pieces the paper put out in seven hours based on a single think tank study (FAIR.org, 5/11/16).
Or you could take the many occasions on which the Post‘s factchecking team performed impressive contortions to interpret Sanders’ fact-based statements as meriting multiple “Pinocchios” (e.g., FAIR.org, 1/25/17, 3/20/17). In particular, we might observe the time the Post “factchecked” Sanders’ claim that the world’s six wealthiest people are worth as much as half the global population (FAIR.org, 10/3/17). It just so happens that one of those six multi-billionaires is Bezos, which would make an ethical journalist extra careful not to show favoritism.
Instead, after acknowledging that Sanders was, in fact, correct, the paper’s Nicole Lewis awarded him “three Pinocchios”—a rating that indicates “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.” This is because, the paper explained, even though the number comes from a reputable nonpartisan source, Oxfam, which got its data from Credit Suisse, “It’s hard to make heads or tails of what wealth actually means, with respect to people’s daily lives around the globe.”
Post factcheckers returned to defend their owner against the charge that he is extremely wealthy after Sanders pointed out in a Democratic debate (6/27/19) that “three people in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of America.” “The numbers add up,” the Post fact squad (6/28/19) acknowledged, but it’s “apples to oranges”:
People in the bottom half have essentially no wealth, as debts cancel out whatever assets they might have. So the comparison is not especially meaningful.
The Washington Post (1/27/16) began its rebuttal to Bernie Sanders’ “fiction-filled” campaign: “Here is a reality check: Wall Street has already undergone a round of reform.”
The Post editorial page makes no secret of its anti-Sanders position (FAIR.org, 1/28/16, 5/11/16), nor do some of its prominent opinion columnists, like Dana Milbank (FAIR.org, 2/11/16) and Fareed Zakaria (FAIR.org, 9/6/16).
But even in the occasional straight news reporting that manages to acknowledge Sanders’ success, the paper’s reporters still slip in digs at the candidate, such as a news report by Karen Tumulty charting Sanders’ strong caucus showing in Iowa in 2016 that told readers that his showing indicated “Republicans are not the only voters looking for qualities beyond experience and electability.” (With eight years as Burlington mayor, 16 years in the House and a Senate tenure that began in 2007, Sanders has more political experience than most presidential candidates, whether in 2016 or 2020, and electability, rather obviously, ought to be determined by voters, not journalists—FAIR.org, 2/2/16.)
And sometimes the digs are clearly deliberate, as when a Post political correspondent essentially admitted to trolling the Sanders camp by intentionally choosing a “provocative” headline—”Bernie Sanders Keeps Saying His Average Donation Is $27, but His Own Numbers Contradict That”—over a piece that revealed the scandalous deception that the actual number was $27.89 (FAIR.org, 4/24/16).
There’s an underlying dismissal of Sanders as a serious candidate, in both the Post‘s editorializing and its nominally straight reporting, that results in pieces like the ones saying the large crowds Sanders drew to his 2016 campaign rallies “don’t matter much” (FAIR.org, 8/20/15), or the ones accusing him of lacking political “realism” (FAIR.org, 1/30/16). And there’s a clear antipathy at the paper to many of Sanders’ signature policy plans, like Medicare for All (FAIR.org, 3/20/19, 6/25/19).
In her CNN segment about Sanders’ critique, Harlow insisted to one of her guests, Britney Shepard of Yahoo News, “It’s important to note, the Washington Post has done really critical reporting of Amazon, too.” Shepard’s response:
Absolutely, and I really want to underscore something that Kristen said, something you said, too, Poppy, is that Bernie Sanders and his campaign have not really put forth any facts or evidence when they’re pressed about what the Washington Post is doing, and I do think that there’s a concern, and especially a concern as we’re gearing up in this primary, that Bernie Sanders is going to be compared to Donald Trump again and again and again and again.
Curiously, the same journalists so incensed about Sanders’ lack of evidence about the Post‘s bias failed to offer any of their own about the paper’s “critical reporting” of Amazon. They’d be hard-pressed to find any. In 2017 FAIR’s Adam Johnson reviewed a year’s coverage of Amazon in the Post, the Times and the Wall Street Journal, and found that across 190 stories, only 6% leaned negative, and none were investigative exposes (FAIR.org, 7/28/17).
Nearly half (48%) of the Post‘s coverage was uncritical—meaning it didn’t even adopt the standard journalistic practice of seeking out critical or contrary third-party voices, instead reading like an Amazon press release. (My favorite: “An Exclusive Look at Jeff Bezos’ Plan to Set Up an Amazon-Like Delivery for ‘Future Human Settlement’ of the Moon,” with a picture looking up at a Bezos in shades gazing off proudly into the distance.)
But note the Post wasn’t alone in its fawning coverage. That’s why Sanders called out the Times as well, and why NPR, CNN and their ilk are so upset. It’s not a conspiracy theory, because Bezos doesn’t have to tell the Post how to report to get the kind of coverage he wants. It’s baked into a system in which journalists with a working-class perspective or critical of the corporate status quo get weeded out.
As Hill TV (and former MSNBC) journalist Krystal Ball (8/14/19) trenchantly responded to the media pushback against Sanders’ critique, reporters know which stories will endanger their access to the establishment sources so valued by their employer, and which will earn them praise and access. Those inclined to pursue those establishment-friendly stories rise up in the ranks, while most of those with more critical perspectives eventually move on. So, no, they don’t need Bezos to tell them what to do—their worldview is neatly aligned with his already.
Messages can be sent to the Washington Post at letters@washpost.com, or via Twitter @washingtonpost. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your message in the comments thread below.
I noticed, and complained about it, that Stephen Colbert is also working overtime to try to make a laughing stock out of Bernie. My complaints have not been answered.
While we hear about Uncle Joe’s “gaffs,” the corporate media seems to work hard to excuse those. They worked overtime to help Hilary steal the nomination from Bernie last time, and it would appear they’ll do their best to give us Biden this time.
Thanks for your good work. Who you gonna believe the WaPo or your lying eyes?
I’m so glad that I’m not the only one to see this glaring and somewhat forced criticism of Bernie. I say forced because usually Colbert has a pretty good sense of timing for his jokes but these jabs are really crude and generally not funny.
The body language from guests that could present a danger to the network is blatantly clear too. He will be gregarious with one guest and then is totally standoffish with the danger guest.
I have to wonder if he’s been given script additions like Sinclair’s “must run” segments.
Im from Canada and a Colbert fan but have noticed that he and most media seem to be undercutting Bernie and his campaign while he seems to be the only one of the top three that seems to have both the charisma and strret fighter ability to take on trump face to face. He also has policies that would give all americans access to healthcare that we have in . By the way we can go to any hospital and choose amy doctor no death panels lol. I think that for whatever reason the top few percent either like the fact biden will leave the system as it is andcthe poor without services or they support him because they knowhe wont beat trump. Either scenerio is pretty scary for democracy. It just seems do obvious from up here that Sanders is most likely to beat trump warren the next best bet and biden third.
It’s clear the corpress has no love for Sanders
I just wish there were more there for them to loathe.
Well done. Well said. Business as usual until the public as a whole are able to make the distinctions between propaganda and conclusions drawn from facts. Don’t hold your breath for such an event to take place.
One way to possibly win, is to put both Sanders and Warren on the ticket. Anything short of that, I think, spells another Trump victory.
Thank you for this great article.
Just on Bernie’s comment about releasing prisoners – The WaPo had an extremely biased take. “He’d need congressional legislation — and approval from a Republican House and a Senate with at least enough Republicans to filibuster — for a bill that would set one-fourth of America’s prison population free on the streets.”
What they omit is a breakdown of what “crime” many US prisoners are jailed for. A very large number are non-violent drug law violators, and every one of them could be – and should be – released – with nothing but benefit for our Society. This would begin to repair lives. It would allow those who need help with substance abuse to seek it. It would reunite families. It would save a LOT of money that is being squandered keeping them in prison. The list goes on.
The Drug War is a total waste of time and money, and is nothing but a negative puritanical and greed-driven mess. After more than what? 70 years or so? we have achieved nothing but filling prisons and messing up lives and wasting money and creating a private prison industry. Any drug you want is available nearly anywhere. The cartels are making money hand over fist. And the war goes on….and on…..and on.
Treatment programs, combined with education and job training, would have a much greater effect on cutting drug use – and would empty a bunch of private prisons at a major saving of money. Oh yes, the owners of those private prisons will lobby themselves blue in the face, spending major bucks, to keep the Drug War alive. So we have some choices to make. Do we let the greedy and the puritans keep huge numbers of people in prison for profit, or do we listen to Bernie?
Yo got that right!
James Gerard:
An amusing WaPo response —-that Sanders would need congressional legislation. Since Trump, who even notices congressional legislation—-and certainly the Pompeo and the Bolton, don’t need Congressional legislation either. I have no idea where the balance of power has gone————-I suppose it’s gone the same way of so many major media– sold out and ignored! Keep going Bernie, the press dissing you is a sign of your progress! People support you and perhaps soon, real journalists might reappear!
Please don’t omit Sidney Ember of the New York Times. Everything she writes about Sanders is a hit piece, lacking in any objectivity and factual basis. What can we expect when over 90% of our media is owned by 6 multinational corporations?
I also like how when the media is caught pushing a clearly false story, they lament it in terms of “it’s a shame that some will use this error to push the Trumpian ‘fake news’ narrative.”
It’s not a narrative, it’s the truth. “It’s a shame some will point to Jeffrey Dahmer’s victims to push the ‘Jeffrey Dahmer is a serial killer’ narrative.”
Or “feed the perception” of media bias, as if that perception is actually wrong. Oh it makes me so angry!! >:(
Dear Ms. Hollar – I found your investigative report on the coverage of Sanders fascinating and an exemplary analysis of ideological reproduction. Thanks so much for the research and time that went into its production.
Bernie is a sell-out – a sheeple-herder that never intended to win. He was a gatekeeper for Hillary because she is AIPAC-beloved and he is an Isr…-firster. He threw his supporters under the bus as they told him in real time that the nomination was being stolen. The con was set up even before the race started as alluded to in a Podesta email. Bernie pushes Russiagate and tells untruths about Venezuela. He supported the same candidate as Dick Cheney endorsed.
Who is Sanders really working for? He openly admits he’s a Z-ist, opposes BDS because it hurts Isr…, The Homeland of the J’s, supports The White Helmets, a Mossad and Deep State creation, endorses regime change in Syria, votes to fund every war every time because it helps Isr… – it’s all there in the open.
Vote Third Party – REAL Third Parties, not the fake Sanders kind.
Bernie is not one of us. Bernie is a millionaire, and now he’s stopped criticizing millionaires, just billionaires. Bernie knifed us in the back, but at least he got a brand new $600,000 Lake Champlain vacation home out of the deal. I’m sure his neighbors are good working-class people. Nice work if you can get it. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bernie-sanders-slams-billionaires-gets-reminded-he-owns-3-houses
Check out how dishonest Bernie Sanders is: WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement Thursday on the political situation in Venezuela:
“The Maduro government in Venezuela has been waging a violent crackdown on Venezuelan civil society, violated the constitution by dissolving the National Assembly and was re-elected last year in an election that many observers said was fraudulent. Further, the economy is a disaster and millions are migrating.”
I saw a single show with Poppy Harlowe interviewing Bernie Sanders. after firing several hostile questions at him, Bernie said to her, “I’d like to ask you a question”. “I asked the questions here,” she replied, in a tone I’ve only seen unlaw and order in the interrogation room when talking to and known rapist/murderer. It was really chilling. Compare with cheerleader questions asked at Amy Klobuchar, whose true pro Republican voting record is never covered, and there’s no question about bias. Dismissing the fact that advertisers influence content I simply calling that “conspiracy theory” It’s another one of those things that sticks in my car.
Welcome to a pinhole of Trump’s world.
Thank you for this article. Bezos should not be able to own a newspaper. Corporate media and even our “public stations” are maddening. Our democracy is in peril.
All journalism should take care to not take on the characteristics of what is affectionately referred to as the “oldest profession in the world!”
Opinion journalism and advocacy journalism have been seeping into every medium since the 1970’s. This makes it very difficult for any true objectivity to shine through. Capitalism “Trumps” objectivity, truth, and many times even empirical evidence!
Maybe bringing back some form of the FCC Fairness Doctrine would at least increase the chances for some semblance of objectivity in journalism. If only for that pesky 1st Amendment, huh?? Catch 22! This true price for freedom is becoming ever clearer!
PAY ATTENTION: MANY PROGRESSIVE TOP-JOURNALISTS WILL LOSE INCOME WHEN BERNIE GETS POWER!
It is not only tycoon-influence. The same attitude (establised media against ‘leftists’) i see in The Netherlands, UK and all over Europe. it’s just ego-money talks (in hiding).
G. Bal
The Hague
Fair, huh?
Check THIS out!
https://www.justice-integrity.org/1445-welcome-to-waterbury-the-city-that-holds-the-secrets-that-could-bring-down-down-trump
Make THIS your next story and leave Democrat candidates alone, please.
https://www.justice-integrity.org/1445-welcome-to-waterbury-the-city-that-holds-the-secrets-that-could-bring-down-down-trump
There’s no doubt that the Post and the rest of the mainstream media are hostile to Sanders and to the democratic socialist ideas he stands for. But as this piece correctly points out, “Bezos doesn’t have to tell the Post how to report to get the kind of coverage he wants. It’s baked into a system in which journalists with a working-class perspective or critical of the corporate status quo get weeded out.”
So what this piece is missing is evidence that Bezos is doing anything special to influence the Post’s coverage of the Sanders campaign. To put it another way, is there an argument being made that before Bezos bought the paper the coverage was less biased? I don’t think that’s the case. The problem is the outlook of the corporate media, not the fact that Bezos bought the Post.
There’s a long history in U.S. journalism of endeavoring to keep the reporting independent of the business side of the operation. (Your reference to “ethical journalist” is on point.) Keep in mind, too, that the Post writers and editors are unionized, with a News Guild representation that has long fought to protect their members’ professional independence.
Pleacould change se don’t miss the Media Revolution. The Young Turks, Jimmy Dore, et al, Kim Iverson, Labor Union TV, Kyle Kulinski, et al. gather more Viewers than CNN, MSNBC & FOX COMBINED Viewers. 94 Million Millennials on cell phones could change everything. Bernie’s plan for Free College and Loan Forgiveness will excite 60%. Trump only won with 63 Million Votes. Add to the 94, 50 Labor Union Members and their FAMILIES and Bernie wins by a Landslide.
I am curious what statistics you would find if you analyzed WaPo’s coverage of other Democratic candidates, specifically Elizabeth Warren who shares many same policy ideas as Bernie Sanders. If you truly want to compare how WaPo treats candidates, look at ALL the candidates for positive/negative coverage. I’d be very interested in seeing your results.
Thank you.