CNN (3/28/16)
After Bernie Sanders overwhelmingly won the Democratic caucuses in Alaska, Hawaii and Washington state, CNN‘s Chris Moody (3/28/16) observed:
These caucus states—largely white and rural—are the type of places Sanders traditionally does well. In order to win the nomination, he must replicate this success in other, more ethnically diverse states that hold primaries, as he did in Michigan last month.
In fact, Hawaii is only 25 percent white, making it the least white state in the country, and the only state without a white majority. Alaska, at 67 percent white, is less white than 44 other states. (Vets for Bernie noted that CNN not long ago ran a story about Alaska’s ethnic diversity, which “may surprise folks from the Lower 48 who picture Alaska as a largely homogenous and snowy American extremity. But Alaskans are quite proud of their distinctive demographics.”) Washington state is 77 percent white, a little whiter than the US average of 72 percent, but still less white than 26 other states.
Nor are these states “largely rural”: Hawaii, 92 percent urbanized, is the 5th-most urban state. Washington, at 84 percent urbanized, is No. 16. Even Alaska, while more rural than the average state, is 66 percent urbanized.
So why did CNN describe these mostly urban, not particularly white states as “largely white and rural”? It certainly fits in with the Hillary Clinton campaign’s strategy of portraying Sanders as a marginal, out-of-touch white man. But you could charitably assume that the folks at CNN are just too lazy to look things up.
Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org. You can follow him on Twitter: @JNaureckas.
Messages to CNN can be sent to here (or via Twitter @CNN). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
The problem with this “see, Bernie wins states with large minority populations!” narrative is who the minority populations are which you don’t mention. Neither state has any significant black population and in both the Latino population is too small to be measurable. So their minorities — natives, Asians, Pacific Islanders – don’t reflect the minorities of the bulk of the country. This fact is essentially to mention if you are going to trumpet Bernie’s “minority” wins. It does matter.
I was out of town and I missed TV coverage over Easter, but when I returned there was absolutely nothing in my local paper on the results in Alaska, Hawaii or Washington. No surprise. The MSM either ignores or smears Bernie or any “fair and balanced” coverage of him and his position on the issues.
First thought: the United States is “largely white and rural.” Second thought: I’d always heard from CNN and many others that Republicans do well among rural white folks. (My home state of Pennsylvania is Philly and Pittsburgh and “Alabama in between” — right?) Third thought: Even if the parenthetical were true, is there something “lesser” about being rural or white? Fifth: Hillary’s wins in the south were also “expected” but were not dismissed for that reason, or any other reason.
Does CNN management give its on-air people pre-employment testing in world geography & history, math, logic and ethics? It couldn’t hurt.
All of mainstream media owned/funded by the corporate rich, all pure brainwash propaganda and were suppose to “charitably assume”?
Mainstream media, all owned/funded by the corporate rich, all pure brainwash propaganda and were suppose to “charitably assume”?
Hey Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting,
You mentioned Hawaii. Do you see Hawaii here? “As expected, Sanders won Alaska and Washington state.”
I see Hawaii in the first line of the story: “Bernie Sanders dominated the Pacific northwest Saturday, gaining victories over Hillary Clinton in Alaska, Hawaii and Washington state Democratic caucuses.”
“As expected, Sanders won Alaska and Washington state. But the real news is in the sheer size of his victory.
In Alaska, he was winning by nearly 60 percentage points with 73% of the delegates in at 6:40 p.m. ET. In Washington state, he was ahead by more than 50 points with 31% of the delegates in. If that margin holds, he’ll outpace then-Sen. Barack Obama’s performance in Washington in 2008.
These caucus states — largely white and rural — are the type of places Sanders traditionally does well. In order to win the nomination, he must replicate this success in other, more ethnically diverse states that hold primaries, as he did in Michigan last month. ”
Let’s be honest about what was said. You have taken a comment that specifically relates to Washington and Alaska, and claim the was talking about Hawaii. Lots of reasons to hate on CNN, don’t need to make up new ones.
Mainstream media is owned by corporate rich bastards. They are dictating what can be covered, and how it can be covered. They are only interested in their own financial gain. They do not care about America and the rest of us….only themselves. They NEED the establishment candidate, who they have purchased, like a slave, to do as they have directed HER. She owes them…..BIG TIME.
To be fair, if you will, most people (at least here in New York) think of Alaska as white (maybe because of all the snow and igloos) and rural (isn’t it mostly caribou or salmon or whatever?) and think of Hawaii as rural (lots of Volcanos and oceans and palm trees and whatever) and white (isn’t it all middle-class tourists in Holiday Inns?) And who doesn’t think of Seattle (my only referent to Washington State) as white? Nirvana? The tech industry? Yuppies? Give poor CNN a pass on this one. As to Bryan, I think it’s ambiguous, that reference to which caucus states. Sounds to me like all three but I see where you got it from.
Yeah, they weren’t white and rural, they were white and had caucuses. Ironically, Bernie says he does well when voter turnout is good, but he actually does well with he pitifully small numbers that show up at the caucuses. Might explain why he has more than 2 million votes less than Clinton.
Now that the Democratic primary is over, it might be a good opportunity for funders of FAIR to reflect on just how fair and accurate this site has been on the topic and whether contributions might be better spent on less partisan and less biased groups.