"Government-run healthcare" is an insurance industry talking point, whether the phrase comes from mainstream media or corporate-allied Democratic politicians.
Under our current system in the U.S., who is the provider of insurance to most people? It's for-profit corporations. Yet you don't see mainstream outlets referring to the current system, the status quo, as "corporate-run healthcare."
JB: Speaking of Iowa Caucus Night, let's talk about what's been going on there, which is unprecedented. What do you make of the unfolding chaos there? A perfect storm? More than a bunch of coincidences? And what role is the corporate press playing in it?
JC: One of my main criticisms of corporate media election coverage is their emphasis on horse race over policy. In a democracy, voters need to know about the policy proposals of the various candidates, not the latest ups and downs in polls or gaffes or politician in-fighting. It was fascinating to see TV networks' fury that they didn't have vote totals to chew over, because the last thing they want to have to offer is debate/discussion about corporate greed or economic inequality or proposals to address the climate crisis.
Although I have a well-founded mistrust of the Democratic establishment and its capacity to put obstacles in front of the party's progressive base -- and that mistrust has been heightened by DNC chair Tom Perez' stacking of Democratic convention posts with corporatists https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/01/27/tom-perez-stacks-2020-convention-committees-swamp-nominations-- I'm willing to believe at this point that the problem is just technical and not shenanigans.
JB: You're more generous than I am, Jeff. I've been reading numerous articles on this topic today. You think it simply a coincidence that Robbie Mook, Hillary's campaign manager last time around, consulted on the building of the app that counted the votes? And that Buttigieg paid more than $40,000 to the company, Shadow Inc., that created the app? And that Biden and Gillibrand apparently also paid the company, although for what exactly is unclear. Really?!
JC: It doesn't surprise me that corporate candidates and their consultants are connected to Shadow, Inc. But I don't suspect a conspiracy. If so, it was ineptly executed. Campaigning is big business, and Democratic campaign consultants seem to keep getting richer and richer even as they lose winnable elections -- as did the well-paid "geniuses" who ran Hillary's 2016 campaign.
JB: What's your take on the media spin so far about this non-event of a caucus that Bernie, according to many polls and media sources, was purported to be leading? Whom did this snafu help, whom did it hurt? Cui bono, aka who benefits from the delay and muddied results, if we ever get them? And isn't any benefit directly correlated to how the press evaluates it, correctly or incorrectly? It appears hard to come out ahead - or am I making too much of it?
JC: The Iowa screwup helped Biden the most. He did poorly and that would have been one of the biggest headlines on the night of the Iowa caucus. . . so Biden escaped what would have been big negative coverage from a political press corps that is upset with who's winning -- or losing -- the horse race. The screwup probably hurt both Buttigieg and Bernie who ran so close to the top, and they would have gotten positive coverage had results been ready that night. Of course, corporate media have a well-documented bias against Bernie, so even when he's doing great in results or polls, he's often dissed -- as FAIR once demonstrated in "MSNBC's Anti-Sanders Bias Makes It Forget How to Do Math".
JB: How much has the corporate press succeeded in making the voters suspicious of Bernie and his candidacy? How savvy is the public to sniff out the hypocrisy, distortion and lies?
JC: Unfortunately, I think corporate media -- including corporate Democratic-leaning outlets like MSNBC, CNN, New York Times -- have undue, undeserved influence over many Democratic and independent voters. Democrats in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire often vote more as pundits than voters. And they listen to mainstream media that have been wrong time and again on the issue of "which Democrat is more electable in the general election." They said Kerry would be more electable than Dean in 2004. Many Iowans switched from Dean to Kerry. Then Kerry lost in the general. Mainstream pundits said Hillary would be more electable than Bernie in 2016 -- and Hillary went on to lose to the most unpopular major party candidate in modern history. Data suggests Bernie would have won in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
Since everyone is correctly intent on defeating Trump as goal number one, which Democrat is electable is a major consideration. But I sure wouldn't turn to corporate media pundits for the answer.
Voters keep hearing from MSM over and over that a progressive candidate like Bernie (or Warren) is "too far left to win a general election." Along with letters and numbers keys on keyboards at the New York Times and Washington Post, I wonder if they have a key that spits out that 8-word mantra. But is there any serious analyst who actually believes Hillary lost to faux-populist, con man Trump because voters saw her as "too far left" or "too radical"? I think she lost plenty of votes in November 2016 because she was seen as too status quo or too cozy with the corporate establishment or too much of a vacillating untrustworthy politician. But it's as if 2016 never happened when mainstream pundits on MSNBC or CNN constantly warn Democratic primary voters against nominating Bernie and Warren as "too far left to win a general election" -- but never warn them about nominating another go slow/yes no/status quo vacillating corporate centrist like Biden or Mayor Pete or Klobuchar.
Hardcore Bernie activists are immune to mainstream media, and corporate media just activates them more. But many less plugged-in Democrats and independents are probably influenced against progressive candidates.
I coproduced a recent documentary film (trailer here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dlIRy7HbkQ) that features interviews with a number of white, working-class voters in Ohio who'd voted for Obama twice, voted for Bernie in the Democratic primary . . . and then flipped to Trump. They saw Hillary as status quo, and so took a chance with the orangeman. They didn't reject the Democrat because they were worried she was "too far left." Just the opposite. And they respected Bernie for his honesty and consistency -- despite his being a self-identified democratic socialist.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
