Evan Halper, and his trusty co-elitist writer, Janet Hook, are on the prowl in Iowa, searching out those folks undecided between Biden and Sanders. What is amusing about the article is how they must opine. And boldly. This is how they describe the two candidates:
They are locked in an ideological struggle for Democrats’ 2020 nomination that pits the politically moderate Biden, a classic party insider, against the liberal Sanders, a blow-up-the-system outsider. And yet they appeal to some of the same voters. (Links in original)
I clicked on the link for Sanders and found no phrase "blow-up-the-system," or any of the individual words. And since when is reform a blowing up of a system? And since when is putting in different people to run the party a blowing up of a system? Oh, and don't think we didn't notice the "moderate" label given to Biden, when Biden's views on $15 minimum wage, trade treaties, the bankruptcy bill he and Republicans pushed through, cutting Social Security and Medicare, and the Iraq War were and have been opposed by the majority of Americans.
I should feel great that my original prognostication about this primary being about Bernie v. Biden is proving accurate, after months of me feeling, well, maybe I was wrong. But let's unpack this opinion laden news article a bit further.
In the newspaper business, there is a phrase known as burying the lede, where the most important information is buried inside the article. And here we have it, folks. Deep down at paragraph 12, we get this:
Many blue-collar Democrats attracted to Biden remain uncommitted, and their interest in what Murray calls “an old-school, working-class Democrat who fights for you” creates an opening for Sanders. “Biden and Sanders share this sense that they both came through the school of hard knocks,” he said.
That is the real story, isn't it? Polling data has been clear Sanders' supporters are resolute and committed to Sanders. But that is not how Halper and Hook want to phrase that fact. Instead, they rely on the "Bernie has a ceiling and it is very low" argument. Here are the two writers at paragraph 13:
For Sanders, who must expand his base of support beyond the die-hards who will be with him no matter what, that large group of uncommitted working-class voters offers perhaps his best opportunity.
With at least ten candidates still on the ballot for the Iowa caucuses, that ceiling is more than enough to build momentum. Further, with DNC rules that a candidate must get 15% of the caucus or primary vote to have a delegate, or else the candidate is treated as getting a zero, this creates an opportunity for further, significant momentum for Sanders. What is treated as a fact is how Biden somehow transcends party lines, with a link designed to make someone think the "fact" will be proven. Yet, the link is only to a debate where Biden was himself saying that. The true stubborn fact is Bernie is transcends party labels, with Republicans and independents who supported him in 2016 and are more likely to do so again in 2020 in the Rust Belt, where the Democratic Party's presidential nominee must win. I have said from the start Bernie's appeal is based upon people now knowing his name and trust that he says what he means. This is why the uncommitted Biden supporters compared to Bernie stalwart supporters is key to understand how this Iowa caucus may go. Also, as Bernie has surged in the last three months, this idea of a "natural" ceiling is so much nonsense. Momentum breeds momentum, as anyone who looks at how candidates develop, whether it was John Kerry in 2004, Obama in 2008, or Trump in 2016.
For reporters who are supposed to be "on the ground," Halper and Hook appear to have mostly spoken to party leaders, not many supporters outside that leadership, and of course they found the conventional wisdom they sought--where Biden's actual record of supporting Wall Street over Main Street, unnecessary wars, and the bi-partisan charade for the wealthy, are avoided like the plague. Those facts are presented as a mere argument from "(t)he Sanders team...."
For reporters who are supposed to be "on the ground," Halper and Hook appear to have mostly spoken to party leaders, not many supporters outside that leadership, and of course they found the conventional wisdom they sought--where Biden's actual record of supporting Wall Street over Main Street, unnecessary wars, and the bi-partisan charade for the wealthy, are avoided like the plague. Those facts are presented as a mere argument from "(t)he Sanders team...."
The article ends with a non-leadership, retired, and likely white guy from Des Moines who supported Bernie in 2016, but who is now concerned with beating Trump--so he is leaning toward Biden because of "electability," a favorite narrative from corporate media. This fits Halper's and Hook's worldview, too, and it is more worthy of note how the two reporters never spoke to any voters (as opposed to party leaders or activists) who are young, a person of color, or anyone currently in a union.
This is why I am not surprised to see today the NY Times editorial board, still hoping and praying for a brokered convention come July, endorsed two candidates, corporate Democratic Party candidate (3% average in the main polls) Amy Klobuchar and the now increasingly wounded Elizabeth Warren. Should anyone be surprised the NY Times generally feels Democrats should be nicer to Wall Street? This is historical, too, as The Smithsonian reminded or informed readers how the NY Times and other corporate or wealthy people owned newspapers responded to the rise of Mussolini and Hitler.
Admittedly, it is not as if Bernie went out of his way to seek the Times' endorsement. In his interview with the NY Times editorial staff, Sanders said people are angry and some have gone for racist appeals, in part because the two parties have failed, and even the NY Times has failed people (the link is to the interview transcript, and one should type "failed" in Find and find the quote). Then, Sanders admitted, at the end of the interview, he doesn't do "bullshit" very well. And one notes in the clip for the "bullshit" comment, and this clip about racism and voters, how uncomfortable these superficially diverse people are with Bernie. For Bernie does make their diverse, but elite, skins crawl, as a corporate Democratic Party commentator once infamously said on MSNBC. And of course, the person currently covering the Sanders campaign for the Times, Sydney Ember, is part of America's economic royalty and has been strongly anti-Sanders in her reporting.
Ladies and gentlemen, your corporate media. They are not your friend. And they will not report the revolution, at least in any way that resembles reality, and really never have. It is not that they publish "fake news" in the way Trumpists say. It is just that one has to translate language from corporate speak, and to read in a wider and more critical scope as to what is highlighted, what is not highlighted, and what is often ignored. One must, alas, know more about history, rhetoric, and studies of press criticism to fully grasp how language manipulates, but those of us who are versed in such things do owe a duty to call out the biases in this respect.
