All presidential primaries have three basic components: the public/voters, the candidates with their respective party, and the main-stream media (MSM).
Generally speaking, the MSM elects the winner and loser candidate with its power to shape public opinion. Wow. That’s some claim, isn’t it? You would accept/reject that proposition depending on your political inclination, that’s a fact. Chances are some progressives would agree with my claim. It is not for nothing that the MSM is called the fourth power, and that governments all around the globe fight to control it: it can start or stop a revolution.
The MSM didn’t show to the public the massive protest (lots of African-Americans too) on George W. Bush’s first presidential inauguration after stealing the elections (remember?), and the push-and-shove with the police. Here, pick any article. Because of that omission a people’s ‘spring revolt’ of sorts was crushed and, to this day, people believe that the American public passively accepted the Florida decision on the Gore vs Bush election. So, let’s take that first sentence in the paragraph above as true, if only for argument sake. (See my post explaining how MSM’s uncritical support is a payout to Sanders for his vote for the Stimulus Package that saved Wall Street.)
MSM and Obama
In addition, for all the ‘hope and change’ and the revolution of the Obama primary campaign vs Clinton in 2008, the MSM basically hanged Hillary Clinton (HC) to the high tree of misogyny for all to see, and stood by Obama. Even Fox News capitalist owner, Rupert Murdock fell totally in love with Obama.
This is Rupert Murdoch gushing over Obama:
“He is a rock star. It’s fantastic. I love what he is saying about education. I don’t think he will win Florida…..but he will win in Ohio and the election. I am anxious to meet him. I want to see if he will walk the walk.”
The Perfect Storm or How Obama is going to wreck this country
Clearly, when the capitalist owner of news corporation like Fox News feels like that about ‘revolutionary’ Obama, it could only mean that Obama is not a ‘red threat’ to the capitalist elite. That link is to my blog for the 2008 primaries where I correctly described how Obama was going to stand for Wall Street. Sorry, people, it did happen. I had other hit-and-misses there.
Denying that it was the MSM who gave Obama his victory with its attack on HC, shows lack of awareness of the tools used by its propaganda machine (the use of psychological techniques, manipulation of language and images…), or gross opportunism. Hey, these techniques are in the curriculum of colleges and universities, it’s not ‘conspiracy theory’.
MSM and Sanders
Today’s democratic primaries is deja-vu all over again, with the difference that today the MSM is hanging HC on the tree of ‘dishonesty’. The email gossip has not stuck and, today, misogyny is not PC, it can’t be blatantly used day in and day out as they used to do in 2008. They have to find something to destroy her, so they hammer on ‘honesty’. [See True Reasons Why Hillary Is Unelectable ] But, they can’t attack one candidate and ignore the other. The MSM follows attacks on HC with propaganda about how ‘trustworthy’ Bernie Sanders is. Three examples:
Bernie Sanders, Your Cool Socialist Grandpa NY Times
Hillary Clinton has a major honesty problem after New Hampshire WaPo
Bernie Sanders beats Hillary Clinton on honesty, battle against Wall Street NY Daily News
Sanders has profited from the media’s lack of interest in challenging his self-presentation as a kind of non-politician. He’s similarly benefitted from his mostly-unchallenged self-presentation as a kind of happy warrior — angry and loud, yes, but in a lovably earnest kind of way. The Clinton campaign has desperately tried to get the media to challenge this image. Salon
Charles Koch: This is the one issue where Bernie Sanders is right [added 2/19/16] – uber elitist conservative capitalist endorsing Sanders at the Washington Post.
That’s the missing question during both the 2008 and in today’s primaries campaigns: Why did the MSM worked for Obama and is today working for Sanders, two ‘socialists’ supposedly questioning the sacrosanct capitalist system? You have to be dead wood to not have wondered about this, if at least once on a trip to Wal-Mart.
That question can not and should not be asked by the public because the answer is more dangerous to WS and the ‘corrupt elite’ than Obama and Sanders ‘socialist-revolution’ campaigns. The MSM must keep the elections to the level of personality battles: who is more ‘honest’, more ‘likable’…
A public without political acumen can’t ask the pertinent questions. The job of the MSM is to prevent the public from going there. There’s got to be a reason why they hate HC more than some ‘socialist’. You can bet your house it is NOT because she is ‘dishonest’.
Why is it that two candidates considered ‘long shots’ are openly supported by the MSM? Why is the historical bogey man, socialism and ‘revolution’, together in one sentence, are not causing a barrage of ‘red scare’ alerts in the MSM? Even Silicon Valley tech elite is with Sanders.
Clearly Sanders is no threat to the capitalists. Period.