As the Media Struggles with the Rise of Bernie

It's been interesting watching the mass media lately as they contemplate what they should do about Bernie Sanders. The panic and desperation are palpable. Do we assume that he's vulnerable enough that we should continue attacking him relentlessly to try to make sure he doesn't get elected? Or do we pretend "we knew it all along" [that he could win] and try to "get ahead of this thing" by running positive stories about him?

At times it's hard to tell the difference, but in general MSNBC leans a little more toward the right than CNN. While MSNBC maintains its penchant for reactionaries like Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews, CNN has brought in more diverse voices like Van Jones and, more recently, Andrew Yang. Both of those gentlemen are friendly to the Sanders cause, at least more so than the folks at MSNBC. On the other hand, in the debates with CNN moderators, Bernie has endured nonstop accusations from the likes of Wolf Blitzer and Chuck Todd, who only seem to know how to ask "Given that your plan is likely to destroy the country, tell us why we should believe you when you say it won't."

Now I definitely can't say I'm an expert on the national news media. Because MSNBC and CNN are only for those willing to pay astronomical cable bills, I only see their coverage through what free clips are available. And I don't usually watch network TV because I don't like cop shows or reality TV series. However, the media are so ever-present and pervasive that one accidentally consumes all sorts of content from many different sources without even realizing it. Also, I have watched almost all of the debates, and it's rare that I miss any story about Bernie, be it positive or negative.

So whether it's through osmosis or intentional consumption, I have actually noticed a subtle shift in coverage of the Sanders campaign. Up until recently, it was rare to see any positive stories from any news outlet that was less edgy than Rolling Stone, or Mother Jones, or Grist. (Yes, I know, calling those sources edgy is stretching the definition of the word.) But recently I've seen positive stories from USA Today, and even CNN just released one of the most touching articles about Bernie supporters that I've seen ('He understands us': Why his supporters are loyal to Bernie Sanders).

I think there's evidence, too, that the broadcast networks might be trying to pull ahead of CNN and MSNBC to be in the vanguard of the media that actually get it through their thick corporate skulls that the survey results are real, and the majority of people in the United States are actually politically progressive. When ABC sponsored the New Hampshire debate, George Stephanopoulos was remarkably even-handed in his treatment of the candidates. After the CBS-sponsored South Carolina debate, one of their post-game panels said almost nothing negative about Bernie, even featuring CBS post-debate poll results that showed Bernie Sanders at the top in nearly every category...and not declaring them illegitimate! I was a bit dumbfounded.

Well, maybe there's hope for MSNBC even. Chris Matthews actually apologized for comparing Bernie's campaign success to the nazi invasion of France--that took real humility. Perhaps some people/news outlets are realizing that if they keep following their outdated biases to the bitter end, they will end up being completely irrelevant. Much of their coverage is already seen as laughable by anyone who's Internet savvy, and the information is out there in plain sight to debunk pretty much any false claim they might try to make.

For more on this topic, also check out Waleed Shahid's opinion piece on BuzzFeed: "Why Pundits Can't Comprehend Bernie Sanders."