by Alex Marchante

As this primary season continues its path from state to state, it seems like mainstream media has proven to hate Bernie Sanders more and more every passing day. Most, if not all mainstream media, from CNN to the New York Times to the Washington Post, have covered the Race for the White House solely in the way to benefit their wallets and get more views and attention, while also following their corporate-friendly agenda.

Let’s start with The Washington Post. Between March 6th at 10:20 p.m. to March 7th at 3:54 p.m., during and after the debate in Flint, Michigan before the state took to the polls the following Tuesday, The Washington Post saw it was necessary to publish 16 negative articles against Bernie Sanders.

The headlines include, “Bernie Sanders Pledges the US Won’t Be No. 1 in Incarceration. He’ll Need to Release Lots of Criminals”, “‘Excuse Me!’: Bernie Sanders Doesn’t Know How to Talk About Black People”, and “Even Bernie Sanders Can Beat Donald Trump”.

That’s a negative article every 66 minutes from The Washington Post. See if you can spot the agenda.

Immediately afterwards, Adam Johnson, a writer from AlterNet and FAIR, tweeted the image of the 16 headlines WashPo put on their website and the internet made some noise. The story spread on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and other social media outlets in outrage at the clear dismissive bias against the Vermont senator.

Fortunately, Bernie Sanders made the Washington Post eat their words two days after the Flint debate by winning the state of Michigan by almost 20,000 votes. The state of Michigan spoke without the help of The Washington Post.

In an attempt to gain back credibility, the Washington Post decided that after Bernie Sanders won Michigan, that they would post 16 positive stories about the senator. This didn’t fit well with many readers due to the damage that had already been done. However, the tone of their change in heart, or bias, can be best summarized by their own line.

In an article highlighting their positive, pro-Bernie articles, Callum Borchers of WashPo writes, “It’s obvious from this tiny sample of 1/547th of the calendar year, taken after an objectively huge Sanders win in Michigan, that The Post has a pro-Sanders bias. Are Post ‘journalists’ even capable of criticizing the Vermont senator? Doubt it.”

The delivery of the article wasn’t taken well, with comments below criticizing the original 16 anti-Bernie articles. Unfortunately, The Washington Post thought they could cover the ditch they made to bury Bernie with roses and chocolate, but the American people didn’t buy it.

A note that mainstream media loves to throw around is the fact that Former Secretary Hillary Clinton has a large lead over Senator Bernie Sanders. Although it is true that as of before the Wisconsin primary Clinton holds a lead in pledged delegates slightly over 250, mainstream media is throwing around that Clinton has a lead of over 700 delegates, thanks to superdelegates.

Mainstream media hasn’t even done the favor of explaining what superdelegates are most times. Superdelegates are congressmen, senators, mayors, and other notable Democrats, including former President Bill Clinton, that each have the same voting power as thousands of American voters.

In total, Hillary Clinton has a little less than 56% of the pledged delegate count. However, the Secretary has almost 94% of the superdelegates’ support.

Although superdelegates don’t submit their final vote until the Democratic Convention in June, Hillary Clinton has made the Democratic establishment fall to her feet. So far, the 469 superdelegates claiming to be in favor of Clinton have almost the same voting power as the entire state of California, which holds 475 delegates and had over 5,000,000 people vote in 2008.

Despite what their marketing might try to lead to suggest, CNN isn’t exactly impartial. The uneven favorability of Hillary Clinton is brought straight from ownership. Time Warner, the owners of numerous television networks, CNN included, has donated $603,170 to Hillary Clinton until 2008, according to OpenSecrets.org.

OpenSecrets lists Time Warner as the 8th largest campaign contributor throughout the career of Hillary Clinton, competing with Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase for top lap dog to Clinton. See if you can spot the influence.

 

The same could be said about NBCUniversal’s owner, Comcast. Although there aren’t any definitive totals of monetary contributions to the Clinton camp, the executive vice president of Comcast was the host of a $2,700-a-plate fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in June of 2015.

Those willing to have a private reception with the former Secretary of State could contribute $50,000. It’s clear that the higher up the mainstream media ladder you go, the more favorable things are for Hillary Clinton.

What does all this mean? The 16 anti-Bernie posts, the underestimating of the Sanders campaign and the friendliness behind the scenes for Hillary Clinton? It’s clear.

Mainstream media has their candidate because the owners, the executives and well-known faces of the companies whom all make six to seven digit yearly salaries don’t want their taxes hiked. They don’t want their influence and access in politics to go away and they want the ball in their court.

The generation of viewers that don’t use the Internet as much as millennials don’t see more than what television personalities say under the puppetry of those from above who sign the checks. They support who they want to win and they will do anything in their monetary power and influence to get what they want.

So don’t pay attention to those who pay to love Hillary Clinton. Pay attention to those who have their hands clean and their wallets full with money they earned for doing journalism, not propaganda.

Follow those with the tough questions, realistic insight and get the full story. If not, we aren’t doing our country any favors.