Feeling the 'Bern'

To date, Republican coverage far outweighs that of the Democratic primary; 338 minutes to 128 minutes. As for Sanders, his campaign has barely even registered on the broadcast evening news this year, generating just eight minutes of coverage (Clinton gathered 82 minutes of coverage). By comparison, Mitt Romney’s decision last winter to not run for president generated just as much coverage as Sanders’ entire 2015 campaign, which has been criss-crossing the country for the last four months.

In a previous post I talked about Ron Paul in regard to his election campaign being stolen from him, now the focus is on Bernie Sanders; or rather, the focus is the lack of focus on him. It seems like history is repeating itself again. In 2012, when Paul ran for president in the primaries of the election process, a similar process of disregard was implemented against him. Despite coming second or third in the polls, he was left out of the media – people didn't talk about him, and when they did, it was done in such a way as to indicate that he had 'no chance'. Graphs were manufactured which completely avoided putting him on, and virtually all other air time was used to talk about the other runners. It seems that Bernie Sanders is stepping into his shoes, and is having various cold shoulders pressed against his glasses. The reason being, he is dangerous to the establishment, as Sanders is aiming for liberty and fairness.

The way it works is that at first, all major news stations try to ignore the candidate; the candidate is 'not part of the establishment' and therefore, is against the interests of the power bodies behind the candidate race. Following from this, if the candidate begins winning, despite the odds, then the other candidates generally affront that candidate with anti-propaganda, trying to discredit him or her with either selective truths which are over-layed with slander or simply lies. Everything a candidate or representative says is fuel for the fire, and often it is dished out with complete disregard for the actual truth. Clinton recently did this against Sanders which turned into a strange debate – saying that he heavily criticised Obama; saying he was 'soft' and 'weak'. Though, Sanders actually campaigned for Obama and has worked alongside him for 7 years of his tenure in the office. Clinton voted against him in the elections. Then, if it's a debate between civil liberties, Sanders wins hands down. Though rarely is it simply about the issues:

When referring to the media: “I want you to talk about and force discussion about climate change. Do you think you do that enough? I would like you to force discussion of poverty in America. I have talked over and over and over again that 51 percent of African-American kids are unemployed or underemployed. You think that’s an important issue? I do. Are you going to discuss it?”

Now it's very important to understand that the reverse is true too; that to not speak of a candidate harms their potential for votes, even if the public support his/her views. If they think that their vote will just be wasted if they vote for that candidate, they may indeed cast the vote elsewhere in order for their to be less of evils, or just go along with the flow; generally that's just easier (bandwagon affect). Iowa and New Hampshire are the first on the list of the caucus voting, are are crucial in putting the winning candidate in the spotlight, and give them momentum to move forwards; often winning from a good start. Now, these two states aren't big so don't offer many delegates, but it's that press coverage at the start which is needed to give the runners the best chance for the running. That's probably largely the reason why Trump is doing so well – everyone is talking about him!

“So in terms of stand-alone campaign stories this year, it’s been 234 minutes for Trump, compared to 10 minutes for Sanders. And at ABC World News Tonight, it’s been 81 minutes for Trump and less than one minute for Sanders.” Eric Boehlert; Media matters.

Hillary has been woefully inconsistent with her views, and was a Republican supporter back in the hay-day. Bernie sanders has been wholly consistent; having campaigned along with Martin Luther King in the 60s, being against all of the wars since then, and a true liberal in terms of civil rights.

Hillary Clinton is actually more right wing than left when up against Sanders; so the 'Democrat package' is not quite within her grasp. In addition, it is important to note that Clinton has taken millions from banks and other large corporations, whereas Sanders has taken none. The average donation he received is at $27.00. This generally means that it's in the interest of the large controlling sectors of the country; the ones that control and manage the wealth, for Clinton to come out on top. The corporate owned profit first network news divisions have made the editorial decision that they are going to lavish airtime upon the presidential candidate who most fits their corporate owners’ ideology. That is why the media and all basic coverage on the running tends to ignore Sanders. Now though, with him winning the last three of four states (Kansas, Nebraska and Maine, against Hillary winning in Louisiana), he can't be ignored. Nope, not ignored, just slandered calumniation to the press.

Sanders trying to fight back; Clinton Pettifogging the issue: