[rad-green] Corporate media portray progressive reforms as scarily left-wing despite poll after poll showing they are broadly popular

*https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/01/20/7-pointed-questions-corporate-media-about-their-anti-progressive-biases
<https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/01/20/7-pointed-questions-corporate-media-about-their-anti-progressive-biases>Common
Dreams          January 20, 2020*



*7 Pointed Questions for Corporate Media About Their Anti-Progressive
Biases*


*Over the last year, corporate outlets have continuously portrayed
progressive reforms as scarily left-wing despite poll after poll showing
they are broadly popular.by Jeff Cohen*

[image: Despite CNN's grandstanding claims that Sanders has not provided a
price tag on his health plan, he repeatedly says that Medicare for All will
cost $30 trillion or a bit more over 10 years. (Photo: CNN)]

*Despite CNN's grandstanding claims that Sanders has not provided a price
tag on his health plan, he repeatedly says that Medicare for All will
cost $30 trillion or a bit more over 10 years. (Photo: CNN)*

We need to ask many serious questions of our nation's corporate media. Here
are just a few.

1. Why don't you refer to our current healthcare system as a "corporate-run
 system"?

At Democratic presidential debates and elsewhere, network TV journalists
have aggressively challenged
<https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/28/politics/kamala-harris-democratic-debate-abolishing-private-insurance/index.html>
the
notion of "abolishing private health insurance"—without discussing what health
insurance companies actually contribute
<https://www.salon.com/2019/06/22/do-you-actually-like-your-private-health-insurance_partner/>
to
healthcare beyond bureaucracy and profiteering. At last June's debate, *NBC*'s
Lester Holt asked candidates to raise their hands if they would "abolish
private insurance in favor of a government-run plan." Over and over, when
mainstream journalists refer to Medicare for All—wherein the government
would be the provider of health insurance, while doctors and hospitals
remain private—they mislabel
<https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/09/16/what-george-carlin-taught-us-about-media-propaganda-omission-bernie-sanders>
it
"government-run healthcare
<https://fair.org/home/government-run-healthcare-is-a-product-of-health-industry-run-media/>"
or a "government-run system." Yet they never call our current system
"corporate-run healthcare."

2. Why don't you provide actual data on the public's attitudes toward
health insurance firms?

A 2016 Harris poll
<https://theharrispoll.com/only-nine-percent-of-u-s-consumers-believe-pharmaceutical-and-biotechnology-companies-put-patients-over-profits-while-only-16-percent-believe-health-insurance-companies-do-according-to-a-harris-pol/>
found
deep disdain for health insurance companies, with only 16 percent believing
that these firms put patients over profits. In a 2018 *Forbes* article
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/blakemorgan/2018/10/16/top-5-most-hated-industries-by-customers/#283e11b490b5>
on
"The Top 5 Industries Most Hated by Customers," the health insurance
industry was ranked fourth (after cable TV, internet providers and wireless
phone)—based on American Customer Satisfaction Index rankings. Yet at
Democratic debates, we've repeatedly heard from journalists about the
millions of US consumers who supposedly relish their private insurance.
While I've yet to meet one of those satisfied customers
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/17/opinion/insulin-prices-diabetics.html>,
it's a mantra from media outlets (which are often sponsored by health
insurers). More to the point: I've yet to meet anyone who would refuse a
plan with more complete coverage at less cost to him or her: "No, I want my
beloved Aetna!"

3. Why do you so rarely care about the views of unions . . . unless they're
in conflict with environmentalists?

For more than 30 years <https://fair.org/?s=labor+unions>, the media watch
group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)—which I co-founded—has
documented that the views and voices of labor unions have been marginalized
by mainstream media <https://fair.org/?s=labor>. An exception occurred at
the *CNN*-hosted presidential debate last week, when Bernie Sanders explained
his reasons <https://bernie.substack.com/p/bern-notice-vote-on-trumps-trade>
for
opposing NAFTA 2.0. (Below is from the transcript
<http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2001/14/se.01.html>.)

SANDERS: Every major environmental organization has said no
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oAZoa1pYTtR9Zlw9-W192iT_P2bwbcySEjgwFtFgXkE/edit>
to
this new trade agreement because it does not even have the phrase "climate
change" in it . . .

MODERATOR: But, Senator Sanders, to be clear, the AFL-CIO supports this
deal. Are you unwilling to compromise?

4. Why do you also invoke unions to cast doubt on Medicare for All?

While presidential debate panelists (and corporate Democrats like Joe
Biden) have frequently brought up union-negotiated health benefits as an
argument against Medicare for All, they rarely mention how US unions have s
acrificed wage gains
<https://www.vox.com/2019/9/18/20872116/general-motors-uaw-strike-medicare-for-all-biden-union>
 and other benefits to stave off employer cuts to their healthcare.  As
flight attendants' union president Sara Nelson told *Politico *
<https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/11/joe-biden-medicare-for-all-unions-1456179>last
year: "When we're able to hang on to the health plan we have, that's
considered a massive win. But it's a huge drag on our bargaining. So our
message is: Get it off the table." As Biden admitted last week
<https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/17/biden-accidentally-makes-case-medicare-all-admitting-employers-can-take-away-your>,
attaching health insurance to a job (whether unionized or not) is an iffy
proposition for any worker.

5. Why do you interrogate politicians over the price tags of social
programs but not war?

*CNN* devoted the first portion
<http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2001/14/se.01.html> of last week's
debate to war, military deployment and foreign conflict—but not one of the
25 questions from *CNN* journalists or the other moderators asked
about the price
tag of endless war and militarism
<https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/14/cnn-moderators-alarmed-cost-medicare-all-ignore-price-tag-endless-war>.
This despite the fact that roughly 57 percent
<https://www.nationalpriorities.org/blog/2019/03/11/trumps-fy2020-budget-request/>
 of federal discretionary spending goes to the military and Trump keeps
lavishing more money on the military
<https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/10/pentagon-eyes-windfall-as-trump-seeks-750-billion-defense-budget-military/>
than
the Pentagon asks for. When it comes to war spending, mainstream
journalists don't ask: "Can our country afford it?"

"Bias is stark when journalists obsess on the estimated cost of reform
while ignoring the estimated cost of the status quo."

After *CNN*'s debate turned from war to progressive proposals for social
programs benefitting the vast majority of the public, panelists turned from
lapdogs to watchdogs on the issue of cost. Sanders was asked, "Don't voters
deserve to see a price tag [on Medicare for All]?" and "How would you keep
your plans from bankrupting the country?" To pound home the bias visually,
*CNN*'s banners
<https://act.rootsaction.org/o/6503/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=223408>
across
the bottom of the screen blared: "QUESTION: Does Sanders owe voters an
explanation of how much his health care plan will cost them and the
country?" And the absurd: "QUESTION: Sanders' proposals would double
federal spending over a decade; how will he avoid bankrupting the
country?" There
were no such banners displayed for viewers about military price tags or the
costs of endless war.

6. Why do you probe the costs of reform while sidestepping the higher price
tags of the status quo?

Despite *CNN*'s grandstanding claims that Sanders has not provided a price
tag on his health plan, he repeatedly says
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/postlive/wplive/sen-bernie-sanders-says-medicare-for-all-would-cost-30-to-40-trillion-over-10-year-period/2019/07/16/3c9052b9-9f1e-47ed-bc4e-50e9d7007f36_video.html>
 that Medicare for All will cost $30 trillion or a bit more
<https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/09/16/what-george-carlin-taught-us-about-media-propaganda-omission-bernie-sanders>
over
10 years. And he immediately adds another assertion that has provoked
little media interest or rebuttal—that persisting with the status quo will
cost far more
<https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NHE-Fact-Sheet>,
according to federal government sources, perhaps $50 trillion or more
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/15/u-s-health-care-spending-projected-to-soar-to-5-5-trillion-by-2025/>.
The higher cost is due to corporate profits, executive pay, bureaucracy
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/22/medicare-all-simplicity-savings-better-health-care-column/4055597002/>,
etc. Bias is stark when journalists obsess on the estimated cost of reform
while ignoring the estimated cost of the status quo. It's media propaganda
by omission
<https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/09/16/what-george-carlin-taught-us-about-media-propaganda-omission-bernie-sanders>.
Similarly, conservative media have savaged the jobs-creating Green New Deal
proposal
<https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/2/23/18228142/green-new-deal-critics>
—which, indeed, will cost trillions—without acknowledging
<https://newrepublic.com/article/153702/green-new-deal-costs-less-nothing> the
far higher price tag
<https://nexusmedianews.com/critics-say-the-green-new-deal-is-too-costly-heres-the-cost-of-the-status-quo-49c2edb548e>
 of continuing the status quo
<https://www.yesmagazine.org/opinion/2019/02/15/bill-mckibben-climate-change-is-scary-not-the-green-new-deal-aoc/>
.

7. Why do you ignore the 2016 presidential result in your incessant punditry
on which Democrats are electable in 2020?

I'm unaware of a single serious analyst who asserts with a straight face
that Hillary Clinton lost to a faux-populist in 2016 because voters
perceived her as "too far left" or "too radical." But she obviously did
lose votes because she was seen as too status quo
<https://democraticautopsy.org/democratic-party-in-crisis/> and too cozy
with the corporate establishment. In key swing states, Clinton failed to
energize voters of color, lost young voters to third parties, and lost
working-class whites who'd voted for Obama and Sanders. Democrats have been
defeated in six presidential elections since the Reagan era, but one would
be hard-pressed to find a single defeat attributable to far-leftism.

Establishment journalists seem intent on ignoring this history as they
cover Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Over the last year, corporate outlets
have continuously portrayed progressive reforms as scarily left-wing, in
the face of polls showing they are broadly popular (not just with
Democrats)—such as increasing taxes on the rich
<https://news.gallup.com/poll/190775/americans-say-upper-income-pay-little-taxes.aspx>
 (a new Reuters poll
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-inequality-poll/majority-of-americans-favor-wealth-tax-on-very-rich-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1Z9141>
found
most Republicans favor a wealth tax); free public college and cancelling
student debt
<https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/461106-majority-of-voters-support-free-college-eliminating-student-debt>
; Medicare for All
<https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412545-70-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all-health-care>;
and the Green New Deal
<https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/26/20883384/green-new-deal-poll-swing-districts>
.

News articles matter-of-factly denigrate these popular proposals as
"shoot-the-moon policy ideas" (*Washington Post
<https://fair.org/home/wapo-warns-dems-that-progressive-policies-could-bring-them-many-victories/>*
) that may push the Democratic Party "over a liberal cliff" (*New York
Times
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/09/us/politics/bernie-sanders-2020-election-democrats.html>*
). I sometimes wonder if the computer keyboards in certain newsrooms—besides
letter and number keys—have a single key that spits out the 8-word phrase:
"too far left to win a general election."

Unfortunately, many Democratic voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and elsewhere
are unduly influenced by mainstream media, despite the punditocracy's awful
track record in 2016 and earlier on predicting who's "electable" in a
general election.

Elite journalists regularly quote their "expert" sources in the Democratic
establishment who express worries that if Bernie Sanders wins the
nomination, he'll lose badly in November.

Or do those who own or run corporate media (and corporate Democrats) have a
different worry—that Sanders will win the general election, shake up the
system, and take away some of their wealth and power?

Jeff Cohen <https://www.commondreams.org/author/jeff-cohen> was associate
professor of journalism and the director of the Park Center for Independent
Media at Ithaca College, founder of the media watch group FAIR
<http://www.fair.org/index.php>, and former board member of Progressive
Democrats of America <http://pdamerica.org/>. In 2002, he was a producer
and pundit at MSNBC (overseen by NBC News). He is the author of *Cable News
Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/097606216X?tag=commondreams-20/ref=nosim>* - and
a cofounder of the online action group, www.RootsAction.org
<http://www.rootsaction.org/>. His website is here: http://jeffcohen.org

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sid-l/CACKppcy7DRAA1P3rxQLpO0i%2B4NqnqdT0DFkh2zepmgLvC_pTqQ%40mail.gmail.com.

---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>