Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 05:29 PM Apr 2016

Question for the day.

Why has it taken this long for the media to wake up and start vetting Bernie?

Remember when Obama declared his candidacy? The vetting started immediately and so did the right wing attacks about his past. I can't remember a presidential campaign where the vetting didn't begin until more than half of the primary season was over.

Was the media's disinterest intentional? Does it come down to a horserace is good for ratings and $$$?

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Question for the day. (Original Post) kstewart33 Apr 2016 OP
I think neither the media or most people expected there were so many gullible people who Hoyt Apr 2016 #1
^ That nt OhZone Apr 2016 #2
good point! sarae Apr 2016 #5
I agree. shadowandblossom Apr 2016 #6
A "Betty Sanders" would have gone nowhere, I agree. Complete double standard. sarae Apr 2016 #8
Trump took up most of the oxygen, and going after Hillary was just habit? Rose Siding Apr 2016 #3
The horse race analogy is quite right. Arkansas Granny Apr 2016 #4
I found this article awhile back... shadowandblossom Apr 2016 #7
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
1. I think neither the media or most people expected there were so many gullible people who
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 05:42 PM
Apr 2016

would believe Sanders' promises that he could mount a viable campaign, nor that those gullible people would rabidly turn on good Democrats like John Lewis or anyone else who endorsed Clinton. Heck, those rabid supporters even threw Elizabeth Warren under the bus for not endorsing Sanders.

sarae

(3,284 posts)
5. good point!
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 08:20 PM
Apr 2016

And as much as people will argue the point until they're blue in the face, I'm sure plain old sexism has played a part as well.

shadowandblossom

(718 posts)
6. I agree.
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 08:24 PM
Apr 2016

I've thought from the beginning that if Sanders were a woman he wouldn't have made it past the first debate.

shadowandblossom

(718 posts)
7. I found this article awhile back...
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 08:36 PM
Apr 2016

It's from a year ago, and I think its interesting that things sort of have played out the way they were talking about. Not vetting Sanders while aggressively vetting her also strikes me as helpful to Republicans and harmful to her bid. I haven't looked into the sources quality. But things have played out how they said and I think that's just really interesting.

(I don't think it's a grand conspiracy though, I actually think it's playing out this way because of systemic sexism. I think if women had greater control and ownership in media it would play out differently with bias still present, but not so severe as it is.)


------------------------------------------------------------


It's official: Hillary Clinton now faces two looming campaign challengers, Republicans and their allies in the press. But don't take my word for it. The anti-Clinton press campaign is now an open secret in the media, and it marks a whole new chapter in campaign journalism.
- - - - - - - - -
Journalists traditionally wave off any allegations of unfair treatment for particular candidates and insist the claims are nothing more than sour grapes, or partisan plots to boost the candidate's chances. Instead, scribes claim, they always play campaigns down the middle.

But in a new twist, some members of the Beltway press corps are stepping forward to announce categorically that Hillary Clinton, despite her envious standing, is the obvious target of media derision. And that the press is actively trying to harm her campaign.

"The national media has never been more primed to take down Hillary Clinton," Politico's Dylan Byers observed late last week, as he surveyed the unfolding campaign season. The same press corps, he added, stands poised to "elevate a Republican candidate."

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Hillary Clinton»Question for the day.