The liberal media made up its mind a long time ago: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. While former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s candidacy was laughable from the beginning, support for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has increased steadily. His legitimacy has increased with time. While he will never have the kind of name recognition Clinton has, Sanders’ support has grown from five-person crowds to sold-out auditoriums. Yet, this means nothing to the liberal establishment.
This past week, the tip of the iceberg came when The New York Times edited a story that was posted on their website. The original story was about how Sanders managed to score victories while being an Independent. At this point, many supporters shared the article. But a few hours later, the article was edited with no indication it had been changed, and more negative paragraphs had been added. While the editors of the story claimed the changes added “nuance and depth,” it was downright deceptive to readers and to those who shared it on social media, to those not anticipating it would be edited into a more negative article than it was originally.
According to the article, Sanders collaborated with Republicans numerous times to “prevent foreign workers from replacing Americans at banks that have had a federal bailout” and to “expand veterans’ access to health care.” In spite of his ability to collaborate, Sanders is painted as the candidate so far left he is unable to compromise and, thus, unable to accomplish anything.
While Clinton’s victories are treated as obvious and “hard-earned,” Sanders does not get the same treatment. Sanders supposedly wins the states he wins because they are close to his home state, because they are very white or because they are an oddity. Clinton wins states because she has the better ideas and appeals to the voters. Even when it’s a close race, she wins because she deserves to. The existence of superdelegates sways the press in her favor, too, because the delegate counts on networks like CNN and MSNBC always include superdelegates, even though they can change their mind before the July convention and are not necessarily “earned.” Sanders is treated like a blip on Clinton’s radar, just there to annoy her on the path to inauguration. In the process, she has discounted his accomplishments and made it seem like he would damage President Obama’s legacy.
Just last week, Clinton asked where Sanders was in 1993 and 1994 when she was attempting to push through a single-payer health care system. Not only was Sanders standing right behind Clinton when she spoke at Dartmouth on health care reform, she sent him a card in 1993 that read, “To Bernie Sanders with thanks for your commitment to real health care access for all Americans and best wishes.” Single payer healthcare has always been on Sanders’ agenda.
Clinton said in a debate, “If it’s Medicare for all, then you no longer have the Affordable Care Act.” As she disregards Sanders’ accomplishments, the media is buying into it.
While that’s true, it’s misleading. While she made it seem like the end of health care reform, it would actually bring us to a system through which everyone is covered. Despite Obamacare’s accomplishments, it hasn’t been able to do that. The way the liberal media treats Sanders has allowed Clinton to become lazy in her attacks because the media does the work for her. All the while, Sanders and the American people suffer the consequences. Does this sound right to you?
Nicole Dan is a UF political science sophomore. Her column appears on Mondays.
