Name: When Centrists Lose, Corporate Media Blame the Left - FAIR
Brand: fair.org
SKU: fair-org-37
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

When Centrists Lose, Corporate Media Blame the Left - FAIR

preview

&nbsp;Joe Biden hadn’t even been declared the victor of the 2020 election before establishment Democrats, in the face of poorer-than-expected results in House and Senate races, began pointing fingers at the left—with corporate media giving them a major assist.Democrats had been hoping for big wins on election night, with the possibility of winning not only the presidency but also the Senate, and increasing their majority in the House. But while Biden has come out on top, the party’s most optimistic outcome in the Senate would be a 50/50 split (if they win both Georgia runoff seats), giving them a majority with the vote of Vice President Kamala Harris. And rather than gaining in the House, Democrats lost several seats.In the wake of these disappointments, the right wing of the party immediately blamed its left wing for the poor showing, airing their grievances in a private conference call among House Democrats that was leaked to reporters.The Washington Post () says that “privately, Democrats…have said the answer is obvious” why House Democrats are having problems: “The party in recent years has moved further left.” But before “recent years”—before the 2018 election—the Democrats had for eight years, and for 20 of the last 24 years.In a write-up about the call, the Washington Post‘s Rachael Bade and Erica Werner () quoted and paraphrased 14 sources blaming those who “endorse far-left positions” for Democrats’ losses, counterbalanced by only four sources defending the left. All of the progressive sources were named; half of the establishment sources were either quoted anonymously or presented as unspecified “moderates”—or, twice, simply as “Democrats,” committing the exasperatingly common journalistic sleight-of-hand that erases progressive Democrats as legitimate members of their party.In addition to quoting a handful of participants on the call, Bade and Werner interviewed numerous “moderates” for the article (“Several moderate Democrats said in interviews…”), but only managed to interview two progressives: Alexandra Rojas, head of the leftist PAC Justice Democrats, along with Rep. Jared Huffman, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus—who took the side of the centrists.Huffman’s contrary position, while perhaps surprising to some readers, and serving to portray the “centrist” view as even more of a consensus position, would have been less surprising to Bade, who had quoted Huffman just a few days earlier () about his opposition to leftists’ efforts to exert more influence within the party. In other words, the reporters appeared to seek out only one source who could have been expected to offer a forceful defense of bold leftist ideas, to balance a whole parade of attackers.In its piece on the dust-up, in which “Democrats traded excuses, blame and prognostications,” the New York Times () quoted South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, who “cautioned against running on ‘Medicare for all or defunding police or socialized medicine,’ adding that if Democrats pursued such policies, ‘we’re not going to win.’” What the article didn’t mention was that Clyburn has taken more money from the pharmaceutical industry in the past decade than any other member of the House or Senate (Post and Courier, ).The piece then quoted Rep. Marc Veasey, who “warned his fellow members against anti-fracking talk.” Veasey among House Democrats in taking oil and gas industry money in the 2020 election cycle, and got of his total campaign contributions from PACs. (To put that into perspective, the two progressives quoted in the Times piece, Pramila Jayapal and Rashida Tlaib, got and of their campaign contributions from PACs, respectively.) Readers might have found such information useful in analyzing the motivations behind those quotes.CNN () spares its readers the “hard truth” that it’s passing on advice about how to talk about police killings from a former CIA operative.CNN‘s () jumped into the fray as well, praising Rep. Abigail Spanberger, a former CIA official (another piece of relevant context not mentioned by Cillizza) who had some of the harshest words for progressives, for speaking “some hard truth to her party”–like, “We need to not ever use the words ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again,” as if the McCarthy era had never ended (FAIR.org, ).After quoting Spanberger extensively and then printing some of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s rebuttal (“You can’t just tell the Black, brown and youth organizers riding in to save us every election to be quiet or not have their reps champion them when they need us”), Cillizza wrote:What’s beyond debate is that Republican strategists took comments made by liberals within the Democratic Party and used them to blast everyone from Spanberger on down.Though all of these pieces offered plenty of suggestions that the left wing’s vocal support for things like socialism, Medicare for All, the Green New Deal and defunding the police cost the party seats in 2020, they failed to provide any actual data that might have helped readers evaluate the veracity of those statements.It’s an important point, because understanding Democrats’ lackluster performance should help guide their platform and messaging moving forward. But these articles aren’t shedding light on the data—perhaps because it would thoroughly undermine the anti-progressive framing.A pre-election piece in the New York Times () included a rare acknowledgment that “many of the plans favored by the most liberal wing of Democratic leaders remain popular with wide groups of voters.”As the New York Times‘ () reported just last month in an unusually frank assessment of the popularity of left-wing ideas, the right’s wall-to-wall attempts to bring down Democrats with the “socialist” label haven’t been very effective, despite Cillizza’s suggestion to the contrary. That’s in part because Biden and other centrists deny them so forcefully, but in part because “many of the plans favored by the most liberal wing of Democratic leaders remain popular with wide groups of voters, polling shows.” Tankersley pointed to a recent Times poll that found 2 in 3 respondents support a wealth tax, 3 in 5 favor Medicare for All (including 2 of 3 independent voters), and even higher numbers support free college tuition.The Green New Deal is likewise broadly popular: One poll specifically of swing House districts (YouGov/Data for Progress, ) found that respondents supported the idea by a 13-point margin, 49% to 36%—even when informed that it will cost trillions of dollars.And with some races still not called, it’s safe to say that Medicare for All and the Green New Deal didn’t sink the Dems. Ocasio-Cortez pointed out (Twitter, ) that every Democratic co-sponsor of Medicare for All in a swing district won re-election. And Gizmodo‘s Brian Kahn () found that of 93 Democratic incumbents who co-sponsored the Green New Deal—including five in swing districts—only one lost their race.Intercept (): “Democrats insisting that progressive issues are losing policies have yet to articulate what their winning agenda would be.”On the question of calls to “defund the police,” it’s important to clarify—as did the Intercept (), but none of these establishment media reports—that such calls grew out of the Black Lives Matter protests, not the platform of progressive congressmembers, and that that movement led to a massive spike in Democratic voter registration. In other words, without the movement that gave us the slogan “defund the police,” the Democrats would almost certainly have witnessed even greater losses– including, quite probably, the White House.As the Intercept also pointed out, it appears likely that left-wing organizing in Minnesota, Michigan and Pennsylvania resulted in decisive Democratic gains in key cities and suburbs in those swing states. And Ocasio-Cortez named many other problems with the establishment’s campaign strategies, running from to a lack of a ground game to a of or outreach to communities of color.Clearly the 2020 election contains many lessons for the 2022 midterms, but it’s unlikely the right conclusions will be drawn from the fact-free centrist narrative presented by corporate media.FAIR’s work is sustained by our generous contributors, who allow us to remain independent. today to be a part of this important mission.You can also support FAIR on Patreon! Click the button below!I like the words and ideas of socialism and socialist. In fact, if a person would look at the Preamble, it seems like those words fit best. Especially with the words, “WE THE PEOPLE.” And then the words..” in order to form a more perfect union…” yup, it takes all of us to create that!Remember, it was a new day in America, and the founders did not want the Rich of England to rule their lives. And today, with corporations taking the place of the ancient words of England…it really is time for WE THE PEOPLE, to return to the idea that WE ALL have a stake in America, and a successful America is inclusive and offers opportunity to ALL.How similar we are to the FOUNDERS….who created the words and actions to remove the British rich and get them to take their feet off of our collective necks. EQUALITY is the only way towards,” a more perfect union.” Socialism provides that! Especially since the Pandemic is killing more than People——-it’s killing jobs and business too!The LORDS of the CORPORATIONS create their own tax free oligarchy—–and we don’t need that! After all, the only way through to a more perfect union is through the PEOPLE! ALL the PEOPLE and Socialism does that best!!The ‘centrists’ are what is ruining the Party of the People. Instead they represent the corporate and investor wealth of their donors.If it weren’t for the Progressives voting for Biden, many more of these Party puppets would have been standing on the corner with their tin cup!Every MFA House member was re-elected, but many who opposed reform were not.The centrist DEMs continue to obstruct MFA reform as they fill their purse with Health/Insurance $$$Speaker Pelosi for one…Excellent analysis and exposée of corporate media perfidy. Thank you, Julie!Great reporting on such an important issue, Corporate Democrats gaslighting. Thank you Julie.FAIR’s 4-page, ad-free, newsletter publishes ten times a year bringing you the media analysis and activism that you won’t find anywhere else. Choose a print subscription, a digital PDF edition, or both together.FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. We expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, we believe that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.Fairness &amp; Accuracy In Reporting124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201New York, NY 10001Tel: 212-633-6700We rely on your support to keep running. Please consider donating.This work is licensed under a License.

&nbsp;Joe Biden hadn’t even been declared the victor of the 2020 election before establishment Democrats, in the face of poorer-than-expected results in House and Senate races, began pointing fingers at the left—with corporate media giving them a major assist.Democrats had been hoping for big wins on election night, with the possibility of winning not only the presidency but also the Senate, and increasing their majority in the House. But while Biden has come out on top, the party’s most optimistic outcome in the Senate would be a 50/50 split (if they win both Georgia runoff seats), giving...

public

Julie Hollar

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, holding corporate media accountable for distortions & omissions since 1986. http://mastodon.world/@FAIR

When Centrists Lose, Corporate Media Blame the Left - FAIR

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS