I like Cenk, but I don't buy that each member of media sits back and assesses each candidate and says, "Gee, this one might shake things up more than I want. This one won't shake anything up. This one is Goldilocks. Think I will back him/her." And then they magically all pick the same person.
Media is establishment and takes its cues from the establishment. There are leaks. There are backgrounders and briefings. There are all kinds of things that are, in fact, far more flat-footed than cues and hints and that never show up in print or as part of a broadcast.
Watch a Daily Show segment that shows a dozen broadcasters saying the same thing in the exact same words. That is no coincidence.
Though most of us are not privy to any of those things, everyone here who is awake and honest will agree that Hillary has, for years, clearly been the establishment's candidate for the 2016 Democratic nomination and Sanders is to get short shrift. So, media ignored him for as long as it reasonably could, much as it did Occupy Wall Street. Or there are articles that condescend, that snipe, that declare he will lose, etc.
Except for that one Juan Cole article, I have yet to see a single article that treats him simply as a serious candidate for the Presidency and sets forth his many sound accomplishments and down sides accordingly. He's always that odd, allegedly cranky, relic from the 1960s, and, more recently, that flash in pan that is destined to flame out horribly.
And, btw, it's not even media's job to decide who will shake things up too much for them or for America or just enough. It's media's job to provide us with the facts about all the candidates, or at least all that register on some relevant Richter scale. And Bernie certainly does that.
Fuck 'em.
= new reply since forum marked as read