{"id":237667,"date":"2016-04-13T14:48:46","date_gmt":"2016-04-13T14:48:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/an-unqualified-success-at-media-manipulation\/"},"modified":"2016-04-13T14:48:46","modified_gmt":"2016-04-13T14:48:46","slug":"an-unqualified-success-at-media-manipulation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/an-unqualified-success-at-media-manipulation\/","title":{"rendered":"An \u2018Unqualified\u2019 Success at Media Manipulation"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"CNN:<\/a><\/p>\n

The CNN<\/strong> story (4\/6\/16<\/a>) that laid out the Clinton campaign’s anti-Sanders strategy: “Disqualify him, defeat him and unify the party later.”<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

On Tuesday, April 5, Bernie Sanders won the Wisconsin Democratic primary by double digits, and his victory speech<\/a> ran for half an hour on CNN<\/strong>, a rare media moment<\/a> when he was able to repeat the issues that have resonated with many Democratic primary voters.<\/p>\n

After the Wisconsin loss, the Hillary Clinton campaign went into high gear, sending emails out announcing a new strategy of going negative. The next day, CNN<\/strong> (4\/6\/16<\/a>) ran a piece by senior Washington correspondent Jeff Zeleny that began, \u201cHillary Clinton\u2019s campaign is taking new steps to try and disqualify Bernie Sanders in the eyes of Democratic voters.\u201d The story laid out Clinton\u2019s new \u201cthree-part strategy\u201d with regard to Sanders: \u201cDisqualify him, defeat him and unify the party later.\u201d<\/p>\n

Political strategists know well that attacks can backfire, especially for candidates with high negatives<\/a> such as Hillary Clinton. Accordingly, the Clinton campaign attacked Sanders through a common political maneuver: They used surrogates.<\/p>\n

CNN<\/strong>\u2019s Zeleny reported:<\/p>\n

\n

A Clinton campaign fundraising appeal after the Wisconsin primary offered a glimpse into the new approach. The campaign\u2019s deputy communications director, Christina Reynolds, argued that Sanders is unqualified<\/i>, sending a full transcript of a New York Daily News<\/strong> editorial board interview of Sanders<\/a>. [Emphasis added.]<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019ve said for a long time that this primary is about who\u2019s really going to be able to get things done. And from reading this interview, you get the impression Senator Sanders hasn\u2019t thought very much about that,\u201d Reynolds wrote. \u201cIn fact, even on his signature issue of breaking up the banks, he\u2019s unable to answer basic questions about how he\u2019d go about doing it, and even seems uncertain whether a president does or doesn\u2019t already have that authority under existing law.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Though as FAIR (4\/7\/16<\/a>) pointed out, the banking issue was a red herring. (\u201cWhen asked how he would break up the big banks, Sanders said he would leave that up to the banks,\u201d economist Dean Baker wrote. \u201cThat\u2019s exactly the right answer.\u201d) But by Wednesday, MSNBC<\/strong>\u2019s Morning Joe<\/strong> (4\/6\/16) had already picked up the Clinton campaign\u2019s talking points. Host Joe Scarborough repeatedly tried to get Clinton herself to weigh in on whether Sanders was \u201cunqualified\u201d to be president. Instead of answering yes or no, she reiterated the campaign\u2019s carefully massaged strategy: \u201cI think he hadn\u2019t done his homework, and he\u2019d been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn\u2019t really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions.\u201d<\/p>\n

(As Salon<\/strong>\u20144\/8\/16<\/a>\u2014pointed out, \u201cquestion\u201d is what Donald Trump did in 2012<\/a> regarding Barack Obama\u2019s birth certificate: \u201cI don\u2019t consider myself birther or not birther, but there are some major questions here.\u201d)<\/p>\n

The Washington Post<\/strong> (4\/6\/16<\/a>) jumped in with a story headlined \u201cClinton Questions Whether Sanders Is Qualified to Be President.\u201d Though it parrots the Clinton campaign\u2019s talking points against Sanders, it attributed them to anonymous \u201ccritics\u201d rather than to the campaign:<\/p>\n

\n

Clinton\u2019s comments follow a New York Daily News<\/strong> interview with Sanders that critics<\/i> say revealed his inability to explain specifically how he would accomplish goals\u00a0such as\u00a0breaking up the biggest banks. [Emphasis added]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

On Wednesday night, Sanders responded to the charges at a rally at Temple University<\/a>, where he suggested Clinton was getting a little nervous. \u201cAnd she has been saying lately that she thinks that I am, quote unquote, not qualified\u00a0to be president.\u201d He went on to use the phrase as a rhetorical devise to criticize her policy record:<\/p>\n

\n

I don\u2019t believe that she is qualified if she is, through her Super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don\u2019t think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your Super PAC. I don\u2019t think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don\u2019t think you are qualified if you\u2019ve supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement, which has cost us millions of decent-paying jobs.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The next move revealed the sophisticated media-handling of Clinton campaign strategists. Clinton operatives Christina Reynolds and Brian Fallon went on the offensive with,\u00a0as Salon<\/strong> (4\/8\/16<\/a>) put it, \u201csanctimonious incredulity,\u201d saying, \u201cThis is a ridiculous and irresponsible attack for someone to make.\u201d They complained that Clinton herself had never said such a thing, yet Sanders opened his comments with \u201cquote, unquote.\u201d<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s when the media storm hit. In the face of Clinton denials, media opened with Bernie Sanders going negative:<\/p>\n