![\"NYT:](\"https:\/\/fair.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/NYT-Sanders-Control.png\")
<\/p>\nThe New York Times<\/strong> (3\/1\/19<\/a>) depicts Bernie Sanders making decisions for his own presidential campaign as a “desire for control.”<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n While the New York Times<\/b> has been sandbagging Sen. Bernie Sanders (Ind.\u2013Vermont) for years (Rolling Stone<\/b>, 3\/15\/16<\/a>), last weekend\u2019s headline: \u201cBernie Sanders Is Making Changes for 2020, but His Desire for Control Remains\u201d (3\/1\/19<\/a>) is a particularly overt example.<\/p>\n Unless one reads past the headline, which most Americans don\u2019t<\/a>, one is left wondering about what exactly Sanders desires to \u201ccontrol.\u201d Is it the country? The media? When one actually digs into the Times<\/b>\u2019 article, written by Sydney Ember and Jonathan Martin, one quickly discovers that what Sanders desires to control is his own campaign<\/i>, and that his oppressed victims were his highly paid media consultants, who quit because Sanders was \u201cnot willing to empower them.\u201d<\/p>\n Left unreported by the Times<\/b> were statements by the consultants themselves (CNBC<\/b>, 2\/26\/19<\/a>) \u00a0claiming that they were leaving on a \u201cvery positive note\u201d over \u201cdifferences in a creative vision,\u201d and that they would be happy to assist his campaign again in the future. In the Times<\/b> version, instead, we\u2019re given anonymous sources described as \u201cDemocrats directly familiar with the episode\u201d who give the impression the consultants were \u201cenraged\u201d over their \u201chumiliation.\u201d<\/p>\n It is difficult to see what the problem is here. Are campaigns controlled by media consultants necessarily better than those controlled by the candidates themselves? Why should bending to \u201cthe wishes of his current advisers\u201d be considered a good thing? The Times <\/b>doesn\u2019t explain, perhaps hoping readers will just take away the hint that Sanders\u2019 \u201ccontrolling\u201d nature might itself be deemed disqualifying.<\/p>\n Funny–Wall Street does not seem to have any trouble distinguishing between Bernie Sanders and most of his 2020 competition (Politico<\/strong>, 1\/28\/19<\/a>).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Another theme throughout the Times<\/b> report is the implied notion that Sanders\u2019 candidacy is redundant. When the corporate media aren\u2019t busy undermining Sanders\u2019 popular political agenda by claiming that it\u2019s too \u201cradical\u201d and \u201cexpensive,\u201d they also try to undermine his candidacy from the opposite angle, claiming that Sanders is now hard to distinguish from other candidates because numerous other Democratic candidates \u201csupport the same policies that made him unique in 2016.\u201d The financial industry, though, doesn\u2019t seem to have much difficulty distinguishing Sanders from most other Democratic candidates, as reported by Politico<\/b> (1\/28\/19<\/a>):<\/p>\n Wall Street executives who want Trump out list a consistent roster of appealing nominees that includes former Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Kamala Harris of California. Others meriting mention: former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, former Maryland Rep. John Delaney and former Texas Rep. Beto O\u2019Rourke, though few really know his positions.<\/p>\n Bankers\u2019 biggest fear: The nomination goes to an anti-Wall Street crusader like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) or Sanders. \u201cIt can\u2019t be Warren and it can\u2019t be Sanders,\u201d said the CEO of another giant bank. \u201cIt has to be someone centrist and someone who can win.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Though some other Democratic contenders have endorsed some of Sanders’ proposals, \u00a0such as Medicare for All, it\u2019s not always clear what such endorsements mean. A report in The Hill<\/b> (2\/7\/19<\/a>) noted that while Booker and Warren are co-sponsors of Sanders\u2019 Medicare for All bill, they are \u201calso touting less drastic alternatives.\u201d Harris as well said \u201cshe also supports smaller steps,\u201d though Medicare for All is her \u201cpreference.\u201d<\/p>\n While several candidates, including Sanders, have declared that they would not take corporate PAC money, most of these candidates are still heavily reliant on wealthy contributors: 62 percent of Gillibrand\u2019s funding over a five-year period came in donations 0f $200 or more, as did 65 percent of Harris\u2019s and 72 percent of Booker\u2019s. In contrast, only 17 percent of Sanders\u2019 campaign chest (and 30 percent of Warren\u2019s) came from such large donations (Intercept<\/b>, 4\/27\/18<\/a>).<\/p>\n Perhaps we should worry less about Bernie Sanders’ “desire for control” over his own campaign, and worry more about corporate media’s desire for control over our political perceptions.<\/p>\n You can send a message to the New York Times<\/strong> at letters@nytimes.com<\/a> (Twitter<\/strong>:@NYTimes<\/a>). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n![\"Politico:](\"https:\/\/fair.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/Politico-Wall-Street-2020.png\")
<\/p>\n\n
\n