PBS Newshour is my favorite evening news program. The Hillary bias is real, but it’s probably not much more intense than it is on corporate news programs. Most of the political panelists featured on Newshour and Washington Week favor Clinton and write Sanders off. That’s what I’m used to seeing pretty much every night since February.
But yesterday was the first day of a new month, and something was a bit different.
Yes, they chided Sanders for the fossil fuel lobbyist contributions controversy.
But then they really surprised me by talking about his chances in Wisconsin and New York without completely writing him off.
Then they even commended his energy and his message.
x YouTube VideoSkip to 9:11 (they spend the first 9 minutes talking about Donald Trump, FFS!)
Woodruff: “On paper, Hillary Clinton is still the frontrunner. But Bernie Sanders raised $45 million last month in March, he continues to build delegates, he may win Wisconsin; what is this headed for?”
Brooks: “It’s headed for New York. I mean, she had a huge lead in New York a couple weeks ago which has now dwindled. It’s still in the double digits, so it’s a [convincing (ph)] lead, but if she loses the state where she was the Senator? That, I think would change everyone’s [minds]. Up until that point, I don’t think it does. Sanders, we know, has a strong constituency. It’s gonna show up at caucuses. Wisconsin has a strong progressive tradition going back 100 years. It’s his kind of place. And so I don’t think winning Wisconsin necessarily turns him into a more credible candidate.”
Shields: “I disagree. I mean, he was 50 points behind in Wisconsin, a year ago, to Secretary Clinton. I mean, this is a victory. Everybody’s on the ballot in Wisconsin. There’s no Democratic ballot and Republican ballot. You can go in and vote for Ted Cruz, or vote for Bernie Sanders, whoever. I mean, it’s a significant, significant victory—if he does win. Make no mistake about it.”
Woodruff: “If Hillary Clinton keeps at it, and just keeps on letting him get under her skin, what happens between them?”
Brooks: “Well, what’s her message? What does she add? She is a paint-by-numbers Democratic candidate with the same policy planks as every other Democratic candidate. She’s shown no creativity, no way to fill the void to counter what [Sanders] offers.”
Shields: “Why do you want to be President of the United States, other than it’s something on your résumé, and ‘I’m prepared for it,’ and that’s it? What is the vision? I mean, Bernie Sanders, to his credit, is the one candidate in the race with a message. And it’s a message that’s energized an awful lot of people.”
To me, this counts as a significant departure from the usual “Bernie is a forgettable protest candidate” tack that the Newshour and David Brooks normally take. I halfway expected to hear “April Fools!” at the end of this segment.
Then I watched Washington Week, and once again, I found myself pleasantly surprised by the Sanders coverage. I can’t embed the videos here, but click the following links to watch them for yourself:
Washington Week – April 1, 2016 (Skip past the Trump segment to 12:44–17:57)
Washington Week Webcast Extra – April 1, 2016 (Skip past the Nuclear Summit and Trump segments to 3:36–5:49)
They said both candidates (not just Hillary) are pivoting to the general. They mentioned Sanders’s lead in certain polls. In the Webcast Extra, they talked about the tension within the Democratic Party over super delegates, including the fact that Bernie supporters protest the media’s inclusion of super delegates in reported delegate totals.
Zeleny: “There’s no question that Hillary Clinton is, at this moment in time, in [the] lead in delegates. But, there’s also no question that, as we sit here on April 1, this is not where the campaign thought that it would be—”
Ifill: “—that this [Bernie Sanders’s candidacy] is not a joke.”
Zeleny: “Right, [Bernie Sanders’s candidacy] it’s not a joke. And they [the Clinton campaign] realize it’s not a joke. Remember the night of the New Hampshire primary when she lost New Hampshire so big? A campaign memo went out around 8:00 that evening. It arrived in our inboxes right before she conceded. And it was designed to calm any jittery supporters, and there were a lot of them. It said, ‘The nomination is not won in February. It will essentially be won in March.’ Well, now we are in April, and the nomination is still not won.”
And yes she has a lead, but...you’re struck by both of them are still making an electability argument. Donald Trump is sort of a foil. Hillary Clinton is running that [anti-Trump] ad in New York, it’s not as much about Donald Trump. It’s about Bernie Sanders. She would not be running that ad in New York City—spending the money it takes to run ads in New York City—if she was not trying to show Democrats, ‘Look, I’m the one who can beat Donald Trump. I’m the most electable person.’ [Sanders’s] biggest hurdle so far has been trying to convince people, ‘Take a leap of faith with me. You see all the disruption on the Republican side? Let’s have a little bit of disruption over here.’ So that’s why he talks about his poll numbers. I asked him about that a couple weeks ago, ‘Why do you keep talking about poll numbers?’ He said, ‘People have to know that I can win.’ ...”
Biskupic: “Wouldn’t we have thought New York would have been more predictable than this? And is it that people are just taking that leap of faith more than we would have expected [them] to?”
Zeleny: “Not since 1988 has there been such a competitive New York primary. [Clinton] has to win New York. And every indication right now is that she is leading in New York. She’s up by 12 points or so in the most limited polling available. But the New York primary is a closed primary—unlike Wisconsin, where anyone can come in and pick up a Republican ballot or a Democratic ballot—it’s closed. It’s designed to protect the establishment candidate. So you had to already be a registered voter by March 25 if you wanted to vote in the April 19 primary, which is a little more onerous than most places. But look, I was at a rally last night in the South Bronx; 18,000 people [turned out] for Bernie Sanders. A question has been, ‘Is he able to attract a diverse group of supporters?’ At least on that night, last night in New York, he absolutely was. You know, it’s New York City, of course it’s diverse. But this is different than ‘08; in ‘08, California, New York, New Jersey were at the front end of the Calendar on Super Tuesday in February. Now the reason [Sanders] is staying in [is that] all these delegates still are sitting out there. These big states are still to come. That’s why he’s staying in.”
Again, I’m just struck by the sudden difference in tone of the Sanders analysis. It’s usually quite noticeably pro-Clinton, anti-Sanders. This time it seemed so much less dismissive. I hope this even-handedness is a new trend. It’s not like they painted a rosy picture for Sanders’s prospects, and they didn’t sugarcoat Clinton’s lead over him. But for once they acknowledged all of the legitimate reasons that Sanders still has an actual shot—rather than outright dismissing his chances.
That’s all I want to see from the media: an ounce of respect for Sanders, an acknowledgment of the dignity of his candidacy and the issues he stands for, an admission that he and his diehard supporters are not some big joke.
Can hardly wait to see how New York turns out.