Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background

Remember how in 2016, the main stream media used the notion of ‘super-delegates’ to push the narrative that Bernie couldn’t possibly win the nomination even though his policies were far more popular than Clinton’s? After the corruption of the DNC was exposed (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz being forced to resign, CNN pundit and super-delegate Donna Brazile being exposed as a cheat etc.) the Democratic Party wants to appear to voters as being more transparent than in 2016. However, although they want to appear as if they have cleaned up their act they still have an ace up their sleeve i.e. super-delegates if needed at a second ballot. That is, if none of the twenty or so candidates achieve a plurality of votes at the first ballot, as is likely - the super-delegates can select the party’s preferred corporate candidate.

However, before super-delegates in a second ballot become relevant, the Democratic Party’s affiliated corporate main stream media have another card to play first - coverage of polls.

First, did you know that the Biden (CNN) poll in April didn’t reflect the views of anyone under the age of fifty? Younger people were questioned in the poll but not enough were included in the poll in order to statistically extrapolate from with any reliability, so their views were not reflected.

One might argue (as some did) that the Democratic Party traditionally has had mainly older voters so the poll just reflects that fact - the problem with this is that this was true before Bernie galvanized many younger people to vote in the Democratic primaries 2016. The views of the younger Bernie supporters were not represented in the poll. In effect, Biden started off with a poll skewed in his favor and against Sanders. The main stream media then hyped up Biden’s (misleading) poll numbers to shape public opinion against (truly) progressive candidates (particularly Bernie Sanders, not Warren or Harris).

Even despite the above problem with the poll, there was plenty that the poll revealed that was not mentioned on CNN that might have served to put the results in their proper context. One can only assume that this was deliberate propaganda, since journalists at CNN are intellectually capable of analyzing polls.

For example, more than two thirds of respondents self-identified as non Democratic in one way or other (26% identified as Republican and the other non-democrats were either independent or affiliated to some other party). So for example for all we know the ‘surge’ that Kamala Harris got in this poll may have come from Republican voters. Alternatively, much of Joe Biden’s support may have come from Republicans disaffected by Trump (but who are attracted by what they regard as Biden’s conservatism).

Furthermore, both Biden and Bernie were viewed favorably by 72% and 71% of total respondents (surpassing Warren 67% and Harris 62%). Only 28% of all respondents between the ages of 18 to 34 had a favorable opinion of Kamala Harris, which is a sobering anti-dote to the current MSM frenzy about her.

Perhaps the most interesting statistic about the July 1 CNN poll concerns how few of the total respondents actually watched the debates. Remember, the media suggested that Harris got a surge in polling after the June 27 debate in Miami, i.e. there was a causal connection between Harris’ debate performance and people’s views in the CNN poll. However, the poll itself showed that 36% of respondents did not even watch much of either debate (but paid close attention to news coverage of the debates after they were over). In which case more than a third of the people questioned in the poll based their opinions on news coverage of the debates, not the debates themselves. Relatedly, people who did watch most of the debates may also have been influenced by news coverage, which is known to be heavily biased against non-corporate candidates. The poll doesn’t try to exclude this possibility by asking e.g. ‘did you watch the debates but no news coverage later on?’

Next, a poll from Suffolk University concerning Iowa emerged on Tuesday (July 2nd 2019), was heralded on CNN (e.g. by Chris Cuomo) as apparently corroborating previous polls mentioned above, which (falsely) claim evidence that Bernie is losing support amongst voters. However, this Suffolk University poll has also been cherry-picked to show Bernie in the worst light possible (continuing on from the media’s efforts in 2016). For instance neither Cuomo nor his polling/comedy side-kick (the ‘wizard of odds’) mentioned that the Suffolk poll claims that more than three-fifths of total respondents may yet change their minds about who to vote for as Democratic nominee. This in itself renders the poll practically meaningless despite CNN’s attempt to use hype about it (omitting relevant facts) to undemocratically shape public opinion about who to vote for.

On Wednesday July 3, two national polls were released which contradicted the findings of the polls heavily appealed to by the media in the previous two days. First was an ABC news/Washington post poll (with Biden at 29%, Bernie at 23% and Warren and Harris each at 11%). Second was from Reuters/Ipsos, which had Biden at 22%, Bernie at 16% and no one else reaching double digits. Neither of these polls were mentioned in any news segment throughout the day on CNN or MSMBC.

The bottom line: the main stream media (if you hadn’t realized this before now) are biased and don’t report on anything that shows progressives in a positive light when doing so may matter politically. In other words, they are propaganda outlets for the corporate oligarchy.