Sanders and Corbyn have proven that the mobilization of a large, impassioned base - endless hours phone-banking, canvassing etc - can't seem to match the overwhelming power of 'earned coverage' in the corporate media. criticism of the media industrial complex needs to be foremost

that's maybe the most deflating reality about the left upsurge of the past 1/2 decade. it has proven beyond a doubt that the elite's command of the superstructure largely still allows it to engineer whatever narratives and consent they require. I don't know how we transcend this.

both Corbyn & Sanders - honestly like Blair - all understood the power of the media. in Blair's case, he obvs was willing to go out of his way to make nice with the media by thoroughly proving to them he posed no threat. Corbyn/Sanders couldn't, but decided not worth antagonizing

I understand the calculus: present yourself as cooly rational, perceptive and 'focused on the big issues', don't give the always venal pundits and columnists fuel for their bad-faith smears, try to use the media as a means to talk past them and directly to the public etc.

this also very much suits the fundamentally decent character and approach of each of these people: they're in politics to improve people's material reality, not simply to prove a point. neither got into politics because they wanted to first go to war with a slimy & powerful media

and there is nothing to suggest that such a strategy of waging war with the media would even work: endless polls and research indicate that 'the centre-left base' is the very most trusting (read: credulous) of the media, it's even central of their very identity to be.

Corbyn & Sanders were highly aware of how 'more dangerous' they would appear if they went too much on the offensive against the media to the very people most put off by 'dangerous' figures who would 'dare attack an institution so vital as the free press.' they needed these votes.

sure, the left-most 20% of the population, you've already got them. but what of the next 30%? many of whom the type to enjoy TED talks, still hold The Guardian & The Economist as benchmarks for 'serious, sober reporting'? basically low-info voters who presume themselves high-info

people who triangulate 'authoritative sources' based on what the Serious, Sensible People of the world turn to. such an instinct flows out of their very lifeways. how do you begin to present a critique of the limitations & perpetual corruption of the profit-seeking media edifice?

I suppose Chomsky came closest while reaching as wide of a base as was possible. it's not like such a project hasn't been (fairly successfully) been launched before, but it dies at the very border where you enter the people who have invested themselves in the authority structure.

the very liberal instinct to defend the sanctity and value of the press - the sort of grade 10 civics lessons they hold so dear to their hearts like 1984 and To Kill A Mockingbird, the one time they were forced to read some novels - in opposition to reactionary attack is ruinous

it's ruinous bc it allows the reactionaries to pose as the outsiders when they are very much the insiders, willing to call an obviously compromised institution that has lower approval than congress out, all while liberals rush to associate themselves with it.

we all witnessed how they managed to constantly smear these two decent men with near-spotless histories who worked tirelessly their entire lives to bring dignity to people's lives. they set such a high standard for conduct that the media had to manufacture phoney narratives.

and yet it still worked. they got so much to stick because smears repeated often enough create a 'where there's smoke...' instinctual response from people who are trying to ascertain the reality from limited means. these same people underestimate the power of cynical actors.