By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the 2024 election, prominent figures in legacy media, once critical of Bernie Sanders, are acknowledging the validity of his policy positions. This shift reflects a recognition that the Democratic Party’s strategy, prioritizing identity politics over a working-class agenda, failed to resonate with voters and contributed to a Republican sweep. The media’s previous dismissal of Sanders, including suppression of his campaigns and negative coverage, is now implicitly conceded as erroneous in light of Trump’s victory and the Republican Party’s expansion of its voter base. While not explicitly admitting fault, this rhetorical shift represents a tacit acceptance of Sanders’ prescient analysis of the electorate.
Read the original article here
The legacy media’s recent shift towards echoing Bernie Sanders’ policy positions isn’t a genuine ideological conversion; it’s a calculated response to changing political winds and audience demographics. The election is over, and corporate media outlets, having achieved their desired outcome, are now adjusting their narratives.
This shift isn’t about a newfound commitment to progressive ideals. It’s a pragmatic decision driven by self-preservation. The blatant disregard for the working class shown by both parties—the Democrats’ reliance on suburban moderates over working-class Democrats, and the Republicans’ consistent appeals to fear and division—has led to a significant erosion of trust in mainstream media. The media outlets, who amplified these narratives, now realize the potential damage of their actions.
The consequences of this approach have been catastrophic. The media’s pursuit of clicks and outrage, which frequently involved smearing candidates deemed unsuitable to the establishment, has created a deeply fractured and polarized electorate. This pursuit of profit at the cost of responsible journalism has enabled the rise of figures like Trump, allowing misinformation and extremist views to dominate the public discourse. The media’s complicity in this process is undeniable.
This realization isn’t just about the political outcomes; it’s also about the media’s financial well-being. The constant barrage of misinformation and fear-mongering that characterized the Trump era has left many people disillusioned and actively choosing to disengage from legacy media outlets. The recent shift is a desperate attempt to recapture lost audience share and regain credibility, but the damage is already done.
The cynicism behind this media pivot is palpable. Their newfound interest in Sanders’ platform is not rooted in genuine conviction but in a desire to regain a progressive audience lost through years of irresponsible reporting and pandering to the establishment’s interests. Their sudden adoption of previously dismissed policies serves primarily to generate clicks and maintain relevance in a rapidly changing media landscape.
This cynical approach is particularly galling when considering the long-term consequences. The damage done by ignoring the warnings of individuals like Sanders, Gore, and Eisenhower—warnings that resonated with the concerns of working-class citizens and were consistently sidelined due to their perceived lack of profitability—has contributed to a nation marred by deep societal divisions and economic inequality. The cost of this negligence is steep.
The focus should not remain on dissecting the media’s motivations. While their hypocrisy and manipulation are undeniable, the true tragedy lies in the systemic problems they helped exacerbate. The continuous stream of disinformation, amplified by partisan divides and fueled by the quest for profits, prevents meaningful dialogue and genuine progress. The focus must shift towards addressing these fundamental issues.
The current state of affairs underscores the importance of independent and responsible journalism. The reliance on legacy media alone is a risky endeavor. The public must actively seek out diverse sources of information, critically assess the information received, and demand accountability from media organizations. Until this happens, the cycle of manipulation and disinformation will continue.
Furthermore, the progressive movement must learn from its past setbacks. The focus on being “right” without an effective strategy for winning elections has proved detrimental. Effective messaging, strategic alliances, and a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue are crucial for achieving meaningful progress. The “purity” of ideals, while commendable, must not supersede the necessity for action. We must acknowledge the complexities of political compromise to achieve tangible change.
The problem isn’t merely identifying those who were “right” about critical issues. The real challenge lies in dismantling the structures that perpetuate misinformation and empower those who profit from division and inequality. This requires addressing the deep-seated economic forces that incentivize the very behaviors that undermine democratic values and social progress. It is a fight for a fundamental shift in power dynamics, not just a change in political rhetoric.